PTC THERAPEUTICS INC

Previous wording

If we do not successfully maintain our marketing authorizations for our products and obtain new marketing authorizations for our product candidates and new uses of our approved products, our ability to generate additional revenue will be jeopardized and, consequently, our business will be materially harmed. Additionally, our ability to make our licensed

Current wording

If we do not successfully maintain our marketing authorizations for our products and obtain new marketing authorizations for our product candidates and new uses of our approved products, our ability to generate additional revenue will be

Previous wording

products available within the relevant territories is largely dependent upon the maintenance of the marketing authorizations by the licensor. The success of our products will depend on a number of additional factors, including the following:

Current wording

jeopardized and, consequently, our business will be materially harmed. Additionally, our ability to make our licensed products available within the relevant territories is largely dependent upon the maintenance of the marketing authorizations by the licensor. The success of our products will depend on a number of additional factors, including the following:

Previous wording

There is significant risk that we will be unable to obtain approval for our product candidates on a timely basis or at all, and we may be required to perform additional clinical trials, non-clinical studies or CMC assessments or analyses at significant cost. Product development is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. This is especially true for rare and/or complicated diseases. A failure of one or more clinical or preclinical trials, or manufacturing development can occur at any stage. Preclinical and clinical studies may also reveal unfavorable product candidate characteristics, including safety concerns, or may not demonstrate product candidate efficacy. There can be significant variability in results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing authorization of their products.

Current wording

There is significant risk that we will be unable to obtain approval for our product candidates on a timely basis or at all, and we may be required to perform additional clinical trials, non-clinical studies or CMC assessments, work, or analyses at significant cost. Product development is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. This is especially true for rare and/or complicated diseases and new or novel products. A failure of one or more clinical or preclinical trials, or manufacturing development can occur at any stage. Preclinical and clinical studies may also reveal unfavorable product candidate characteristics, including safety concerns, or may not demonstrate product candidate efficacy. There can be significant variability in results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing authorization of their products.

Previous wording

For example, we have been seeking FDA approval for Translarna for nmDMD with the FDA since 2010 and the FDA has repeatedly disagreed with our interpretation of our results. In October 2017, the Office of Drug Evaluation I of the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter for the NDA, stating that it was unable to approve the application in its current form. In response, we filed a formal dispute resolution request with the Office of New Drugs of the FDA. In February 2018, the Office of New Drugs of the FDA denied our appeal of the Complete Response Letter. In its response, the Office of New Drugs recommended a possible path forward for the ataluren NDA submission based on the accelerated approval pathway. This would involve a re-submission of an NDA containing the current data on effectiveness of ataluren with new data to be generated on dystrophin production in nmDMD patients’ muscles. We followed the FDA’s recommendation and collected, using newer technologies via procedures and methods that we designed, such dystrophin data in a new study, Study 045, and announced the results of Study 045 in February 2021. Study 045 did not meet its pre-specified primary endpoint. In June 2022, we announced top-line results from the placebo-controlled trial of Study 041. Following this announcement, we submitted a meeting request to the FDA to gain clarity on the regulatory pathway for a potential re-submission of an NDA for Translarna. The FDA provided initial written feedback that Study 041 does not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness to support NDA re-submission. We held a Type C meeting with the FDA in the fourth quarter of 2023 to discuss the totality of Translarna data. Based on this discussion, the FDA suggested we request a pre-submission Type C meeting to discuss the specific contents of an NDA resubmission based on results from Study 041 and from our international drug registry study for nmDMD patients receiving Translarna. This meeting is scheduled for March 2024.

Current wording

For example, we have been seeking FDA approval for Translarna for nmDMD with the FDA since 2010 and the FDA has repeatedly disagreed with our interpretation of our results. In October 2017, the Office of Drug Evaluation I of the FDA issued a CRL for the NDA, stating that it was unable to approve the application in its current form. In response, we filed a formal dispute resolution request with the Office of New Drugs of the FDA. In February 2018, the Office of New Drugs of the FDA denied our appeal of the CRL. In its response, the Office of New Drugs recommended a possible path forward for the ataluren NDA submission based on the accelerated approval pathway. This would involve a re-submission of an NDA containing the current data on effectiveness of ataluren with new data to be generated on dystrophin production in nmDMD patients’ muscles. We followed the FDA’s recommendation and collected, using newer technologies via procedures and methods that we designed, such dystrophin data in a new study, Study 045, and announced the results of Study 045 in February 2021. Study 045 did not meet its pre-specified primary endpoint. In June 2022, we announced top-line results from the placebo-controlled trial of Study 041. Following this announcement, we submitted a meeting request to the FDA to gain clarity on the regulatory pathway for a potential re-submission of an NDA for Translarna. The FDA provided initial written feedback that Study 041 does not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness to support NDA re-submission. We held a Type C meeting with the FDA in the fourth quarter of 2023 to discuss the totality of Translarna data. Based on feedback from the FDA, we re-submitted the NDA in July 2024, based on the results from Study 041 and from our international drug registry study for nmDMD patients receiving Translarna. In October 2024, the FDA accepted for review the resubmission of the NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. As this was an NDA resubmission following a CRL to the NDA which was filed over protest in 2016, the FDA is not obligated to follow the review timelines under PDUFA guidelines and an action date has not been provided.

Previous wording

Our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or nmDMD, in ambulatory patients aged two years and older in the EEA is subject to annual review and renewal by the EC following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization. In September 2022, we submitted a Type II variation to the EMA to support conversion of the conditional marketing authorization for Translarna to a standard marketing authorization, which included a report on the placebo-controlled trial of Study 041 and data from the open-label extension. In February 2023, we also submitted an annual marketing authorization renewal request to the EMA. In September 2023, the CHMP gave a negative opinion on the conversion of the conditional marketing authorization to full marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and a negative opinion on the renewal of the existing conditional marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. On January 25, 2024, the CHMP issued a negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization following a re-examination procedure. In accordance with EMA regulations, the EC has 67 days to adopt the opinion. If the EC adopts the negative opinion, Translarna would no longer have marketing authorization in the member states of the EEA.

Current wording

Our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients aged two years and older in the EEA is subject to annual review and renewal by the EC following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization. In September 2022, we submitted a Type II variation to the EMA to support conversion of the conditional marketing authorization for Translarna to a standard marketing authorization, which included a report on the placebo-controlled trial of Study 041 and data from the open-label extension. In February 2023, we also submitted an annual marketing authorization renewal request to the EMA. In September 2023, the CHMP gave a negative opinion on the conversion of the conditional marketing authorization to full marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and a negative opinion on the renewal of the existing conditional marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. In January 2024, the CHMP issued a negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization following a re-examination procedure. In May 2024, the EC decided not to adopt the CHMP’s negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization of Translarna and returned such opinion to the CHMP for re-evaluation. In June 2024, following the EC’s request for re-review, the CHMP issued a negative opinion on the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. On October 18, 2024, the CHMP maintained its negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization following the requested reexamination procedure. In accordance with EMA regulations, the EC has 67 days from the date of issuance to adopt the opinion. At this time, the EC has not yet adopted the negative opinion. If the EC adopts the negative opinion, Translarna would no longer have marketing authorization in the member states of the EEA.

Previous wording

In the United States, we may pursue the accelerated approval pathway for certain of our product candidates, such as Translarna. However, the FDA may find that our product candidates do not qualify for accelerated approval. Moreover, even if we do ultimately receive accelerated approval, we would need to meet certain post approval requirements, such as completing a post-approval study confirming our product candidates’ clinical benefit that may require substantial time, effort, and funds. The FDA must specify the conditions for the required post approval studies, including enrollment targets, the study protocol, milestones, and target completion dates, by the time of approval and the FDA may require that the post-approval studies be commenced before the date of approval. If this study does not confirm the product’s clinical benefit or if the study is not conducted in accordance with the FDA’s requirements, it would be subject to the risk of expedited FDA withdrawal. Additional regulatory requirements also include the pre-submission of promotional materials to the FDA and potential restrictions, such as distribution restrictions, to assure the product’s safe use. In recent years, the accelerated approval pathway has come under significant FDA and public scrutiny. Accordingly, depending on the results of our studies, the FDA may be more conservative in granting accelerated approval or, if granted, may be more apt to withdrawal approval if clinical benefit is not confirmed. Due to these and other uncertainties, we are unable to estimate the timing or potential for product candidates for which we may use the accelerated approval pathway or the cost or effort required to receive FDA approval. Further, even if we receive accelerated approval, there is no guarantee that we would be able to maintain such approval.

Current wording

In the United States, we may pursue the accelerated approval pathway for certain of our product candidates. However, the FDA may find that our product candidates do not qualify for accelerated approval. Moreover, even if we do ultimately receive accelerated approval, we would need to meet certain post approval requirements, such as completing a post-approval study confirming our product candidates’ clinical benefit that may require substantial time, effort, and funds. The FDA must specify the conditions for the required post approval studies, including enrollment targets, the study protocol, milestones, and target completion dates, by the time of approval and the FDA may require that the post-approval studies be commenced before the date of approval. If this study does not confirm the product’s clinical benefit or if the study is not conducted in accordance with the FDA’s requirements, it would be subject to the risk of expedited FDA withdrawal. Additional regulatory requirements also include the pre-submission of promotional materials to the FDA and potential restrictions, such as distribution restrictions, to assure the product’s safe use. In recent years, the accelerated approval pathway has come under significant governmental and public scrutiny. Accordingly, depending on the results of our studies, the FDA may be more conservative in granting accelerated approval or, if granted, may be more apt to withdrawal approval if clinical benefit is not confirmed. Due to these and other uncertainties, we are unable to estimate the timing or potential for product candidates for which we may use the accelerated approval pathway or the cost or effort required to receive FDA approval. Further, even if we receive accelerated approval, there is no guarantee that we would be able to maintain such approval. For instance, our confirmatory studies may not confirm a product’s clinical benefit, in which case, the FDA could withdraw the product from the market, we may choose to voluntarily withdraw the product from the market, or we may need to conduct further studies to determine whether the product has a clinical benefit.

Previous wording

These risks may be increased for product candidates intended for the treatment of diseases for which there is little clinical experience, where we are using new endpoints or methodologies, or where the product candidates are new or novel. For example, there are no marketed therapies approved to treat the underlying cause of nmDMD and there is limited clinical trial experience with respect to drugs to treat nmDMD and other diseases that we are studying or have studied. As a result, the design and conduct of clinical trials for these diseases, particularly for drugs to address the underlying nonsense mutations causing these diseases in some subsets of patients, is subject to increased risk. Furthermore, the regulatory requirements regarding gene therapies are continually evolving and regulatory authorities have only approved a limited number of gene therapies. Moreover, because gene therapy products are a relatively new development, less is known about such products and product candidates and, accordingly there is an increased risk that such products may not perform as expected. Regulatory review agencies and the requirements and guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional or larger studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval studies, limitations or restrictions.

Current wording

These risks may be increased for product candidates intended for the treatment of diseases for which there is little clinical experience, where we are using new endpoints or methodologies, or where the product candidates are new or novel. For example, there are no marketed therapies approved to treat the underlying cause of nmDMD and there is limited clinical trial experience with respect to drugs to treat nmDMD and other diseases that we are studying or have studied. As a result, the design and conduct of clinical trials for these diseases, particularly for drugs to address the underlying nonsense mutations causing these diseases in some subsets of patients, is subject to increased risk. Furthermore, because gene therapy products are a relatively new development, less is known about such products and product candidates and, accordingly there is an increased risk that such products may not perform as expected. Regulatory review agencies and the requirements and guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional or larger studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval studies, limitations or restrictions.

Previous wording

We may also experience increased risks to the extent that product candidates require a specialized delivery device or method. For example, Upstaza is administered directly to the putamen in the brain using stereotactic surgery, a brain surgery requiring significant skill and training. There is little experience with such surgeries being used to deliver drugs and for such surgeries being performed on children. We may need to train sufficient brain surgeons to perform the procedure properly, which may expose us to additional regulatory risks as our interactions with such healthcare providers must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. As a result, we will need to invest significant resources to ensure all personnel and contractors are adequately trained on these requirements and to monitor their conduct. Delivery of Upstaza to the putamen also requires certain medical devices, which may result in our product candidate being deemed to be a combination product by the FDA, requiring compliance with the FDA’s device regulations and collaboration with medical device manufacturers.

Current wording

We may also experience increased risks to the extent that products or product candidates require a specialized delivery device or method. For example, Upstaza/Kebilidi is administered directly to the putamen in the brain using stereotactic surgery, a brain surgery requiring significant skill and training. There is little experience with such surgeries being used to deliver drugs and for such surgeries being performed on children. We may need to train sufficient brain surgeons to perform the procedure properly, which may expose us to additional regulatory risks as our interactions with such healthcare providers must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. As a result, we will need to invest significant resources to ensure all personnel and contractors are adequately trained on these requirements and to monitor their conduct. Delivery of Upstaza/Kebilidi to the putamen also requires certain medical devices, which can increase our regulatory compliance obligations.

Previous wording

For example, although we did not observe a pattern of liver enzyme elevations in our Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trials of Translarna, we did observe modest elevations of liver enzymes in some subjects in one of our Phase 1 clinical trials. These elevated enzyme levels did not require cessation of Translarna administration, and enzyme levels typically normalized

Current wording

For example, although we did not observe a pattern of liver enzyme elevations in our Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trials of Translarna, we did observe modest elevations of liver enzymes in some subjects in one of our Phase 1 clinical trials. These elevated enzyme levels did not require cessation of Translarna administration, and enzyme levels typically normalized after completion of the treatment phase. We did not observe any increases in bilirubin, which can be associated with serious harm to the liver, in the Phase 1 clinical trial.

Previous wording

There have been several significant adverse side effects in gene therapy treatments in the past, including reported cases of leukemia, immune- and complement-mediated responses, and death seen in other trials using other vectors. While new recombinant vectors have been developed to potentially reduce these side effects, gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease treatment and additional adverse side effects could develop. For instance, possible adverse side effects that could occur include an immunologic or complement-mediated reactions early after administration which, could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment. Depending on the vector, additional manufacturing, clinical, and preclinical testing may be required, as well as additional analyses, assessments, and potential long-term patient and clinical study subject monitoring and sample testing and associated regulatory reporting. Serious adverse events in our clinical trials, or other clinical trials involving gene therapy products or our competitors’ products, even if not ultimately attributable to the relevant product candidates, and the resulting publicity, could further adversely impact our product candidates in the form of increased government regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays, stricter labeling requirements, and a decrease in demand.

Current wording

substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment. Depending on the vector, additional manufacturing, clinical, and preclinical testing may be required, as well as additional analyses, assessments, and potential long-term patient and clinical study subject monitoring and sample testing and associated regulatory reporting. Serious adverse events in our clinical trials, or other clinical trials involving gene therapy products or our competitors’ products, even if not ultimately attributable to the relevant product candidates, and the resulting publicity, could further adversely impact our product candidates in the form of increased government regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays, stricter labeling requirements, and a decrease in demand.

Previous wording

The manufacture of biologic and gene therapy products is technically complex, requires extreme precision to meet specification requirements and necessitates substantial expertise and capital investment. Production difficulties caused by unforeseen events, even if seemingly minimal, may delay the availability of material for clinical studies and commercial

Current wording

The manufacture of drugs, and especially biologic and gene therapy products is technically complex, requires extreme precision to meet specification requirements and necessitates substantial expertise and capital investment. Production difficulties caused by unforeseen events, even if seemingly minimal, may delay the availability of material for clinical studies and commercial product. For example, given the nature of biologics manufacturing, there is a risk of contamination. Any contamination could materially adversely affect our ability to produce our gene therapy product candidates on schedule and could, therefore, harm our results of operations and cause reputational damage.

Previous wording

In addition, gene therapy products have only in limited cases been manufactured at scales sufficient for pivotal trials and commercialization. Few pharmaceutical contract manufacturers specialize in gene therapy products and those that do are still developing appropriate processes, controls and facilities for large-scale production. While we believe that there are alternative sources of supply that can satisfy our clinical and commercial requirements for Upstaza, we cannot be certain that we will be able to identify and establish relationships with such sources, if necessary, in a timely manner or at all, and what the terms and costs of such new arrangements would be, or that such alternative suppliers would be able to supply our potential commercial needs. To the extent that we decide to manufacture our own clinical and commercial supply of Upstaza as an alternative source of supply, there is no guarantee that we will be able to cost effectively produce sufficient quantities of our program material. Any switch from our current manufacturer would result in a significant delay, would require regulatory authority approval, and cause material additional costs.

Current wording

In addition, gene therapy products have only in limited cases been manufactured at scales sufficient for pivotal trials and commercialization. Few pharmaceutical contract manufacturers specialize in gene therapy products and those that do are still developing appropriate processes, controls and facilities for large-scale production. While we believe that there are alternative sources of supply that can satisfy our commercial requirements for Upstaza/Kebilidi, we cannot be certain that we will be able to identify and establish relationships with such sources, if necessary, in a timely manner or at all, and what the terms and costs of such new arrangements would be, or that such alternative suppliers would be able to supply our potential commercial needs. Any switch from our current manufacturer would result in a significant delay, would require regulatory authority approval, and cause material additional costs.

Previous wording

In the United States, third-party payers, including government payers such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered and reimbursed. Expensive specialty drugs in particular are often subject to restriction. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payers and government payers develop their coverage and reimbursement policies. We cannot be assured that Medicare or Medicaid will cover our product candidates that may be approved or provide reimbursement without restriction and at adequate levels to realize a sufficient return on our investment. Our rebate payments may increase or our prices be adjusted under value-based purchasing arrangements based on evidence-based measures or outcomes-based measures for a patient or beneficiary based on use of our drug. Moreover, reimbursement agencies in the EU may be more conservative than CMS. It is difficult to predict what third-party payers will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Additionally, within Europe, each country has its own reimbursement regime employing various health technology assessment approaches to assess the cost-effectiveness of the product (for example, in the United Kingdom a HTA assessment is conducted by NICE) which may significantly affect the effective access to the market.

Current wording

In the United States, third-party payers, including government payers such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered and reimbursed. Expensive specialty drugs in particular are often subject to restriction. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payers and government payers develop their coverage and reimbursement policies. We cannot be assured that Medicare or Medicaid will cover our product candidates that may be approved or provide reimbursement without restriction and at adequate levels to realize a sufficient return on our investment. Our rebate payments may increase or our prices be adjusted under value-based purchasing arrangements based on evidence-based measures or outcomes-based measures for a patient or beneficiary based on use of our drug. Moreover, reimbursement agencies in the EU may be more conservative than CMS. It is difficult to predict what third-party payers will decide with respect to the coverage

Previous wording

Our ongoing commercial strategy for our products and any other product candidate that may receive marketing authorization involves the development of a commercial infrastructure that spans multiple jurisdictions and is heavily dependent upon our ability to continue to build an infrastructure that is capable of implementing our global commercial strategy. The establishment and development of our commercial infrastructure will continue to be expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to develop our commercial organizations in all intended territories, including in the United States, in a timely manner or at all. Doing so will require a high degree of coordination and compliance with laws and regulations in numerous territories, including restrictions on advertising practices, enforcement of intellectual property

Current wording

Our ongoing commercial strategy for our products and any other product candidate that may receive marketing authorization involves the development of a commercial infrastructure that spans multiple jurisdictions and is heavily dependent upon our ability to continue to build an infrastructure that is capable of implementing our global commercial strategy. The establishment and development of our commercial infrastructure will continue to be expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to develop our commercial organizations in all intended territories, including in the United States, in a timely manner or at all. Doing so will require a high degree of coordination and compliance with laws and regulations in numerous territories, including restrictions on advertising practices, enforcement of intellectual property rights, restrictions on pricing or discounts, transparency laws and regulations, and unexpected changes in regulatory requirements and tariffs. If we are unable to effectively coordinate such activities or comply with such laws and regulations, our ability to commercialize our products or any other product candidates that may receive marketing authorization will be adversely affected. If we are unable to establish and maintain adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, whether independently or with third parties, we may not be able to generate product revenue consistent with our expectations and may not become profitable.

Previous wording

In addition, some countries in which a product candidate is not approved allow patients access to the product candidate through other legal mechanisms, including court intervention or EAP programs, if the product is approved in another jurisdiction. The price that is ultimately approved by governmental authorities in any country pursuant to commercial pricing and reimbursement processes may be significantly lower than the price we are able to charge for sales under such legal mechanisms and we may become obligated to repay such excess amount.

Current wording

In addition, some countries in which a product candidate is not approved allow patients access to the product candidate through other legal mechanisms, including court intervention or EAP programs, if the product is approved in another jurisdiction. The price that is ultimately approved by governmental authorities in any country pursuant to commercial

Previous wording

There is currently no marketed therapy for nmDMD, other than Translarna in the EEA. Santhera Pharmaceuticals has received approval of Agramee (vamorolone) in the United States for DMD patients ages 2 and up and in the EU and United Kingdom for patients ages 4 years and older. Sarepta Therapeutics has received approval of Elevidys for DMD patients 4 to 5 years of age with a confirmed mutation in the “DMD gene” in the United States (Accelerated Approval granted with Full Approval pending) and United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Sarepta Therapeutics has also received approval in the United States for two treatments (Exondys 51 (eteplirsen) and Vyondys 53 (golodirsen)) addressing the underlying cause of disease for different mutations in the DMD gene. Additionally, the FDA granted accelerated approval to Viltepso (viltolarsen) from NS Pharma for the treatment of DMD in patients with exon 53 skipping and Sarepta (Casimersen (SRP 4045) for the treatment of DMD in patients with exon 45 skipping. Viltepso (viltolarsen) from NS Pharma is also approved in Japan. Other biopharmaceutical companies are developing treatments addressing the underlying cause of disease for

Current wording

There is currently no marketed therapy specifically for nmDMD, other than Translarna in the EEA. Santhera Pharmaceuticals has received approval of Agramee (vamorolone) in the United States for DMD patients ages 2 and up and in the EU and United Kingdom for patients ages 4 years and older. Sarepta Therapeutics has received approval of Elevidys for DMD patients 4 to 5 years of age with a confirmed mutation in the “DMD gene” in the United States and United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Sarepta Therapeutics has also received approval in the United States for two treatments (Exondys 51 (eteplirsen) and Vyondys 53 (golodirsen)) addressing the underlying cause of disease for different mutations in the DMD gene. Additionally, the FDA granted accelerated approval to Viltepso (viltolarsen) from NS Pharma for the treatment of DMD in patients with exon 53 skipping and Sarepta (Casimersen (SRP 4045) for the treatment of DMD in patients with exon 45 skipping. Viltepso (viltolarsen) from NS Pharma is also approved in Japan. Other biopharmaceutical companies are developing treatments addressing the underlying cause of disease for different mutations in the DMD gene, including, Dyne Therapeutics (DYNE-251), Wave Life Sciences (WVE-N53), Daiichi Sankyo (DS 5141)), Nippon Shinyaku (Viltolarsen (NS 065/NCNP 01) and NS 089/NCNP 02)), and Astellas (AT 702). Additionally, other pharmaceutical companies are developing micro dystrophin gene therapies for patients with DMD regardless of genotype, including Pfizer (PF 06939926) and Solid Biosciences (SGT 001).

Previous wording

Although the FDA has not approved a corticosteroid specifically for DMD in the United States other than Emflaza, we face competition in the United States in the DMD market from prednisone/prednisolone, which, while not approved for DMD in the United States, is generically available and has been prescribed off label for DMD patients. Santhera has received approval of Agramee (vamorolone), in the United States for DMD patients ages 2 and up and in the European Union and United Kingdom for patients ages 4 years and older. With the expiration of Emflaza’s orphan exclusivity for treatment of DMD in patients five years and older in February 2024, we expect to face competition from generic versions of Emflaza for this indication.

Current wording

With the expiration of Emflaza’s orphan exclusivity for treatment of DMD in patients five years and older in February 2024, we face competition from generic versions of Emflaza for this indication. Although the FDA has not approved a corticosteroid specifically for DMD in the United States other than Emflaza, we face competition in the United States in the DMD market from prednisone/prednisolone, which, while not approved for DMD in the United States, is generically available and has been prescribed off label for DMD patients. Santhera has received approval of Agramee (vamorolone), in the United States for DMD patients ages 2 and up and in the European Union and United Kingdom for patients ages 4 years and older.

Previous wording

Evrysdi, an orally bioavailable treatment, faces competition from treatments that are not orally bioavailable, including Spinraza (nusinersen), a drug developed by Ionis and marketed by Biogen, which is approved to treat SMA and Zolgensma (onasemnogene abeparvovec), a gene therapy drug developed by AveXis, Inc., (acquired by Novartis in 2018), which is approved in the United States and Japan for the treatment of SMA in patients under 2 years of age and in Europe for babies and young children who weigh up to 21 kilograms. Novartis is also developing OAV-101, an intrathecal administration of Zolgensma, for SMA patients ages ≥ 2 to < 18 years of age. Biogen is developing a higher dose regimen of nusinersen with potential for improved efficacy and evaluating an implantable medical device to enable subcutaneous delivery of nusinersen. Other companies are also pursuing product candidates for the treatment of SMA, including Scholar Rock (apitegromab, SRK-015), Biohaven (Taldefgrobep alfa), Roche Pharmaceuticals (RO-7204239/GYM-329), Biogen / Ionis (BIIB-115/ION-306) and NMD Pharma (NMD-670).

Current wording

Evrysdi, an orally bioavailable treatment, faces competition from treatments that are not orally bioavailable, including Spinraza (nusinersen), a drug developed by Ionis and marketed by Biogen, which is approved to treat SMA and Zolgensma (onasemnogene abeparvovec), a gene therapy drug developed by AveXis, Inc., (acquired by Novartis in 2018), which is approved in the United States and Japan for the treatment of SMA in patients under 2 years of age and in Europe for babies and young children who weigh up to 21 kilograms. Novartis is also developing OAV-101, an intrathecal administration of

Previous wording

The regulations and practices that govern marketing authorizations, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries, including almost all of the member states of the EEA, require approval of the sale (list) price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some ex-U.S. markets, including the European market, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing authorization for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations, in some countries at national as well as regional levels, that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more products or other product candidates, even following marketing authorization.

Current wording

The regulations and practices that govern marketing authorizations, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries, including almost all of the member states of the EEA, require approval of the sale (list) price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some ex-U.S. markets, including the European market, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing authorization for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations, in some countries at national as well as regional levels, that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the

Previous wording

Reimbursement levels may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product or product candidate for which we obtain marketing authorization. Obtaining reimbursement for our products has been and is expected to continue to be, particularly difficult due to price considerations typically associated with drugs that are developed to treat conditions that affect a small population of patients. In addition, third-party payors are likely to impose strict requirements for reimbursement of a higher priced drug, such as prior authorization and the requirement to try other therapies first, or high co-payments which can result in patient rejection. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for a product or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover a product could reduce physician usage of the product. If reimbursement is not available or is available only on a limited basis, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product or product candidate for which we have obtained or may obtain marketing authorization.

Current wording

Reimbursement levels may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product or product candidate for which we obtain marketing authorization. Obtaining reimbursement for our products has been and is expected to continue to be, particularly difficult due to price considerations typically associated with drugs that are developed to treat conditions that affect a small population of patients. In addition, third-party payors are likely to impose strict requirements for reimbursement of a higher priced drug, such as prior authorization and the requirement to try other therapies first (i.e., step edits), or high co-payments which can result in patient rejection. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for a product or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover a product could reduce physician usage of the product. If reimbursement is not available or is available only on a limited basis, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product or product candidate for which we have obtained or may obtain marketing authorization.

Previous wording

In the United States, third-party payors include federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and Veterans Health Administration programs; managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Several of the U.S. federal healthcare programs establish ceiling prices or require that drug manufacturers extend discounts or pay rebates to certain programs in order for their products to be covered and reimbursed. For example, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers of covered outpatient drugs to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the federal government as a condition for coverage of the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drug(s) by state Medicaid programs. The amount of the rebate for each product is based on a statutory formula and may be subject to an additional discount if certain pricing increases more than inflation. State Medicaid programs and Medicaid managed care plans can seek additional “supplemental” rebates from manufacturers in connection with states’ establishment of preferred drug lists. A further requirement for Medicaid coverage is that manufacturers of single source and innovator multiple source drugs enter into a Master agreement and Federal Supply Schedule, or FSS, agreement with the Secretary for Veterans Affairs and charge no more than statutory ceiling prices to the Department of Veteran Affairs, the Department of Defense and certain other federal agencies.

Current wording

In the United States, third-party payors include federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and Veterans Health Administration programs; managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Several of the U.S. federal healthcare programs establish ceiling prices or require that drug manufacturers extend discounts or pay rebates to certain programs in order for their products to be covered and reimbursed. For example, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers of covered outpatient drugs to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the federal government as a condition for coverage of the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drug(s) by state Medicaid programs. The amount of the rebate for each product is based on a statutory formula and may be subject to an additional discount if certain pricing increases more than inflation. State Medicaid programs and Medicaid managed care plans can seek additional “supplemental” rebates from manufacturers in connection with states’ establishment of preferred drug lists. A further requirement for Medicaid coverage is that manufacturers of single source

Previous wording

With respect to drugs eligible for reimbursement under Medicare Part B, on November 27, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing a Most Favored Nations payment model under which reimbursement for certain Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals will be based on a price that reflects the lowest per capita Gross Domestic Product-adjusted (GDP-adjusted) price of any non-U.S. member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with a GDP per capita that is at least sixty percent of the U.S. GDP per capita. This rule now has been rescinded but other measures, including the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, have been enacted to address the costs of pharmaceuticals. Such rules and any additional healthcare reform measures could further constrain our business or limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in additional pricing pressures.

Current wording

With respect to drugs eligible for reimbursement under Medicare Part B, on November 27, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing a Most Favored Nations payment model under which reimbursement for certain Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals will be based on a price that reflects the lowest per capita Gross Domestic Product-adjusted (GDP-adjusted) price of any non-U.S. member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with a GDP per capita that is at least sixty percent of the U.S. GDP per capita. This rule now has been rescinded but other measures, including the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, have been enacted to address the costs of pharmaceuticals. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 requires manufacturers of selected drugs to negotiate discounted prices with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Failure to reach an agreement can subject manufacturers to an excise tax or withdraw of all drug products from coverage under Medicare and Medicaid. Drug price negotiations and other program implementation measures could potentially be affected by the Executive Order,*Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,*issued on January 20, 2025 and/or the anticipated change in leadership at Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the new administration. Such rules and any additional healthcare reform measures could further constrain our business or limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in additional pricing pressures.

Previous wording

There has been recent negative publicity and increasing legislative and public scrutiny around pharmaceutical drug pricing in the U.S., in particular with respect to orphan drugs and specifically with respect to Emflaza. Moreover, U.S. government authorities and third-party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate drug prices and reimbursement, often with particular focus on orphan drugs. These dynamics may give rise to heightened attention and potential negative reactions to pricing decisions for Emflaza and products for which we may receive regulatory approval in the future, possibly limiting our ability to generate revenue and attain profitability.

Current wording

There has been recent negative publicity and increasing legislative and public scrutiny around pharmaceutical drug pricing in the U.S., in particular with respect to orphan drugs and specifically with respect to Emflaza. Moreover, U.S. government authorities and third-party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate drug prices and reimbursement, often with particular focus on orphan drugs. For example, certain drugs with an orphan designation may become subject to price negotiations under the IRA. These dynamics may give rise to heightened attention and potential negative reactions to pricing decisions for Emflaza and products for which we may receive regulatory approval in the future, possibly limiting our ability to generate revenue and attain profitability.

Previous wording

Moreover, in 2017, the U.S. Congress modified and amended certain provisions of the 2010 U.S. healthcare reform legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, known collectively as the Affordable Care Act), which could have an impact on coverage and reimbursement for healthcare items and services covered by the federal and state healthcare programs as well as plans in the private health insurance market. The so-called “individual mandate” was repealed as part of tax reform legislation adopted in December 2017. Legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act continue to arise and there may be future efforts to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The Biden administration is expected to continue to take measures to further facilitate the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We cannot assure that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as amended in the future, will not adversely affect our business and financial results and we cannot predict how future federal or state legislative or administrative changes relating to healthcare reform will affect our business.

Current wording

reimbursement for healthcare items and services covered by the federal and state healthcare programs as well as plans in the private health insurance market. The so-called “individual mandate” was repealed as part of tax reform legislation adopted in December 2017. Legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act continue to arise and there may be future efforts to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. We cannot assure that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as amended in the future, will not adversely affect our business and financial results and we cannot predict how future federal or state legislative or administrative changes relating to healthcare reform will affect our business.

Previous wording

Human Services, or HHS, and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. Certain states have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada with the intent of developing SIPs for review and approval by the FDA. Florida recently received approval for its SIP from the FDA. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law.. The rule also creates a safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. The effective date of the new safe harbors and the revision to the discount safe harbor was delayed by court order until January 1, 2023. Recent legislation further delayed implementation of the new safe harbors and the revision to the discount safe harbor until January 1, 2032.

Current wording

Similarly, sales of Emflaza or our other products in the United States could also be reduced if they, or products similar to them, are imported into the United States from lower-priced markets, whether legally or illegally. For example, in the United States, prices for pharmaceuticals are generally higher than in the bordering nations of Mexico and Canada. In October 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. Certain states have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada with the intent of developing SIPs for review and approval by the FDA. Florida received approval for its SIP from the FDA. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. The effective date of the new safe harbors and the revision to the discount safe harbor was delayed by court order until January 1, 2023. Recent legislation further delayed implementation of the new safe harbors and the revision to the discount safe harbor until January 1, 2032.

Previous wording

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $3,283.6 million. We have financed our operations to date primarily through the private offerings of convertible senior notes, public and “at the market offerings” of common stock, proceeds from royalty purchase agreements, net proceeds from our borrowings under our credit agreement with Blackstone, private placements of our convertible preferred stock and common stock, collaborations, bank and institutional lender debt, other convertible debt, grant funding and clinical trial support from governmental and philanthropic organizations and patient advocacy groups in the disease area addressed by our product candidates. We have relied on revenue generated from net sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in territories outside of the United States since 2014, Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States since 2017, and Upstaza for the treatment of AADC deficiency in the EEA since May 2022. We have also relied on revenue associated with milestone and royalty payments from Roche pursuant to the SMA License Agreement under our SMA program andrevenue generated from net sales of Tegsedi and Waylivra in Latin America and the Caribbean. Based on our current commercial, research and development plans, we expect to continue to incur significant operating expenses for the foreseeable future, which we anticipate will be partially offset by revenues generated from the sale of our products and our collaboration and royalty revenues. We expect to continue to generate operating losses through 2024 and, while we anticipate that operating losses generated in future periods should decline versus prior periods, we may never generate profits from operations or maintain profitability. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from period to period.

Current wording

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $3,646.9 million. We have financed our operations to date primarily through the private offerings of convertible senior notes, public and “at the market offerings” of common stock, proceeds from royalty purchase agreements, net proceeds from our borrowing under our credit agreement with Blackstone, private placements of our convertible preferred stock and common stock, collaborations, bank and institutional lender debt, other convertible debt, grant funding and clinical trial support from governmental and philanthropic organizations and patient advocacy groups in the disease area addressed by our product candidates. We have relied on revenue generated from net sales of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in territories outside of the United States since 2014, Emflaza for the treatment of DMD in the United States since 2017, and Upstaza for the treatment of AADC deficiency in the EEA since May 2022. We have also relied on revenue associated with milestone and royalty payments from Roche pursuant to the SMA License Agreement under our SMA program andrevenue generated from net sales of Tegsedi and Waylivra in Latin America and the Caribbean. Based on our current commercial, research and development plans, we expect to continue to incur significant operating expenses for the foreseeable future, which we anticipate will be partially offset by revenues generated from the sale of our products and our collaboration and royalty revenues. We expect to continue to generate operating losses through 2025 and, while we anticipate that operating losses generated in future periods should decline versus prior periods, we may never generate profits from operations or maintain profitability. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from period to period.

Previous wording

Our current ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna is dependent upon our ability to maintain our marketing authorizations in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients aged two years and older, in Russia for the treatment of nmDMD in patients aged two years and older and in Brazil for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients two years and older and for continued treatment of patients that become non-ambulatory, as well as in various other countries. The marketing authorization in the EEA is subject to annual review and renewal by the EC following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization. For example, in February 2023, we submitted an annual marketing authorization request to the EMA. In September 2023, the CHMP gave a negative opinion on the conversion of the conditional marketing authorization to the full marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and a negative opinion on the renewal of the existing conditional marketing authorization of

Current wording

Our current ability to generate revenue from sales of Translarna is dependent upon our ability to maintain our marketing authorizations in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients aged two years and older, in Russia for the treatment of nmDMD in patients aged two years and older and in Brazil for the treatment of nmDMD in ambulatory patients two years and older and for continued treatment of patients that become non-ambulatory, as well as in various other countries. The marketing authorization in the EEA is subject to annual review and renewal by the EC

Previous wording

Translarna. On January 25, 2024, the CHMP issued a negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization following a re-examination procedure. In accordance with EMA regulations, the EC has 67 days to adopt the opinion from the date of its issuance. If the EC adopts the negative opinion, Translarna would no longer have marketing authorization in the EEA. For more information regarding the risks associated with the a potential EC adoption of the CHMP’s negative opinion on Translarna’s marketing authorization, see Item 1A. Risk Factors, “We may be unable to continue to commercialize Translarna for nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the European Economic Area if the European Commission adopts the negative opinion issued by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency for the renewal of the existing conditional authorization for Translarna.” We also expect that our efforts to advance Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States will be time-consuming and may be expensive.

Current wording

following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization. For example, in February 2023, we submitted an annual marketing authorization request to the EMA. In September 2023, the CHMP gave a negative opinion on the conversion of the conditional marketing authorization to the full marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD and a negative opinion on the renewal of the existing conditional marketing authorization of Translarna. In January 2024, the CHMP issued a negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization following a re-examination procedure. In May 2024, the EC decided not to adopt the CHMP’s negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization of Translarna and returned such opinion to the CHMP for re-evaluation. In June 2024, following the EC’s request for re-review, the CHMP issued a negative opinion on the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. On October 18, 2024, the CHMP maintained its negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization following the requested reexamination procedure. In accordance with EMA regulations, the EC has 67 days from the date of issuance to adopt the opinion. At this time, the EC has not yet adopted the negative opinion. If the EC adopts the negative opinion, Translarna would no longer have marketing authorization in the member states of the EEA. For more information regarding the risks associated with a potential EC adoption of the CHMP’s negative opinion on Translarna’s marketing authorization, see Item 1A. Risk Factors, “We may be unable to continue to commercialize Translarna for nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the European Economic Area if the European Commission nmDMD in the EEA if the EC adopts the negative opinion issued by the CHMP for the renewal of the existing conditional authorization for Translarna.” We also expect that our efforts to advance Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States will be time-consuming and may be expensive. In October 2024, the FDA accepted for review the resubmission of the NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. As this was an NDA resubmission following a CRL to the NDA which was filed over protest in 2016, the FDA is not obligated to follow the review timelines under PDUFA guidelines and an action date has not been provided.

Previous wording

We anticipate that we will continue to incur significant expenses in connection with our commercialization efforts in the United States, the EEA, Latin America and other territories, including expenses related to our commercial infrastructure and corresponding sales and marketing, legal and regulatory, and distribution and manufacturing undertakings as well as administrative and employee-based expenses. In addition to the foregoing, we expect to continue to incur significant costs in connection with ongoing, planned and potential future clinical trials and studies for sepiapterin and our splicing and ferroptosis and inflammation programs as well as studies in our products for maintaining authorizations, label extensions and additional indications. We continue to seek marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in territories that we do not currently have marketing authorization in and we are exploring other potential mechanisms in which we may provide Translarna to nmDMD patients in the EEA if the EC adopts the CHMP’s negative opinion for Translarna. We anticipate submitting a BLA to the FDA for Upstaza for the treatment of AADC deficiency in the United States in March 2024. We also expect to submit an MAA to the EMA for sepiapterin for the treatment of PKU in March 2024 and we expect to submit an NDA to the FDA for sepiapterin for the treatment of PKU no later than the third quarter of 2024. These efforts may significantly impact the timing and extent of our commercialization and manufacturing expenses.

Current wording

We anticipate that we will continue to incur significant expenses in connection with our commercialization efforts in the United States, the EEA, Latin America and other territories, including expenses related to our commercial infrastructure and corresponding sales and marketing, legal and regulatory, and distribution and manufacturing undertakings as well as administrative and employee-based expenses. In addition to the foregoing, we expect to continue to incur significant costs in connection with ongoing, planned and potential future clinical trials and studies for sepiapterin and our splicing and inflammation and ferroptosis programs as well as studies in our products for maintaining authorizations, label extensions and additional indications. We continue to seek marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in territories that we do not currently have marketing authorization in and we are exploring other potential mechanisms by which we may provide Translarna to nmDMD patients in the EEA if the EC adopts the CHMP’s negative opinion for Translarna. We also submitted an MAA to the EMA for sepiapterin for the treatment of PKU in March 2024, an NDA to the FDA for sepiapterin for the treatment of PKU in the third quarter of 2024, and an NDA to the FDA for vatiquinone for the treatment of FA in the fourth quarter of 2024. These efforts may significantly impact the timing and extent of our commercialization and manufacturing expenses.

Previous wording

We expect to pay the former equityholders of Agilis $20.0 million in development milestone payments upon the acceptance for filing by the FDA of a BLA for Upstaza for the treatment of AADC deficiency and $4.5 million in regulatory milestones for the approval of the BLA from the FDA pursuant to the Agilis Merger Agreement. We anticipate submitting a BLA to the FDA for Upstaza for the treatment of AADC deficiency in the United States in March 2024. We also expect to make payments to the former Censa securityholders of $65.0 million in the aggregate in cash upon the potential achievement in 2024 of regulatory milestones relating to sepiapterin pursuant to the Censa Merger Agreement.

Current wording

We expect to make payments to the former Censa securityholders of $57.5 million in the aggregate in cash upon the potential achievement in 2025 of regulatory milestones relating to sepiapterin pursuant to the Censa Merger Agreement.

Previous wording

We are subject to income taxes in the Unites States and various ex-U.S. jurisdictions. Taxes will be incurred as income is earned in these different jurisdictions. Various factors may have favorable or unfavorable effects on our effective income tax rate. These factors include, but are not limited to, interpretations of existing tax laws, changes in tax laws and rates, the accounting for stock options and other share-based compensation, changes in accounting standards, future levels of research and development spending, changes in the mix and level of pre-tax earnings by taxing jurisdiction, the outcome of examinations by the IRS and other jurisdictions, the accuracy of our estimates for unrecognized tax benefits, the realization of deferred tax assets, or by changes to our ownership or capital structure. The impact on our income tax provision resulting from the above-mentioned factors and others may be significant and could adversely affect our results of operations.

Current wording

We are subject to income taxes in the Unites States and various ex-U.S. jurisdictions. Taxes will be incurred as income is earned in these different jurisdictions. Various factors may have favorable or unfavorable effects on our effective income tax rate. These factors include, but are not limited to, interpretations of existing tax laws, changes in tax laws and rates, the accounting for stock options and other share-based compensation, changes in accounting standards, future levels of research and development spending, changes in the mix and level of pre-tax earnings by taxing jurisdiction, the outcome of examinations by the IRS and other taxing authorities, the accuracy of our estimates for unrecognized tax benefits, the realization of deferred tax assets, or changes to our ownership or capital structure. The impact on our income tax provision resulting from the above-mentioned factors and others may be significant and could adversely affect our results of operations.

Previous wording

Regulatory guidance under the 2017 Tax Act, the IRA, and such additional legislation is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen the impact of these laws on our business and financial condition. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform the 2017 Tax Act, IRA, and additional tax legislation.

Current wording

Regulatory guidance under the 2017 Tax Act, the IRA, and such additional legislation is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen the impact of these laws on our business and financial condition. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the 2017 Tax Act, the IRA, and additional tax legislation.

Previous wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the EU and the United States, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. We have obtained orphan drug designations from the EMA and from the FDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, Upstaza for the treatment of AADC, Evrysdi for the treatment of SMA, sepiapterin for the treatment of patients with hyperphenylalaninemia, including hyperphenylalaninemia caused by PKU, vatiquinone for the treatment of Friedreich ataxia and utreloxastat for the treatment of ALS. The FDA has also granted an orphan drug designation to Emflaza for the treatment of DMD. We may also seek orphan drug designation and exclusivity for other product candidates, if we believe that the product candidate may qualify. We, however, may not be able to obtain

Current wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the EU and the United States, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. We have obtained orphan drug designations from the EMA and from the FDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, Upstaza/Kebilidi for the treatment of AADC, Evrysdi for the treatment of SMA, sepiapterin for the treatment of patients with hyperphenylalaninemia, including hyperphenylalaninemia caused by PKU and vatiquinone for the treatment of FA. The FDA has also granted an orphan drug designation to Emflaza for the treatment of DMD. We may also seek orphan drug designation and exclusivity for other product candidates, if we believe that the product candidate may qualify. We, however, may not be able to obtain orphan drug designation in the future for

Previous wording

orphan drug designation in the future for any of our other product candidates. Obtaining orphan drug exclusivity, both in the EU and in the United States, may be important to a product candidate’s future success.

Current wording

any of our other product candidates and, even if we obtain designation, we may ultimately not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity. Obtaining orphan drug exclusivity, both in the EU and in the United States, may be important to a product candidate’s future success.

Previous wording

In the United States, under FDA’s current policy, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing authorization for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to seven years of market exclusivity which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the “same drug” for the same orphan designated approved indication for that time period. When determining whether a drug is the “same drug” as an orphan designated product, the FDA looks to the products’ molecular features and use. The specific sameness criteria, however, varies based on whether the product is composed of small or large molecules and if the product is a gene therapy. Moreover, for gene therapies, the sameness criteria is currently evolving. For example, the FDA issued a final guidance document specific to sameness determinations. Depending on product characteristics, sameness may be determined by the FDA on a case by case basis, making it difficult to predict when FDA may approve a product and whether periods of exclusivity will effectively block competitors seeking to market products that are the same or similar to ours for the same intended use. Moreover, following the Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra and FDA’s subsequent statement that it intends to continue to apply its regulations tying the scope of orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved, as further described in this filing, the exact scope of orphan drug exclusivity may be an evolving space. Accordingly, whether any of our products or product candidates will be deemed to be the same as another product or product candidate is uncertain and the scope of any potential or received orphan drug exclusivity period may be subject to revision.

Current wording

In the United States, under FDA’s current policy, if a product with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing authorization for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to seven years of market exclusivity which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the “same drug” for the same orphan designated approved indication for that time period. When determining whether a drug is the “same drug” as an orphan designated product, the FDA looks to the products’ molecular features and use. The specific sameness criteria, however, varies based on whether the product is composed of small or large molecules and if the product is a gene therapy. Moreover, for gene therapies, the sameness criteria are currently evolving. For example, the FDA issued a final guidance document specific to sameness determinations. Depending on product characteristics, sameness may be determined by the FDA on a case-by-case basis, making it difficult to predict when FDA may approve a product and whether periods of exclusivity will effectively block competitors seeking to market products that are the same or similar to ours for the same intended use. Moreover, following the Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra and FDA’s subsequent statement that it intends to continue to apply its regulations tying the scope of orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved, as further described in this filing, the exact scope of orphan drug exclusivity may be an evolving space. Accordingly, whether any of our products or product candidates will be deemed to be the same as another product or product candidate is uncertain and the scope of any potential or received orphan drug exclusivity period, as well as any of our competitors that may block approval of one of our product candidates, may be subject to revision.

Previous wording

Further, even if we do receive orphan drug exclusivity upon approval of a product candidate, this exclusivity is not absolute. For example, if a competitive product that is the same drug or a similar medicinal product as one of our approved products with orphan exclusivity is shown to be “clinically superior” to our product candidate as determined by the FDA or EMA, respectively, any orphan drug exclusivity we have obtained will not block the approval of such competitive product. Orphan exclusivity also would not block FDA from approving a drug that is the same as our product candidates for different indications or products that are different from ours for the same indication. Moreover, marketing exclusivity would not prevent a provider from prescribing or using another drug off-label and third-party payors may reimburse for products off-label even if not indicated for the orphan condition.

Current wording

Further, even if we do receive orphan drug exclusivity upon approval of a product candidate, this exclusivity is not absolute. For example, if a competitive product that is the same drug or a similar medicinal product as one of our approved products with orphan exclusivity is shown to be “clinically superior” to our product candidate as determined by the FDA or EMA, respectively, any orphan drug exclusivity we have obtained will not block the approval of such competitive product. Orphan exclusivity also would not block the FDA from approving a drug that is the same as our product candidates for different indications or products that are different from ours for the same indication. Moreover, marketing exclusivity would not prevent a provider from prescribing or using another drug off-label and third-party payors may reimburse for products off-label even if not indicated for the orphan condition.

Previous wording

For certain of our products, periods of orphan drug exclusivity are important. For instance, for Emflaza, we have previously relied on non-patent market exclusivity periods under the Orphan Drug Act to commercialize Emflaza in the United States. Emflaza’s seven-year period of orphan drug exclusivity related to the treatment of DMD in patients five years and older expired in February 2024. We expect the expiration of this orphan drug exclusivity to have significant negative impact on Emflaza net product revenue. Emflaza’s orphan drug exclusivity related to the treatment of DMD in patients two years of age to less than five expires in June 2026. With the expiration of the orphan exclusivity for the Emflaza indication of the treatment of DMD in patients five years and older, we expect to face competition from generic versions of Emflaza for this indication and will likely be priced less than Emflaza. Healthcare providers may also substitute the generic version(s) of Emflaza for patients two years of age to five, despite the fact that the generic version(s) will not be approved for such indication until after June 2026.

Current wording

For certain of our products, periods of orphan drug exclusivity are important. For instance, for Emflaza, we have previously relied on non-patent market exclusivity periods under the Orphan Drug Act to commercialize Emflaza in the United States. Emflaza’s seven-year period of orphan drug exclusivity related to the treatment of DMD in patients five years and older expired in February 2024. We expect the expiration of this orphan drug exclusivity to have significant negative impact on Emflaza net product revenue, as we face competition from generic versions of Emflaza for this indication, which are generally priced less than Emflaza. Emflaza’s orphan drug exclusivity related to the treatment of DMD in patients two years of age to less than five expires in June 2026. Healthcare providers may also substitute the generic version(s) of Emflaza for patients two years of age to five, despite the fact that the generic version(s) will not be approved for such indication until after June 2026.

Previous wording

All pharmaceutical products for which marketing authorization has been granted are subject to extensive and rigorous governmental regulation and could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market. We may also be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, when and if any of them are approved, as well as our product candidates during development.

Current wording

All pharmaceutical products for which marketing authorization has been granted are subject to extensive and rigorous governmental regulation and could be subject to restrictions or withdrawal from the market. We may also be subject to penalties or other enforcement if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, when and if any of them are approved, as well as our product candidates during development.

Previous wording

We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the EEA, the United States, or other territories until we have received requisite regulatory approvals. In order to receive and maintain such approvals, and to be compliant with regulatory authority requirements, we and our third-party service providers must comply on a continuous basis with a broad array of regulations and requirements. Depending on the stage of product development and whether a product is approved these requirements may relate to establishment registration and product listing, the payment of user fees, manufacturing processes, risk management measures, quality and pharmacovigilance systems (including reporting of manufacturing deviations and adverse events), pre- and post-approval clinical and pre-clinical data, labeling, packaging, advertising, marketing and promotional activities (including product sampling), record keeping, distribution, storage, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Any regulatory approval of any of our products or product candidates, once obtained, may be withdrawn. For example, our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA is subject to annual review and renewal by the EC following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization, as well as the specific obligation to conduct and report the results of Study 041. On January 25, 2024, the CHMP issued a negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization. In accordance with EMA regulations, the EC has 67 days to adopt the opinion from the date of its issuance. If the EC adopts the negative opinion, Translarna would no longer have marketing authorization in the EEA.

Current wording

We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the EEA, the United States, or other territories until we have received requisite regulatory approvals. In order to receive and maintain such approvals, and to be compliant with regulatory authority requirements, we and our third-party service providers must comply on a continuous basis with a broad array of regulations and requirements. Depending on the stage of product development and whether a product is approved these requirements may relate to establishment registration and product listing, the payment of user fees, manufacturing processes, risk management measures, quality and pharmacovigilance systems (including reporting of manufacturing deviations and adverse events), pre- and post-approval clinical and pre-clinical data and study conduct, labeling, packaging, advertising, marketing and promotional activities (including product sampling), record keeping, distribution, storage, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Any regulatory approval of any of our products or product candidates, once obtained, may be withdrawn. For example, our marketing authorization for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the EEA is subject to annual review and renewal by the EC following reassessment by the EMA of the benefit-risk balance of the authorization, as well as the specific obligation to conduct and report the results of Study 041. In January 2024, the CHMP issued a negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization following a re-examination procedure. In May 2024, the EC decided not to adopt the CHMP’s negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization of Translarna and returned such opinion to the CHMP for re-evaluation. In June 2024, following the EC’s request for re-review, the CHMP issued a negative opinion on the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. On October 18, 2024, the CHMP maintained its negative opinion for the renewal of the conditional marketing authorization following the requested reexamination procedure. In accordance with EMA regulations, the EC has 67 days from the date of issuance to adopt the

Previous wording

the power to require changes in labeling or to prevent further marketing and distribution of a product. For example, we were obligated to perform certain FDA post-marketing requirements in connection with our marketing authorization for Emflaza in the United States, including pre-clinical and clinical safety studies. Additionally, our marketing authorizations for Translarna, Tegsedi and Waylivra in Brazil and our marketing authorization for Translarna in Russia are subject to renewal every five years. There is no guarantee that we will be able to complete our post-marketing obligations in accordance with the established timetables. Failure to complete the required studies in accordance with the established timetables or failure to provide the requisite periodic reports on the status of post-marketing studies in the absence of good cause could result in an enforcement action. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing and distribution.

Current wording

After approving a drug, the FDA may withdraw product approval if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if safety problems occur after the product reaches the market. Requirements for additional clinical trials and studies to confirm safety and effectiveness may be imposed as a condition of marketing approval. In addition, the FDA requires surveillance programs to monitor approved products that have been commercialized, as well as REMS, and the agency has the power to require changes in labeling or to prevent further marketing and distribution of a product. For example, we were obligated to perform certain FDA post-marketing requirements in connection with our marketing authorization for Emflaza in the United States, including clinical safety studies. Additionally, our marketing authorizations for Translarna, Tegsedi and Waylivra in Brazil and our marketing authorization for Translarna in Russia are subject to renewal every five years. There is no guarantee that we will be able to complete our post-marketing obligations in accordance with the established timetables. Failure to complete the required studies in accordance with the established timetables or failure to provide the requisite periodic reports on the status of post-marketing studies in the absence of good cause could result in an enforcement action. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing and distribution.