Silence Therapeutics plc

Previous wording

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a rule entitled the Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, which places additional restriction on certain data transactions involving countries of concern (e.g., China, Russia, Iran) and covered individuals (i.e., individuals and entities located in or controlled by individuals or entities located in those jurisdictions) that may impact certain business activities such as vendor engagements, sale or sharing of data, employment of certain individuals, and investor agreements. Violations of the rule could lead to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties. The rule applies regardless of whether data is anonymized, key-coded, pseudonymized, de-identified or encrypted, which presents particular challenges for companies like ours and may impact our ability to engage in transactions or agreements with certain third parties in the future.

Current wording

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a rule entitled the Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, which places additional restriction on certain data transactions involving countries of concern (e.g., China, Russia, Iran) and covered persons (i.e., individuals and entities who are designated as such by the U.S. Attorney General or considered “foreign persons” and are majority owned by, organized under the laws of, a primary resident in, or a contractor of, a covered person or country of concern, as applicable) that may impact certain business activities such as vendor engagements, sale or sharing of data, employment of certain individuals, and investor agreements. Violations of the rule could lead to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties. The rule applies regardless of whether data is anonymized, key-coded, pseudonymized, de-identified or encrypted, which presents particular challenges for companies like ours and may impact our ability to engage in transactions or agreements with certain third parties in the future.

Previous wording

In the United States, there have been, and continue to be, legislative and regulatory developments regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, require direct price negotiations for certain high-expenditure, single-source prescription drugs and biologics covered by the Medicare program, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, on July 4, 2025, the annual reconciliation bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” or OBBBA, was signed into law which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. OBBBA also narrows access to Affordable Care Act, or ACA, marketplace exchange enrollment and declines to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits, set to expire in 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. In addition, there have been actions and proposals from the Trump administration that include: reducing agency workforce and cutting programs; directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. While any proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the current administration have each indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. The…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

In the United States, there have been, and continue to be, legislative and regulatory developments regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, require direct price negotiations for certain high-expenditure, single-source prescription drugs and biologics covered by the Medicare program, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, on July 4, 2025, the annual reconciliation bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” or OBBBA, was signed into law which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. OBBBA also narrows access to Affordable Care Act, or ACA, marketplace exchange enrollment and declines to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits, set to expire at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. In addition, there have been actions and proposals from the Trump administration that include: reducing agency workforce and cutting programs; directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans; and as part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s recent Strategy Report, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. In addition, on September 30, 2025, the current administration announced the first agreement with a major pharmaceutical company that requires the drug manufacturer to offer, through a direct-to-consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. While many of these proposed measure…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

In addition, the policies of the FDA, the competent authorities of the EU Member States, the EMA, the European Commission and other comparable regulatory authorities responsible for clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. Clarification on whether UK-US and US-EU trade agreements include tariffs on pharmaceuticals is uncertain due to the ongoing section 232 investigation into the sector. Several companies are exploring ways to reduce the impact of tariffs by relocating manufacturing facilities or restructuring supply chains. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which became applicable on January 31, 2022 has led to added barriers for clinical trials, including regulatory complexity and an increasing administrative burden. The European Commission launched a strategy for European life Sciences on July 4, 2025 to ensure the EU remains an attractive place for life sciences, including for conduct of clinical trials, but there is concern from industry regarding the speed at which the recommendations made in the report can be implemented. From January 12, 2025 the Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on health technology assessment will apply and the first Joint Clinical Assessments (JCA) will be performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of new innovative cancer therapies and cell and gene therapies approved by the EMA. In just three years, by January 13, 2028, these joint assessments will also be performed for all new Orphan Medicinal Products. The aim of this new procedure is to accelerate access of medicines to patients by having an inclusive procedure for health technology assessment and reduce duplication for national health technology authorities and industry. However there is concern that there are insufficient slots available for joint scientific advice during development. If advice is unavailable during development, there is a higher risk of data gaps and therefore delays in access for patients. The Council of the EU announced in June 2025 that negotiations with the European Parliament could begin on the biggest reforms to the EU laws on medicines in over 20 years, the European Council’s position is that the standard period of regulatory data protection would remain at eight years, but that the minimum length of market exclusivity after the expiry of such data protection would be reduced to one year from the current two years. The European Council, the European Parliament, and the European Commission have commenced negotiations, and the proposals could well evolve further before being finalized.

Current wording

In addition, the policies of the FDA, the competent authorities of the EU Member States, the EMA, the European Commission and other comparable regulatory authorities responsible for clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. Clarification on whether UK-US and US-EU trade agreements include tariffs on pharmaceuticals is uncertain due to the ongoing section 232 investigation into the sector. Several companies are exploring ways to reduce the impact of tariffs by relocating manufacturing facilities or restructuring supply chains. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which became applicable on January 31, 2022 has led to added barriers for clinical trials, including regulatory complexity and an increasing administrative burden. The European Commission launched a strategy for European life Sciences on July 4, 2025 to ensure the EU remains an attractive place for life sciences, including for conduct of clinical trials, but there is concern from industry regarding the speed at which the recommendations made in the report can be implemented.

Previous wording

It is currently unclear to what extent the UK will seek to align its regulations with the EU in the future. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). On January 17, 2022, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials. The UK Government published its response to the consultation on March 21, 2023, confirming that it would bring forward changes to the legislation, and such changes were laid in parliament on December 12, 2024. These resulting legislative amendments will, if implemented in their current form, bring the UK into closer alignment with the CTR. Failure of the UK to closely align its regulations with the EU may have an effect on the cost of conducting clinical trials in the UK as opposed to other countries and/or make it harder to seek a marketing authorization for the Company's product candidates on the basis of clinical trials conducted in the United Kingdom.

Current wording

The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). On January 17, 2022, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials. The UK Government published its response to the consultation on March 21, 2023, confirming that it would bring forward changes to the legislation, and such changes were laid in parliament on December 12, 2024 and signed into law on April 11, 2025. The changes include risk-proportionate regulation of clinical trials, with low-risk trials able to receive faster approval through automatic authorisation, a streamlined approval process that integrates both regulatory and ethics committee approvals, leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials, and new legal obligations mandating the registration of clinical trials in public registries and the publication of trial results within 12 months of trial conclusion.

Previous wording

Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement for our products in some European countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to compile additional data comparing the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EU Member States. The HTA Regulation has applied from January 12, 2025, although it will enter into force iteratively and initially apply to new active substances to treat cancer and to all advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), it will then be expanded to orphan medicinal products in January 2028, and to all centrally authorized medicinal products as of 2030. Selected high-risk medical devices will also be assessed under the HTA Regulation as of 2026. The HTA Regulation is intended to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the EU and permits EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the EU could be negatively affected. In light of the fact that the United Kingdom has left the EU, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA does not apply in the United Kingdom. However, MHRA is working with UK HTA bodies and other national organizations, such as the

Current wording

Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement for our products in some European countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to compile additional data comparing the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EU Member States. The HTA Regulation has applied from January 12, 2025, although it will enter into force iteratively and initially apply to new active substances to treat cancer and to all advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), it will then be expanded to orphan medicinal products in January 2028, and to all centrally authorized medicinal products as of 2030. Selected high-risk medical devices will also be assessed under the HTA Regulation as of 2026. The HTA Regulation is intended to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the EU and permits EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. However, there is concern that there are insufficient slots available for joint scientific advice during development. If advice is unavailable during development, there is a higher risk of data gaps and therefore delays in access for patients. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the EU could be negatively affected. In light of the fact that the United Kingdom has left the EU, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA does not apply in the United Kingdom. However, MHRA is working with UK HTA bodies and other national organizations, such as the Scottish Medicin…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

In addition, on April 26, 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation and on April 10, 2024, the Parliament adopted its related position. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Council. Moreover, on December 1, 2024, a new European Commission took office. The proposal could, therefore, still be subject to revisions. If adopted in the form proposed, the European Commission proposals to revise the existing EU laws governing authorization of medicinal products may result in a number of changes to the regulatory framework governing medicinal products, including a decrease in data and market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the EU and make them open to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than is currently the case with a related reduction in reimbursement status.

Current wording

In addition, on April 26, 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation. On April 10, 2024, the Parliament adopted its related position and on June 4, 2025 the European Council agreed on its position. The Council, the Parliament and the European Commission have begun trilogue negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement on the package. A decrease in data and market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the EU could make them open to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than is currently the case with a related reduction in reimbursement status.