Q32 Bio Inc.
For the period ended Dec 31, 2025. Filed Mar 10, 2026.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's yearly report to the SEC, with audited financial statements. It is the fullest account a company gives of its business, its finances and the risks it sees.
FY2025 · Filed Mar 10, 2026
QTTB$9.25+4.5%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-K
Period ended 2024-12-31; filed 2025-03-11.
0000950170-25-036823
Item 1A. Risk FactorsCurrent report: 10-K
Period ended 2025-12-31; filed 2026-03-10.
0001193125-26-099339
Item 1A. Risk FactorsThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 305 previous paragraphs and 299 current paragraphs.
224 unchanged; 52 reworded; 22 added; 27 removed; 2 previous and 1 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 0 previous and 0 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
Added paragraphs (22)
Current report
Additionally, we are currently conducting an “open-label” clinical trial. An open-label trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate. Such trials may test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in such trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. In addition, open-label trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with our product candidates when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control. In addition, we expect to rely on patients to provide feedback on measures which are subjective and inherently difficult to evaluate. These measures can be influenced by factors outside of our control, and can vary widely from day to day for a particular patient, and from patient to patient and from site to site within a clinical trial.
Current report
We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our or any future licensors’ patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could adversely affect our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.
Current report
Changes in funding for, or other disruptions to the operations of, the FDA, the SEC, the National Institute of Health (“NIH”), and other government agencies, including from government shutdowns could hinder our ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.
Current report
Disruptions at the FDA and other federal agencies, including substantial leadership departures, personnel cuts, and policy changes, may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved, which would harm our business. Changes and cuts in FDA staffing have been reported by some within the pharmaceutical industry as creating instances of delays in the FDA’s responsiveness or in its ability to review IND submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion.
Current report
With the change in the U.S. presidential administration in 2025, there have been numerous legislative changes and there continues to be substantial uncertainty as to the extent and manner in which the Trump administration will continue to modify or revise the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our product candidates and any products for which we obtain approval. This uncertainty could present new challenges and/or opportunities as we navigate development and approval of our product candidates. Additionally, the current administration could issue or promulgate executive orders, regulations, policies or guidance that adversely affect us or create a more challenging or costly environment to pursue the development of new therapeutic candidates. Also, state governments may seek to address or react to changes at the federal level with changes to their regulatory frameworks in a manner that could impact our operations.
Current report
For example, the OBBBA enacted significant Medicaid reforms, including approximately $1 trillion in federal spending reductions through 2034. Among other provisions, the legislation imposes work requirements for certain adult Medicaid enrollees, mandates more frequent eligibility redeterminations, and authorizes increased cost-sharing obligations for beneficiaries. These changes are expected to reduce overall Medicaid enrollment and limit access to care. Although the precise impact on our business is not yet clear, any reduction in the number of covered patients or reimbursement levels for our products could adversely affect our future revenue and commercial prospects.
Current report
We expect that the healthcare reform measures that have been adopted and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and could seriously harm our future revenues. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Recent CMS proposals, including the GLOBE, GUARD, and GENEROUS, could materially impact the Company’s revenue. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our products.
Current report
Our use of new and evolving technologies, such as artificial intelligence (“AI”), may present risks and challenges that can impact our business, including by posing cybersecurity and other risks to our confidential and/or proprietary information, including personal information, and as a result we may be exposed to reputational harm and liability.
Current report
We may use and integrate AI into our business processes both in our own development and implementation of AI and through the adoption of commercially available tools. Use of this technology could pose cybersecurity, data privacy, IT, intellectual property, regulatory, legal, operational, competitive, reputational and other risks and challenges that could affect our business. Specifically, risks related to accuracy, bias, AI hallucinations, discrimination, harmful content, misinformation, fraud, scams, targeted attacks (including model poisoning or data poisoning), surveillance, data leakage, inequality, environmental harms, and other harms may flow from our development, use, or deployment of AI technologies.
Current report
A growing number of legislators and regulators are adopting laws and regulations and have focused enforcement efforts on the adoption of AI and use of such technologies in compliance with ethical standards and societal expectations. These developments may increase our compliance burden and costs in connection with use of AI and lead to legal liability if we fail to meet evolving legal standards or if use of such technologies results in harms or other causes of action we did not predict. For example, the EU began implementing the Artificial Intelligence Act (the “AI Act”) on August 1, 2024, with a significant part of the law scheduled to come into effect in August 2026. As currently enacted, the AI Act, which may be amended as part of the EU’s Digital Omnibus, imposes significant obligations on providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, and encourages providers and deployers of AI systems to account for EU ethical principles in their development and use of these systems. The scope of requirements depends on judicial interpretations and forthcoming legislative amendments, and non-compliance can lead to significant fines.
Current report
In the U.S., the AI regulatory environment is complex and uncertain. Over the past year, states have advanced, and in some cases passed, dozens of laws focusing on AI governance and regulation, including on deployment of AI in healthcare settings. At the federal level, the Trump Administration has endorsed a federal moratorium on the enforcement of state AI laws, including through a December 11, 2025, executive order on “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” So far, these efforts have not been successful at curtailing state action on AI regulation, contributing to a complicated legislative patchwork, which may be litigated in state and federal courts. If we develop or use AI systems that are governed by the these laws or regulations, we will need to meet higher standards of data quality, transparency, and human oversight, and we would need to adhere to specific and potentially burdensome and costly ethical, accountability, and administrative requirements. We may also be subject to significant enforcement or litigation in the event of any perceived non-compliance.
Current report
The rapid evolution of AI will require the application of significant resources to design, develop, test and maintain our products and services to help ensure that AI is implemented in accordance with applicable law and regulation and in a socially responsible manner and to minimize any real or perceived unintended harmful impacts. Our vendors may in turn incorporate AI tools into their offerings, and the providers of these AI tools may not meet existing or rapidly evolving regulatory or industry standards, including with respect to privacy and data security. Any of these effects could damage our reputation, result in the loss of valuable property and information, cause us to breach applicable laws and regulations, and adversely impact our business. Bad actors around the world also use increasingly sophisticated methods, including the use of AI, to engage in illegal activities involving the theft and misuse of personal information, confidential information and intellectual property. Any of these effects could damage our reputation, result in the loss of valuable property and information, cause us to breach applicable laws and regulations, and adversely impact our business.
Current report
We are exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing, and use of pharmaceutical products. While we currently have no products that have been approved for commercial sale, the current and future use of a product candidate in clinical trials, and the sale of any approved products in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims may be made by patients that use the product, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, or others selling such product. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could be difficult and costly to defend and could materially and adversely affect the market for our products or any prospects for commercialization of our products. Although we believe we currently maintain adequate product liability insurance for our product candidates, it is possible that our liabilities could exceed our insurance coverage or that in the future we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired.
Current report
The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. For example, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”) was signed into law on July 4, 2025 and made significant changes to U.S. federal tax law. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect our business and financial condition. For example, under Section 174 of the Code, in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed outside the U.S. will be capitalized and amortized, which may have an adverse effect on our cash flow. The OBBBA provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed in the U.S. may, at the taxpayer’s election, be immediately deducted or capitalized and amortized. In addition, the OBBBA provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021 and before January 1, 2025, certain eligible taxpayers generally may elect to retroactively deduct expenses for research and development performed in the U.S. in such taxable years by filing amended tax returns for such taxable years, and all other taxpayers that are not eligible to make such an election and that amortized expenses for research and development performed in the U.S. in such taxable years generally may elect to accelerate and deduct the remaining unamortized amounts of such research and development expenses (i) in the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024, or (ii) ratably over the two-taxable year period beginning with the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024. In recent years, many changes to tax laws have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. We cannot predict whether, when, in what form, or with what effective dates, tax laws, regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or decided, which could result in an increase in our, or our stockholders’ tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize increases in our tax liability.
Current report
The administrator of the 2024 Plan is authorized to exercise its discretion, and has exercised such discretion, to affect the repricing of stock options and there may be adverse consequences to our business due to the exercise of discretion by the administrator of the 2024 Plan.
Current report
Pursuant to our 2024 Plan, we are authorized to grant equity awards, including stock options, to our employees, directors and consultants. Our board of directors is the administrator of the 2024 Plan and is authorized to exercise its discretion to reduce the exercise price of stock options or effect the repricing of such awards. To provide added incentives to retain and motivate key contributors, our board of directors approved the Option Repricing in February 2025. As a result of such repricing or any potential future repricing, certain proxy advisory firms or institutional investors may be unsupportive of such actions and publicly criticize our compensation practices, and proxy advisory firms may recommend an “against” or “withhold” vote for members of our compensation committee. In addition, as we hold an advisory vote on named executive officer compensation (known as the “say-on-pay” vote) at the time of, or subsequent to, any such repricing, it is likely that proxy advisory firms would issue an “against” recommendation on our say-on-pay vote and institutional investors may not be supportive of our say-on-pay vote. If proxy advisory firms or institutional investors are successful in aligning their views with our broader stockholder base and we are required to make changes to the composition of our board and its committees, or if we need to make material changes to our compensation and corporate governance practices, our business might be disrupted and our stock price might be negatively impacted. Even if we are able to successfully rationalize the exercise of such discretionary power, defending against any “against” or “withhold” recommendation for members of our compensation committee, any “against” recommendation on our say on pay vote or public criticism could be distracting to management, and responding to such positions from such firms or investors, even if remedied, can be costly and time-consuming.
Current report
In addition, we have incurred costs, including accounting and administrative costs and attorneys’ fees, and have recognized incremental compensation expense as a result of the option repricing conducted in February 2025, and may further incur significant costs or be required to recognize incremental compensation expense as a result of any potential future repricing, even absent negative reactions from proxy advisory firms and institutional investors. These actions could cause our stock price to decrease and experience periods of increased volatility, which could result in material adverse consequences to our business.
Current report
On May 19, 2025, we received written notice (the “Notice”) from the listing qualifications staff of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (the “Staff”) notifying us that, based on our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, which reported our stockholders’ equity (deficit) of approximately ($4.0 million), we were no longer in compliance with the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement of $2.5 million for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market per Listing Rule 5550(b)(1). Additionally, the Notice also stated that as of May 19, 2025, we did not meet the alternatives of market value of listed securities of $35.0 million per Listing Rule 5550(b)(2) or net income from continuing operations of $0.5 million in our most recently completed fiscal year or in two of our three most recently completed fiscal years per Listing Rule 5550(b)(3), and as such, we did not comply with the Listing Rule 5550 for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market.
Current report
Our equity (deficit) was negatively impacted by the accounting treatment associated with the re-acquisition of bempikibart from Amgen in the fourth quarter of 2023. In 2022, Legacy Q32 and Horizon entered into the Horizon Collaboration Agreement to develop bempikibart in autoimmune diseases, pursuant to which Legacy Q32 received $55.0 million from Horizon, and Horizon had an option to acquire the bempikibart program at a prespecified price, subject to certain adjustments. In October 2023, Amgen completed its acquisition of Horizon plc. Following the closing of Amgen’s acquisition of Horizon plc, Legacy Q32 and Horizon entered into the Horizon Termination Agreement, pursuant to which Horizon’s option to acquire bempikibart was terminated. As a result, the Company retained all initial consideration and development funding received and agreed to pay Horizon regulatory and sales milestone payments of up to an aggregate amount of $75.1 million upon the first achievement of certain regulatory and sales milestones with respect to bempikibart. As a result of the Horizon Termination Agreement, we recorded a $55.0 million refund liability associated with the cash received by Horizon in 2022.
Current report
On November 7, 2025, we and Amgen entered into an amendment to the Horizon Termination Agreement (the “Amgen Amendment”) pursuant to which we issued Horizon a one-time equity grant of 553,695 shares of the Company’s common stock as full consideration of the milestone payments outlined in the Horizon Termination Agreement. Following the transactions contemplated by the Amgen Amendment, we have no remaining obligations to Amgen, including with respect to the $75.1 million in regulatory and sales-based milestone payments set forth in the Horizon Collaboration Agreement. Therefore, we derecognized the refund liability previously recorded for the $55.0 million of cash received under the Horizon Collaboration Agreement. The completion of the transactions increases our stockholders’ equity by $55.0 million, which brings us back into compliance with the minimum stockholders’ equity listing requirement for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market per Listing Rule 5550(b)(1).
Current report
On November 18, 2025, we received Notice from the Staff indicating that based on the disclosure in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2025, we are in compliance with the stockholders’ equity requirement for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market per Listing Rule 5550(b)(1).
Current report
Should we fail to satisfy other continued listing requirements of Nasdaq, such as the corporate governance requirements or the minimum share price requirement, or fail to regain compliance with Listing Rule 550(b)(1), Nasdaq may take steps to delist our securities. Such a delisting would likely have a negative effect on the price of the securities and would impair your ability to sell or purchase the securities when you wish to do so. In the event of a delisting, any action taken by us to restore compliance with listing requirements may not allow our securities to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our securities, prevent our securities from dropping below the Nasdaq minimum share price requirement or prevent future non-compliance with Nasdaq’s listing requirements. Additionally, if our securities are not listed on, or become delisted from Nasdaq for any reason, and are quoted on the over-the-counter bulletin board, an inter-dealer automated quotation system for equity securities that is not a national securities exchange, the liquidity and price of our securities may be more limited than if we were quoted or listed on Nasdaq or another national securities exchange.
Removed paragraphs (27)
Previous report
regulators or Institutional Review Boards, or IRBs, the FDA or ethics committees may not authorize us or our investigators to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;
Previous report
Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors have in the past and may in the future be employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, it may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. An inability to incorporate such technologies or features would harm our business and may prevent us from successfully commercializing our technologies or product candidates. In addition, we may lose personnel as a result of such claims and any such litigation, or the threat thereof, may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with independent contractors. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize our technologies, or product candidates, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.
Previous report
The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights, whether owned or in-licensed, is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, provide a barrier to entry against our competitors or potential competitors, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. Moreover, if a third party has intellectual property rights that cover the practice of our technology, we may not be able to fully exercise or extract value from our intellectual property rights. The factors that may limit any potential competitive advantage provided by our intellectual property rights include:
Previous report
Our product candidates for which it intends to seek approval as biologics may face competition sooner than anticipated.
Previous report
Our strategic refocus and the associated workforce reduction announced in February 2025 may not result in anticipated cost savings, could result in total costs and expenses that are greater than expected and could disrupt our business.
Previous report
In February 2025, we announced a reduction in workforce in connection with the strategic refocus of our business to prioritize and focus on the advancement of bempikibart in patients with alopecia areata. We may not realize, in full or in part, the anticipated benefits, savings and improvements in our operating structure from our restructuring efforts due to unforeseen difficulties, delays or unexpected costs. If we are unable to realize the expected operational efficiencies and cost savings from the restructuring, our results of operation and financial condition would be adversely affected. We expect to incur additional costs as we recognize one-time employee termination-related charges. We also cannot guarantee that we will not have to undertake additional workforce reductions or restructuring activities in the future. Furthermore, our strategic restructuring plan may be disruptive to our operations. For example, our workforce reductions could yield unanticipated consequences, such as attrition beyond planned staff reductions, increased difficulties in our day-to-day operations and reduced employee morale. If employees who were not affected by the reduction in force seek alternate employment, this could result in us seeking contract support which may result in unplanned additional expense or harm our productivity. Our workforce reductions could also harm our ability to attract and retain qualified management, scientific, and clinical personnel who are critical to our business. Any failure to attract or retain qualified personnel could prevent us from successfully developing our product candidates in the future.
Previous report
Our market opportunity estimates and growth forecasts are subject to significant uncertainty and are based on assumptions and estimates which may not prove to be accurate. Our estimates and forecasts relating to size and expected growth of our target market may prove to be inaccurate. Even if the markets in which we compete meet our size estimates and growth forecasts, our business may not grow at similar rates, or at all. Our growth is subject to many factors, including our success in implementing our business strategy, which is subject to many risks and uncertainties.
Previous report
The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect our business and financial condition. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. In 2017, the U.S. Congress and the Trump administration made substantial changes to U.S. policies, which included comprehensive corporate and individual tax reform. In addition, the Trump administration called for significant changes to U.S. trade, healthcare, immigration and government regulatory policy. With the transition to the Biden administration in early 2021, changes to U.S. policy occurred and since the start of the Trump Administration in 2025, U.S. policy changes have been implemented at a rapid pace and additional changes are likely. Changes to U.S. policy implemented by the U.S. Congress, the Trump administration or any new administration have impacted and may in the future impact, among other things, the U.S. and global economy, international trade relations, unemployment, immigration, healthcare, taxation, the U.S. regulatory environment, inflation and other areas. Although we cannot predict the impact, if any, of these changes to our business, they could adversely affect our business. Until we know what policy changes are made, whether those policy changes are challenged and subsequently upheld by the court system and how those changes impact our business and the business of our competitors over the long term, we will not know if, overall, we will benefit from them or be negatively affected by them.
Previous report
Risks Related to Our Operations Following the Merger
Previous report
If any of the events described in “Risks Related to Our Business” occur, those events could cause potential benefits of the Merger not to be realized. To the extent any of the events in the risks described in that section occurs, the potential benefits of the Merger may not be realized and our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected in a material way. This could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.
Previous report
We may be unable to successfully integrate Homology’s and Legacy Q32’s businesses and realize the anticipated benefits of the Merger.
Previous report
The Merger involved the combination of two companies that operated as independent companies. Following the Merger, we are required to devote significant management attention and resources to integrating our business practices and operations. We may fail to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of the Merger if the integration process takes longer than expected or is more costly than expected. Potential difficulties we may encounter in the integration process include the following:
Previous report
the inability to successfully combine our businesses in a manner that permits us to achieve the anticipated benefits from the Merger, which would result in the anticipated benefits of the Merger not being realized partly or wholly in the time frame currently anticipated or at all;
Previous report
potential unknown liabilities and unforeseen increased expenses, delays or regulatory conditions associated with the Merger.
Previous report
In addition, prior to the Merger, we operated independently. It is possible that the integration process also could result in the diversion of our management’s attention, the disruption or interruption of, or the loss of momentum in our ongoing businesses or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies, any of which could adversely affect our ability to maintain our business relationships or the ability to achieve the anticipated benefits of the Merger, or could otherwise adversely affect our business and financial results.
Previous report
Stockholders could file lawsuits relating to the Merger.
Previous report
Potential plaintiffs may file lawsuits relating to the Merger. The outcome of any future litigation is uncertain. Such litigation, if not resolved, could result in substantial costs to us, including any costs associated with the indemnification of directors and officers.
Previous report
We will continue to incur additional costs and increased demands upon management as a result of complying with the laws and regulations affecting public companies.
Previous report
We will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses as a public company, including costs associated with public company reporting obligations under the Exchange Act. Our management team consists of the executive officers of Legacy Q32 prior to the Merger, some of whom have not previously managed and operated a public company. These executive officers and other personnel will need to devote substantial time to gaining expertise related to public company reporting requirements and compliance with applicable laws and regulations to ensure that we comply with all of such requirements. Any changes we make to comply with these obligations may not be sufficient to allow us to satisfy our obligations as a public company on a timely basis, or at all. These reporting requirements, rules and regulations, coupled with the increase in potential litigation exposure associated with being a public company, could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on the board of directors or on board committees or to serve as executive officers, or to obtain certain types of insurance, including directors’ and officers’ insurance, on acceptable terms.
Previous report
We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, which requires, among other things, that we file with the SEC, annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition as well as other disclosure and corporate governance requirements. As an emerging growth company, Homology took advantage of exemptions from various requirements such as an exemption from the requirement to have our independent auditors attest to our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as well as an exemption from the “say on pay” voting requirements pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Homology ceased to qualify as an emerging growth company effective December 31, 2023. We qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” as such term is defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, which allows us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our other periodic reports and proxy statements. Once we are no longer a smaller reporting company or otherwise no longer qualify for these exemptions, we will be required to comply with these additional legal and regulatory requirements applicable to public companies and will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses to do so. If we are not able to comply with the requirements in a timely manner or at all, our financial condition or the market price of our common stock may be harmed. For example, if we identify, or if our independent auditor identifies deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, we could face additional costs to remedy those deficiencies, the market price of our stock could decline or we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources.
Previous report
Provided we continue to be listed on Nasdaq, we will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and regulations of Nasdaq. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We must perform system and process evaluations and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filing for that year, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As a private company, Legacy Q32 was never required to test its internal controls within a specified period. This will require that we incur substantial professional fees and internal costs to expand our accounting and finance functions and that we expend significant management efforts. We may experience difficulty in meeting these reporting requirements in a timely manner.
Previous report
Legacy Q32 and its independent registered public accounting firm identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, which has been remediated as of December 31, 2024. If we identify additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, which may adversely affect our business and the market price of our common stock.
Previous report
In preparation of its consolidated financial statements to meet the requirements applicable to the Merger, Legacy Q32 and its independent registered public accounting firm identified a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.
Previous report
The material weakness identified related to deficiencies in Legacy Q32’s controls over complex accounting topics. Specifically, Legacy Q32’s accounting and internal control infrastructure did not allow for adequate review processes over complex accounting topics due to lack of sufficient personnel. Due to this material weakness, material errors were identified and corrected in Legacy Q32’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2023.
Previous report
We have implemented measures designed to improve internal controls over financial reporting to remediate the control deficiencies that led to the material weakness, including strengthening reviews by our finance team and expanding our accounting and finance team to add additional qualified accounting and finance resources, which includes augmenting our finance team with third party consultants that possess the required expertise to assist management with its review of complex accounting topics.
Previous report
We implemented and formally documented improved processes and controls, including process narratives and risk and control matrices, to appropriately mitigate risks of material misstatement to the financial statements. We implemented enhanced procedures to make sure all steps are being performed as part of the control procedures to detect any material issues, and that the correct individuals are assigned as control owners to ensure that an appropriate, sufficient, and independent review is taking place. Our remediated controls have been operating for a sufficient period of time and we have concluded, through testing, that these controls are operating effectively and that the material weakness is remediated as of December 31, 2024.
Previous report
We cannot assure you that the measures we have taken to date, and actions we may take in the future, will prevent or avoid potential future material weaknesses. In addition, our independent registered public accounting firm has not performed an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act because no such evaluation has been required. Had Legacy Q32 or its independent registered public accounting firm performed an evaluation of its internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, additional material weaknesses may have been identified. If we are unable to successfully remediate any future material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, or identify any additional material weaknesses in the future, or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting may be adversely affected, we may be unable to maintain compliance with securities law requirements regarding timely filing of periodic reports in addition to applicable stock exchange listing requirements, investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting, and the market price of our common stock may decline as a result.
Reworded paragraphs (52)
Previous wording
You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. We operate in a dynamic and rapidly changing industry that involves numerous risks and uncertainties. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Other risks and uncertainties, including those that we do not currently consider material, may impair our business. If any of the risks discussed below actually occur, our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows could be materially adversely affected. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including the risks we face as described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Current wording
You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). We operate in a dynamic and rapidly changing industry that involves numerous risks and uncertainties. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Other risks and uncertainties, including those that we do not currently consider material, may impair our business. If any of the risks discussed below actually occur, our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows could be materially adversely affected. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including the risks we face as described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Previous wording
We have incurred recurring operating losses since inception. Our net loss for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023 was $47.7 million and $53.7 million, respectively. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future. Our operating expenses and net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:
Current wording
We have incurred recurring operating losses since inception. During the year ended December 31, 2025, we had net income of $29.8 million as a result of the collaboration revenue recognized upon the execution of the Amgen Amendment. Our net loss for the year ended December 31, 2024, was $47.7 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future. Our operating expenses and net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:
Previous wording
establish commercial-scale current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, capabilities through a third-party or our own manufacturing facility.
Current wording
establish commercial-scale current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”) capabilities through a third-party or our own manufacturing facility.
Previous wording
In addition, our expenses will increase if, among other things, we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, or other regulatory authorities to perform trials or studies in addition to, or different than, those that we currently anticipate, there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any product candidates, or there are any third-party challenges to our intellectual property or we need to defend against any intellectual property-related claim.
Current wording
In addition, our expenses will increase if, among other things, we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), or other regulatory authorities to perform trials or studies in addition to, or different than, those that we currently anticipate, there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any product candidates, or there are any third-party challenges to our intellectual property or we need to defend against any intellectual property-related claim.
Previous wording
We will also incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. We will require substantial additional funding to continue our operations. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments should be sufficient to fund our operations to the second half of 2026. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:
Current wording
We will continue to incur costs associated with operating as a public company. We will require substantial additional funding to continue our operations. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents, combined with gross proceeds from our registered direct offering completed in February 2026 and guaranteed near-term milestone payments from the ADX-097 Asset Sale, should be sufficient to fund our operations into the fourth quarter of 2027. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:
Previous wording
the timing and progress of preclinical and clinical development activities, including our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial for bempikibart in alopecia areata, or AA;
Current wording
the timing and progress of preclinical and clinical development activities, including our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial for bempikibart in alopecia areata (“AA”);
Previous wording
our arrangements with our contract development and manufacturing organizations, or CDMOs, and contract research organizations, or CROs;
Current wording
our arrangements with our contract development and manufacturing organizations (“CDMOs”), and contract research organizations (“CROs”);
Previous wording
We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company with limited operating history. Since our inception in 2017, we have incurred significant operating losses and have utilized substantially all of our resources to conduct research and development activities (including with respect to our bempikibart and ADX-097 programs) and undertake preclinical studies of product candidates, as well as for conducting clinical trials of our most advanced product candidates and the manufacturing of such product candidates, business planning, developing and maintaining our intellectual property portfolio, hiring personnel, raising capital, and providing general and administrative support for these activities. We have limited significant experience as a company in initiating, conducting or completing clinical trials. In part because of this lack of experience, we cannot be certain that our current and planned clinical trials will begin or be completed on time, if at all. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete Phase 3 or other pivotal clinical trials, obtain regulatory or marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales, marketing and distribution activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Additionally, we expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from period to period due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Consequently, any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.
Current wording
We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company with limited operating history. Since our inception in 2017, we have incurred significant operating losses and have utilized substantially all of our resources to conduct research and development activities (including with respect to our bempikibart program) and undertake preclinical studies of product candidates, as well as for conducting clinical trials of our most advanced product candidates and the manufacturing of such product candidates, business planning, developing and maintaining our intellectual property portfolio, hiring personnel, raising capital, and providing general and administrative support for these activities. We have limited significant experience as a company in initiating, conducting or completing clinical trials. In part because of this lack of experience, we cannot be certain that our current and planned clinical trials will begin or be completed on time, if at all. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete Phase 3 or other pivotal clinical trials, obtain regulatory or marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales, marketing and distribution activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Additionally, we expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from period to period due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Consequently, any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.
Previous wording
Commencing clinical trials in the U.S. is subject to the FDA allowing an Investigational New Drug Application, or IND, to proceed after an evaluation of the proposed clinical trial design. In the event that the FDA requires us to complete additional preclinical studies or we are required to satisfy other FDA requests prior to commencing clinical trials, the start of our clinical trials may be delayed. Even after we receive and incorporate guidance from the FDA, the FDA could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence any clinical trial or change their position on the acceptability of our trial design or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, delay the enrollment of our clinical trials or impose stricter approval conditions than we currently expect. There are comparable processes and risks applicable to clinical trial applications needed to initiate clinical trials in other countries, including countries in the European Union, or EU.
Current wording
Commencing clinical trials in the U.S. is subject to the FDA allowing an Investigational New Drug Application (“IND”) to proceed after an evaluation of the proposed clinical trial design. In the event that the FDA requires us to complete additional preclinical studies or we are required to satisfy other FDA requests prior to commencing clinical trials, the start of our clinical trials may be delayed. Even after we receive and incorporate guidance from the FDA, the FDA could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence any clinical trial or change their position on the acceptability of our trial design or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, delay the enrollment of our clinical trials or impose stricter approval conditions than we currently expect. There are comparable processes and risks applicable to clinical trial applications needed to initiate clinical trials in other countries, including countries in the European Union (“EU”).
Previous wording
Our future success is substantially dependent on our, or our current or future strategic partners’, ability to timely obtain marketing approval for, and then successfully commercialize, our most advanced product candidate, bempikibart. We are investing a majority of our efforts and financial resources into the research and development of bempikibart. We are developing bempikibart to treat autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, with the aim of achieving the optimal balance of efficacy, tolerability and convenience for patients via infrequently administered subcutaneous doses. We have completed a Phase 1 double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose and multiple dose study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetic, or PK, and pharmacodynamic, or PD, of bempikibart after subcutaneous administration in healthy subjects. This study supported further evaluation of bempikibart, including through demonstration of a PK/PD profile supporting evaluation of every two-week subcutaneous dosing in clinical trials. Subsequent to this study, we advanced bempikibart into two Phase 2a clinical trials. The Phase 2a SIGNAL-AD trial evaluated the use of bempikibart for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, or AD, and the Phase 2a SIGNAL-AA trial is evaluating bempikibart for the treatment of alopecia areata, or AA. We completed enrollment and dosing through the 12-week and 24-week periods for the SIGNAL-AD and SIGNAL-AA trials, respectively, and in December 2024, we announced topline data from both clinical trials. The success of bempikibart may depend on having a comparable safety and efficacy profile and a more favorable dosing schedule (i.e., less frequent dosing) with patient-friendly administration (i.e., S.C. self-administration) to products currently approved or in development for the indications we plan to pursue.
Current wording
Our future success is substantially dependent on our, or our current or future strategic partners’, ability to timely obtain marketing approval for, and then successfully commercialize, our most advanced product candidate, bempikibart. We are investing a majority of our efforts and financial resources into the research and development of bempikibart. We are developing bempikibart to treat autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, with the aim of achieving the optimal balance of efficacy, tolerability and convenience for patients via infrequently administered subcutaneous doses. We have completed a Phase 1 double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose and multiple dose study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetic (“PK”) and pharmacodynamic (“PD”) of bempikibart after subcutaneous administration in healthy subjects. This study supported further evaluation of bempikibart, including through demonstration of a PK/PD profile supporting evaluation of every two-week subcutaneous dosing in clinical trials. Subsequent to this study, we advanced bempikibart into two Phase 2a clinical trials. The Phase 2a SIGNAL-AD trial evaluated the use of bempikibart for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (“AD”) and the Phase 2a SIGNAL-AA trial is evaluating bempikibart for the treatment of alopecia areata (“AA”). We completed enrollment and dosing through the 12-week and 24-week periods for the SIGNAL-AD and SIGNAL-AA trials, respectively, and in December 2024, we announced topline data from both clinical trials, as well as our intention to advance bempikibart for the treatment of AA. In April 2025, we announced dosing of the first patients in both the Part A open-label extension and Part B of the SIGNAL-AA Phase 2a clinical trials and in October 2025, we announced completion of enrollment in Part B of the SIGNAL-AA Phase 2a clinical trial. The success of bempikibart may depend on having a comparable safety and efficacy profile and a more favorable dosing schedule (i.e., less frequent dosing) with patient-friendly administration (i.e., S.C. self-administration) to products currently approved or in development for the indications we plan to pursue.
Previous wording
We previously completed a Phase 1 clinical trial of ADX-097 in healthy volunteers and initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial of this candidate. However, in February 2025, we announced that we were discontinuing the Phase 2 clinical trial of ADX-097 to focus our resources on the bempikibart clinical development program.
Current wording
We previously completed a Phase 1 clinical trial of ADX-097 in healthy volunteers and initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial of this candidate. However, in November 2025, we sold to Akebia substantially all of our assets related to the research, development, manufacture and commercialization of ADX-097. Following the sale, Akebia will be responsible for any future development and commercialization of ADX-097.
Previous wording
Our approach to the discovery and/or development of bempikibart leverages the understanding of cytokine and complement biology in diverse tissues and indications. Bempikibart is directed at target pathways, IL-7 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, or TSLP, signaling, that have been implicated in several inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. However, the scientific research that forms the basis of efforts to develop bempikibart is ongoing and has not been successfully proven in clinical trials. The long-term safety and exposure profile of bempikibart is also unknown.
Current wording
Our approach to the discovery and/or development of bempikibart leverages the understanding of cytokine and complement biology in diverse tissues and indications. Bempikibart is directed at target pathways, IL-7 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (“TSLP”) signaling, that have been implicated in several inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. However, the scientific research that forms the basis of efforts to develop bempikibart is ongoing and has not been successfully proven in clinical trials. The long-term safety and exposure profile of bempikibart is also unknown.
Previous wording
We may ultimately discover that our technologies for our specific targets and indications and bempikibart and any product candidates resulting therefrom do not possess certain properties required for therapeutic effectiveness. We currently have only data from our Phase 1 clinical trial and our Phase 2 Part A AA and AD clinical trials related to bempikibart, and only data from our Phase 1 clinical trial regarding properties of ADX-097, and the same data or results may not be seen in larger, later-stage clinical trials. In addition, product candidates using investigational technologies and approaches may demonstrate different chemical and pharmacological properties in patients than they do in laboratory studies and bempikibart and ADX-097 may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or possibly harmful ways.
Current wording
We may ultimately discover that our technologies for our specific targets and indications and bempikibart and any product candidates resulting therefrom do not possess certain properties required for therapeutic effectiveness. For our lead candidate, we currently have only data from our Phase 1 clinical trial and our Phase 2 Part A AA and AD clinical trials, and the same data or results may not be seen in larger, later-stage clinical trials. In addition, product candidates using investigational technologies and approaches may demonstrate different chemical and pharmacological properties in patients than they do in laboratory studies and bempikibart may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or possibly harmful ways.
Previous wording
Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical studies and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidate in humans. Our clinical trials may not be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all, and failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study or clinical trial process. For example, we depend on the availability of non-human primates, or NHPs, to conduct certain preclinical studies that we are required to complete prior to submitting an IND and initiating clinical development. There is currently a global shortage of certain types of NHPs available for Good Laboratory Practice, or GLP, testing for drug development. This could cause the cost of obtaining NHPs for our future preclinical studies to increase significantly, and if the shortage continues, and could result in delays to our development timelines. Furthermore, a failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials. 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 approval of their product candidates. In addition, we expect to rely on patients to provide feedback on measures, which are subjective and inherently difficult to evaluate. These measures can be influenced by factors outside of our control, and can vary widely from day to day for a particular patient, and from patient to patient and from site to site within a clinical trial.
Current wording
Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical studies and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidate in humans. Our clinical trials may not be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all, and failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study or clinical trial process. For example, we depend on the availability of non-human primates (“NHPs”) to conduct certain preclinical studies that we are required to complete prior to submitting an IND and initiating clinical development. There is currently a global shortage of certain types of NHPs available for Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) testing for drug development. This could cause the cost of obtaining NHPs for our future preclinical studies to increase significantly, and if the shortage continues, and could result in delays to our development timelines. Furthermore, a failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials. 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 approval of their product candidates.
Previous wording
Although we plan to seek regulatory guidance in designing and conducting our development plans, we cannot be sure that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will agree with these plans. If the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities requires us to revise or amend a clinical study, generate additional pre-clinical data in support of clinical conduct (e.g., toxicology studies), conduct additional trials or enroll additional patients, our development timelines may be delayed. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND, clinical trial application, or CTA, or similar application will result in the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as applicable, allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials begin, issues may arise that could cause regulatory authorities to suspend or terminate such clinical trials. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include:
Current wording
Although we plan to seek regulatory guidance in designing and conducting our development plans, we cannot be sure that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will agree with these plans. If the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities requires us to revise or amend a clinical trial, generate additional pre-clinical data in support of clinical conduct (e.g., toxicology studies), conduct additional trials or enroll additional patients, our development timelines may be delayed. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND, clinical trial application (“CTA”) or similar application will result in the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as applicable, allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials begin, issues may arise that could cause regulatory authorities to suspend or terminate such clinical trials. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include:
Previous wording
failure to perform in accordance with the FDA’s or any other regulatory authority’s Good Clinical Practices, or GCPs, or regulations or applicable regulations or regulatory guidelines in other countries;
Current wording
failure to perform in accordance with the FDA’s or any other regulatory authority’s Good Clinical Practices (“GCPs”), or regulations or applicable regulations or regulatory guidelines in other countries;
Previous wording
We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is placed on clinical hold, suspended or terminated by us, the FDA, the competent authorities of the EU Member States or other regulatory authorities or the IRBs or ethics committees of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, if a clinical trial is recommended for suspension or termination by the data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, or equivalent body for such trial, or on account of changes to federal, state, or local laws. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of bempikibart or any other product candidates beyond those that we contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of bempikibart or any other product candidates, if the results of these trials are not positive or are only moderately positive or if there are safety concerns, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected and we may incur significant additional costs.
Current wording
We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is placed on clinical hold, suspended or terminated by us, the FDA, the competent authorities of the EU Member States or other regulatory authorities or the IRBs or ethics committees of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, if a clinical trial is recommended for suspension or termination by the data safety monitoring board (“DSMB”), or equivalent body for such trial, or on account of changes to federal, state, or local laws. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of bempikibart or any other product candidates beyond those that we contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of bempikibart or any other product candidates, if the results of these trials are not positive or are only moderately positive or if there are safety concerns, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected and we may incur significant additional costs.
Previous wording
Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects, adverse events or unexpected characteristics. While our completed preclinical studies and our completed and ongoing clinical trials in humans have not shown any such characteristics to date, significant further evaluation must be done of each of our product candidates. If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to such trials, patients may drop out of our trials, patients may be harmed, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of one or more product candidates altogether. We, the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, or other applicable regulatory authorities, or an IRB or ethics committee, may suspend any clinical trials of bempikibart or any other product candidates at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects or patients in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Some potential products developed in the biotechnology industry that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage trials have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude a product candidate from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance of an approved product due to its tolerability versus other therapies. Treatment-emergent adverse events could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete our clinical trials or could result in potential product liability claims. Potential side effects associated with bempikibart or any other product candidates may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from bempikibart or any other product candidates may not be normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. Any of these occurrences could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.
Current wording
Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects, adverse events or unexpected characteristics. While our completed preclinical studies and our completed and ongoing clinical trials in humans have not shown any such characteristics to date, significant further evaluation must be done of each of our product candidates. If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to such trials, patients may drop out of our trials, patients may be harmed, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of one or more product candidates altogether. We, the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (the “EMA”), or other applicable regulatory authorities, or an IRB or ethics committee, may suspend any clinical trials of bempikibart or any other product candidates at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects or patients in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Some potential products developed in the biotechnology industry that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage trials have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude a product candidate from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance of an approved product due to its tolerability versus other therapies. Treatment-emergent adverse events could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete our clinical trials or could result in potential product liability claims. Potential side effects associated with bempikibart or any other product candidates may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from bempikibart or any other product candidates may not be normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. Any of these occurrences could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.
Previous wording
Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we intend to focus our research and development efforts on certain selected product candidates. For example, we initially focused on our most advanced product candidates, bempikibart and ADX-097, and announced in February 2025 that we were discontinuing our ongoing clinical trial of ADX-097 to focus on the bempikibart clinical development program. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other potential candidates that may later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such candidate.
Current wording
Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we intend to focus our research and development efforts on certain selected product candidates. For example, we initially focused on our most advanced product candidates, bempikibart and ADX-097, and in November 2025, we sold to Akebia substantially all of our assets related to the research, development, manufacture and commercialization of ADX-097. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other potential candidates that may later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such candidate.
Previous wording
We are early in our development efforts and will need to successfully complete later-stage and pivotal clinical trials in order to obtain FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory approval to market our product candidates. Carrying out clinical trials and the submission of a successful IND or CTA is a complicated process. As an organization, we have limited experience as a company in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings. We may not be able to initiate or complete our planned clinical trials in accordance with our desired timelines. For example, we may experience manufacturing delays or other delays with IND-or CTA-enabling studies, including with suppliers, study sites, or third-party contractors and vendors on whom we depend. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND or a CTA or submission of a trial to an IND or a CTA will result in the FDA or EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities allowing further clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that lead us to suspend or terminate clinical trials. Upon submission of an IND or CTA, the FDA or EMA may recommend changes to the proposed study designs, which may impact the number and size of registrational clinical trials required to be conducted in such development programs and may change predicted timelines for clinical development. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to regulatory submission and approval of our product candidates. Additionally, even if regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND or a CTA, such regulatory authorities may change their requirements in the future. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require the analysis of data from trials assessing different doses of the product candidate alone or in combination with other therapies to justify the selected dose prior to the initiation of large trials in a specific indication. Any delays or failure to file INDs or CTAs, initiate clinical trials, or obtain regulatory authorizations for our trials may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely basis, if at all. We are subject to similar risks related to the review and authorization of our protocols and amendments by comparable foreign regulatory authorities.
Current wording
We are early in our development efforts and will need to successfully complete later-stage and pivotal clinical trials in order to obtain FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory approval to market our product candidates. Carrying out clinical trials and the submission of a successful IND or CTA is a complicated process. As an organization, we have limited experience as a company in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings. We may not be able to initiate or complete our planned clinical trials in accordance with our desired timelines. For example, we may experience manufacturing delays or other delays with IND-or CTA-enabling studies, including with suppliers, trial sites, or third-party contractors and vendors on whom we depend. Moreover, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND or a CTA or submission of a trial to an IND or a CTA will result in the FDA or EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities allowing further clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that lead us to suspend or terminate clinical trials. Upon submission of an IND or CTA, the FDA or EMA may recommend changes to the proposed trial designs, which may impact the number and size of registrational clinical trials required to be conducted in such development programs and may change predicted timelines for clinical development. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to regulatory submission and approval of our product candidates. Additionally, even if regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND or a CTA, such regulatory authorities may change their requirements in the future. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require the analysis of data from trials assessing different doses of the product candidate alone or in combination with other therapies to justify the selected dose prior to the initiation of large trials in a specific indication. Any delays or failure to file INDs or CTAs, initiate clinical trials, or obtain regulatory authorizations for our trials may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely basis, if at all. We are subject to similar risks related to the review and authorization of our protocols and amendments by comparable foreign regulatory authorities.
Previous wording
The issuance of a patent does not ensure that it is valid or enforceable, nor does it give us the right to practice the patented invention. Issued patents may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented and third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or technologies. While we endeavor to identify and circumvent third-party patents and patent applications which may block our product candidates or technologies to minimize this risk, relevant documents may be overlooked or missed, which may in turn impact our ability to commercialize the relevant asset.
Current wording
The issuance of a patent does not ensure that it is valid or enforceable, nor does it give us the right to practice the patented invention. Issued patents may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented and third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or technologies. While we endeavor to identify and circumvent third-party patents and patent applications which may block our product candidates or technologies to minimize this risk, relevant documents may be overlooked or missed, which may in turn impact our ability to commercialize the relevant asset. In addition, court decisions may introduce uncertainty in the enforceability or scope of patents owned by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Thus, any of our issued patents, including patents that we may rely on to protect our market for approved drugs, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction.
Previous wording
We are dependent on patents rights, know-how and proprietary technology licensed from third parties. In particular, we depend substantially on our license agreement with Bristol Myers Squibb Company, or BMS, under which we in-license patent rights and know-how that cover bempikibart, or BMS Agreement, and The Regents of the University of Colorado, or Colorado Agreement, under which we in-license patent rights and know-how relating to ADX-097. For more information regarding the BMS Agreement and Colorado Agreement, please see the section titled “Business–Collaboration and License Agreements.” We may also enter into additional agreements with third parties in the future.
Current wording
We are dependent on patents rights, know-how and proprietary technology licensed from third parties. In particular, we depend substantially on our license agreement with Bristol Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”), under which we in-license patent rights and know-how that cover bempikibart (the “BMS Agreement”). For more information regarding the BMS Agreement, please see the section titled “Business–Collaboration and License Agreements” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We may also enter into additional agreements with third parties in the future.
Previous wording
Our current and future license agreements may impose diligence, development and commercialization timelines, milestone payments, royalties, indemnification, insurance, or other obligations on us. For example, under both the BMS License Agreement and Colorado Agreement, the counterparties may terminate the agreements if we fail to meet our diligence obligations, including using commercially reasonable efforts to meet diligence milestones by specified dates. If we fail to comply with our obligations to our licensors or collaborators, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in us having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology that are necessary for our business.
Current wording
Our current and future license agreements may impose diligence, development and commercialization timelines, milestone payments, royalties, indemnification, insurance, or other obligations on us. For example, under the BMS License Agreement, the counterparty may terminate the agreement if we fail to meet our diligence obligations, including using commercially reasonable efforts to meet diligence milestones by specified dates. If we fail to comply with our obligations to our licensors or collaborators, our counterparty may have the right to terminate this agreement. Termination of this agreement or reduction or elimination of our rights under this agreement may result in us having to negotiate a new or reinstated agreement with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under this agreement, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology that are necessary for our business.
Previous wording
Our current or future licensors may retain certain rights under the relevant agreements with us, including the right to use the underlying product candidates for academic and research use, to publish general scientific findings from research related to the product candidates, to make customary scientific and scholarly disclosures of information relating to the product candidates, or to develop or commercialize the licensed product candidates in certain regions. In addition, the United States federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, or Bayh-Dole Act, including a “nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license” for its own benefit. We may at times choose to collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development that are subject to the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with “march-in rights.” March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license” to a “responsible applicant or applicants.” If the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the license itself.
Current wording
Our current or future licensors may retain certain rights under the relevant agreements with us, including the right to use the underlying product candidates for academic and research use, to publish general scientific findings from research related to the product candidates, to make customary scientific and scholarly disclosures of information relating to the product candidates, or to develop or commercialize the licensed product candidates in certain regions. In addition, the United States federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (the “Bayh-Dole Act”), including a “nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license” for its own benefit. We may at times choose to collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development that are subject to the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with “march-in rights.” March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license” to a “responsible applicant or applicants.” If the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the license itself.
Previous wording
Periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and foreign patent agencies over the lifetime of a patent. In addition, the USPTO and other foreign patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent failure to make payment of such fees or to comply with such provisions can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which such non-compliance will result in the abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, and the partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, and non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents within prescribed time limits. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our drug candidates or if we or our licensors otherwise allow our patents or patent applications to be abandoned or lapse, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would hurt our competitive position and could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates in any indication for which they are approved.
Current wording
Periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) and foreign patent agencies over the lifetime of a patent. In addition, the USPTO and other foreign patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent failure to make payment of such fees or to comply with such provisions can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which such non-compliance will result in the abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, and the partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, and non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents within prescribed time limits. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our drug candidates or if we or our licensors otherwise allow our patents or patent applications to be abandoned or lapse, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would hurt our competitive position and could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates in any indication for which they are approved.
Previous wording
Purple Book, a searchable, online database that contains information about biological products, including biosimilar and interchangeable biological products, licensed (approved) by the FDA under the Public Health Service Act. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Purple Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Purple Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If any of our product candidates are approved and patents covering such product candidates not listed in the Purple Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such product candidates.
Current wording
Also, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Licensed Biological Products with Reference Product Exclusivity and Biosimilarity or Interchangeability Evaluations (the “Purple Book”), a searchable, online database that contains information about biological products, including biosimilar and interchangeable biological products, licensed (approved) by the FDA under the Public Health Service Act. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Purple Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Purple Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If any of our product candidates are approved and patents covering such product candidates not listed in the Purple Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such product candidates.
Previous wording
Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of patent laws in the U.S., including patent reform legislation such as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our future owned and in-licensed patent applications and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our owned and in-licensed issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These changes include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents, and enable third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to challenge the validity of a patent at USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the U.S., the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the U.S., the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the U.S. transitioned to a first-to-file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. As such, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Current wording
Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of patent laws in the U.S., including patent reform legislation such as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “Leahy-Smith Act”), could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our future owned and in-licensed patent applications and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our owned and in-licensed issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These changes include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents, and enable third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to challenge the validity of a patent at USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the U.S., the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the U.S., the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the U.S. transitioned to a first-to-file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. As such, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Previous wording
Moreover, in 2012, the European Union Patent Package, or EU Patent Package, regulations were passed with the goal of providing a single pan-European Unitary Patent, or UP, covering all participating European Union member states, and a new European Unified Patent Court, UPC, for litigation involving European patents including all UPs. The EU Patent Package was implemented on June 1, 2023. As a result, all European patents, including those issued prior to ratification of the EU Patent Package, now by default automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the UPC. It is uncertain how the UPC will impact granted European patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Our European patent applications, if issued, could be challenged in the UPC if not opted out. During the first seven years of the UPC’s existence, the UPC legislation allows a patent owner to opt its European patents out of the jurisdiction of the UPC. We may decide to opt out our future European patents from the UPC, but doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits of the UPC. Moreover, if we do not meet all of the formalities and requirements for opt-out under the UPC before the prescribed deadlines, our future European patents could remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC. The UPC will provide our competitors with a new forum to centrally revoke its European patents that have not been opted out, and allow for the possibility of a competitor to obtain pan-European injunction. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize our technology and product candidates and, resultantly, on our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations.
Current wording
Moreover, in 2012, the European Union Patent Package (“EU Patent Package”) regulations were passed with the goal of providing a single pan-European Unitary Patent (“UP”), covering all participating European Union member states, and a new European Unified Patent Court, UPC, for litigation involving European patents including all UPs. The EU Patent Package was implemented on June 1, 2023. As a result, all European patents, including those issued prior to ratification of the EU Patent Package, now by default automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the UPC. It is uncertain how the UPC will impact granted European patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Our European patent applications, if issued, could be challenged in the UPC if not opted out. During the first seven years of the UPC’s existence, the UPC legislation allows a patent owner to opt its European patents out of the jurisdiction of the UPC. We may decide to opt out our future European patents from the UPC, but doing so may preclude us from realizing the benefits of the UPC. Moreover, if we do not meet all of the formalities and requirements for opt-out under the UPC before the prescribed deadlines, our future European patents could remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC. The UPC will provide our competitors with a new forum to centrally revoke its European patents that have not been opted out, and allow for the possibility of a competitor to obtain pan-European injunction. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize our technology and product candidates and, resultantly, on our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations.
Previous wording
the data collected from clinical trials of a product candidate may not be acceptable or sufficient to support the submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, a new drug application, or NDA, or similar marketing application to obtain regulatory approval in the U.S. or elsewhere, and we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials;
Current wording
the data collected from clinical trials of a product candidate may not be acceptable or sufficient to support the submission of a Biologics License Application (“BLA”), a new drug application (“NDA”), or similar marketing application to obtain regulatory approval in the U.S. or elsewhere, and we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials;
Previous wording
Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in us failing to obtain regulatory approval to market bempikibart or other product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision to overturn prior established case law giving deference to regulatory agencies’ decisions and interpretations of ambiguous statutory language has introduced uncertainty regarding the extent to which the FDA’s regulations, policies and decisions may become subject to increasing legal challenges, delays, and/or changes. The U.S. Supreme Court stripped federal agencies of this presumptive deference and held that courts must exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency such as the FDA acted within its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, or the APA. Decisions such as this could introduce additional uncertainty into the regulatory process and may result in additional legal challenges to actions taken by federal regulatory agencies, including the FDA and CMS, that we rely on. In addition to potential changes to regulations as a result of legal challenges, these decisions may result in increased regulatory uncertainty and delays and other impacts, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any regulatory approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.
Current wording
policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision to overturn prior established case law giving deference to regulatory agencies’ decisions and interpretations of ambiguous statutory language has introduced uncertainty regarding the extent to which the FDA’s regulations, policies and decisions may become subject to increasing legal challenges, delays, and/or changes. The U.S. Supreme Court stripped federal agencies of this presumptive deference and held that courts must exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency such as the FDA acted within its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”). Decisions such as this could introduce additional uncertainty into the regulatory process and may result in additional legal challenges to actions taken by federal regulatory agencies, including the FDA and CMS, that we rely on. In addition to potential changes to regulations as a result of legal challenges, these decisions may result in increased regulatory uncertainty and delays and other impacts, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any regulatory approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.
Previous wording
If we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any such product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request, including failing to approve the most commercially promising indications, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for a product candidate, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, such product candidate and our ability to generate revenue may be materially impaired. With the change in presidential administrations in 2025, there is substantial uncertainty as to how, if at all, the new administration will seek to modify or revise the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our product candidates. The impending uncertainty could present new challenges or potential opportunities as we navigate the clinical development and approval process for our product candidates.
Current wording
If we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any such product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request, including failing to approve the most commercially promising indications, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for a product candidate, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, such product candidate and our ability to generate revenue may be materially impaired.
Previous wording
Currently, federal agencies in the U.S. are operating under a continuing resolution that is set to expire on March 14, 2025. Without appropriation of additional funding to federal agencies, our business operations related to our product development activities for the U.S. market could be impacted. The ability of the FDA to review and approve regulatory submissions can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, the ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.
Current wording
The current U.S. administration is focused on reducing costs of the federal government generally, including significantly reducing the number of government employees at various federal agencies, including the FDA. Currently, most federal agencies in the U.S. are funded through September 30, 2026. Without appropriation of additional funding to federal agencies, our business operations related to our product development activities for the U.S. market could be impacted. The ability of the FDA to review and approve regulatory submissions and NIH’s ability to conduct and partner with industry on important research can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, the ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, layoffs and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.
Previous wording
Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital to properly capitalize and continue our operations.
Current wording
If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital to properly capitalize and continue our operations.
Previous wording
In order to receive approval of our products by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we must show that we and our contract manufacturing partners are able to characterize, control and manufacture our drug and biologic products safely and in accordance with regulatory requirements. This includes synthesizing the active ingredient, developing an acceptable formulation, performing tests to adequately characterize the formulated product, documenting a repeatable manufacturing process and demonstrating that our products meet stability requirements. Meeting these chemistry, manufacturing and control, or CMC, requirements is a complex task that requires specialized expertise. If we are not able to meet the CMC requirements, we may not be successful in advancing our clinical studies or obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates.
Current wording
In order to receive approval of our products by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we must show that we and our contract manufacturing partners are able to characterize, control and manufacture our drug and biologic products safely and in accordance with regulatory requirements. This includes synthesizing the active ingredient, developing an acceptable formulation, performing tests to adequately characterize the formulated product, documenting a repeatable manufacturing process and demonstrating that our products meet stability requirements. Meeting these chemistry, manufacturing and control (“CMC”) requirements is a complex task that requires specialized expertise. If we are not able to meet the CMC requirements, we may not be successful in advancing our clinical studies or obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates.
Previous wording
We have conducted and may in the future choose to conduct clinical trials for our product candidates outside the U.S. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S., acceptance of this data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with ethical principles. The trial population must also adequately represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will depend on its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the U.S., it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and would delay or permanently halt our development of the applicable product candidates. Even if the FDA accepted such data, it could require us to modify our planned clinical trials to receive clearance to initiate such trials in the U.S. or to continue such trials once initiated.
Current wording
We have conducted and may in the future choose to conduct clinical trials for our product candidates outside the U.S. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S., acceptance of this data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in accordance with ethical principles. The trial population must also adequately represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will depend on its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the U.S., it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and would delay or permanently halt our development of the applicable product candidates. Even if the FDA accepted such data, it could require us to modify our planned clinical trials to receive clearance to initiate such trials in the U.S. or to continue such trials once initiated. Additionally, recent policy proposals in the U.S., if enacted in the future, may make acceptance by the FDA or inclusion in a marketing application of foreign data more difficult or costly.
Previous wording
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the ACA to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a highly similar or “biosimilar” product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first approved by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first approved. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product.
Current wording
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) was enacted as part of the ACA to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a highly similar or “biosimilar” product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first approved by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first approved. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product.
Previous wording
We may seek one or more designations or expedited programs for our product candidates, but may not receive such designations or be allowed to proceed on expedited program pathways, and even if we do receive such designations and proceed on such expedited program pathways in the future, such designations or expedited programs may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and each designation does not increase the likelihood that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval in the U.S.
Current wording
We may seek one or more designations or expedited programs for our product candidates, but may not receive such designations or be allowed to proceed on expedited program pathways, and even with the fast track designation (“FTD”) we received for bempikibart or may receive for another product candidate in the future, such designations or expedited programs may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and each designation does not increase the likelihood that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval in the U.S.
Previous wording
We may seek fast track designation for some of our product candidates, where applicable. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and nonclinical or clinical data for the drug demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need for such a condition, the drug sponsor may apply for fast track designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot provide assurance that the FDA would decide to grant this designation. Even if our candidates receive fast track designation, these candidates may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from the clinical development program. Fast track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.
Current wording
In April 2025, we received FTD for bempikibart for the treatment of AA. In the future, we may seek FTD for other product candidates, where applicable. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and nonclinical or clinical data for the drug demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need for such a condition, the drug sponsor may apply for FTD. The FDA has broad discretion whether to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot provide assurance that the FDA would decide to grant this designation. Even with the FTD granted to bempikibart or that may be granted to any other product candidate, as applicable, bempikibart or other product candidates may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw FTD if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from the clinical development program. FTD alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.
Previous wording
In the future, we may also seek approval of product candidates under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that a post-approval confirmatory study or studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified time after the date of accelerated approval was granted. FDORA also requires sponsors to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such studies, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. FDORA also gives the FDA increased authority to withdraw approval of a drug or biologic granted accelerated approval on an expedited basis if the sponsor fails to conduct such studies in a timely manner, send the necessary updates to the FDA, or if such post-approval studies fail to verify the drug’s predicted clinical benefit. Under FDORA, the FDA is empowered to act, such as issuing fines, against companies that fail to conduct with due diligence any post-approval confirmatory study or submit timely reports to the agency on their progress. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the Agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of regulatory approval be submitted to the Agency for review during the pre-approval review period.…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Current wording
In the future, we may also seek approval of product candidates under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory trials to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”), the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that a post-approval confirmatory trial or trials be underway prior to approval or within a specified time after the date of accelerated approval was granted. FDORA also requires sponsors to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such trials, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. FDORA also gives the FDA increased authority to withdraw approval of a drug or biologic granted accelerated approval on an expedited basis if the sponsor fails to conduct such trials in a timely manner, send the necessary updates to the FDA, or if such post-approval trials fail to verify the drug’s predicted clinical benefit. Under FDORA, the FDA is empowered to act, such as issuing fines, against companies that fail to conduct with due diligence any post-approval confirmatory trial or submit timely reports to the agency on their progress. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the Agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of regulatory approval be submitted to the Agency for review during the pre-approval review period. Thus…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Previous wording
Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same condition. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same product for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug designation, we may not be the first to obtain regulatory approval for any indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products.
Current wording
Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same approved use or condition. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same product for the same approved use or condition if the FDA concludes that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug designation, we may not be the first to obtain regulatory approval for any indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products.
Showing the first 40 of 52 pairs. Open the source sections for the rest.
Rearranged current paragraphs (1)
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in us failing to obtain regulatory approval to market bempikibart or other product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’
Rearranged previous paragraphs (2)
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
In addition, court decisions may introduce uncertainty in the enforceability or scope of patents owned by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Thus, any of our issued patents, including patents that we may rely on to protect our market for approved drugs, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction.
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
Also, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Licensed Biological Products with Reference Product Exclusivity and Biosimilarity or Interchangeability Evaluations, or the