RELMADA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

Business Overview

Relmada Therapeutics, Inc. (Relmada, the Company, we or us) (a Nevada corporation), is a publicly traded, clinical-stage biotechnology company. We substantially redesigned our development programs following a comprehensive strategic review in late 2024 and early 2025. We concluded in our review that the most promising path to create shareholder value was to lever our extensive drug development expertise and clinical operations capabilities by acquiring new development candidates, while terminating further work on esmethadone (d-methadone, dextromethadone or REL-1017). Hence we accelerated ongoing efforts to augment our development pipeline while diversifying its risk, which culminated in the licensing of NDV-01, a novel delivery formulation of a chemotherapy regimen widely used to treat non muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) that is currently in Phase 2, and the acquisition of sepranolone, a Phase 2b-ready neurosteroid with potential applications in Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS), Tourette Syndrome (TS), essential tremor and other diseases related to excessive GABAergic activity.

Following the 2024 REL-1017 setback and subsequent post hoc analyses, the program was terminated effective July 7, 2025.

We also had been developing REL-P11, a modified-release formulation of psilocybin, as an investigational agent for the treatment of metabolic disease. Effective May 12, 2025, this program was terminated.

Currently, our lead product, NDV-01 is a novel, controlled-release intravesical formulation of gemcitabine and docetaxel. NDV-01 is currently in a Phase 2 clinical trial in Isreal to assess its safety and efficacy in patients with aggressive forms of NMIBC. We intend to develop NDV-01 for two separate indications: (1) the treatment of high-risk, 2nd line Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive NMIBC and (2) the treatment of intermediate risk patients in the adjuvant setting. We expect to initiate Phase 3 programs for each indication mid-2026.

Our second product, sepranolone is a novel neurosteroid epimer of allopregnanolone. Sepranolone is being developed for the potential treatment of PWS, TS, essential tremor and other diseases related to excessive GABAergic activity. We expect to initiate a Phase 2b study in PWS mid-2026.

Progress in Strategic Execution

On February 6, 2025, Relmada announced the acquisition from Asarina Pharma AB (Asarina) of sepranolone, a Phase 2b ready neurosteroid being developed for the potential treatment of PWS, TS, essential tremor and other diseases related to the excessive GABAergic activity.

On March 25, 2025, Relmada announced the in-license agreement from Trigone Pharma Ltd. (Trigone) of NDV-01, a novel delivery formulation of a widely used chemotherapeutic regimen used to treat NMIBC.

Key Upcoming Anticipated Milestones

We expect multiple key milestones over the next 12 months. These include:

Our Development Programs

NDV-01 Program

NDV-01, our lead program, was in-licensed on March 24, 2025, NDV-01, is a novel intravesicular delivery technology designed for the long-acting, controlled release of gemcitabine and docetaxel. This combination therapy has gained significant interest as an alternative to BCG for treating NMIBC, especially given the global BCG shortage since 2019. Clinical studies have shown that gemcitabine and docetaxel achieve response rates and Recurrence-Free Survival comparable to or better than BCG. However, conventional administration is cumbersome, requiring sequential drug delivery over three to four hours, with limited tumor exposure time.

NDV-01 potentially addresses these limitations by enabling a single administration in less than 5 minutes, delivering sustained, localized chemotherapy for up to 10 days. This extended exposure enhances the therapeutic effect while improving patient convenience.

NDV-01 is formulated as a controlled-release intravesical therapy containing gemcitabine and docetaxel. By maintaining continuous drug exposure within the bladder, NDV-01 may optimize local efficacy while minimizing systemic absorption and associated side effects. Unlike conventional intravesical instillations, which result in fluctuating drug levels, NDV-01 provides a continuous release of both agents over 10 days. This sustained delivery may improve cancer cell eradication and reduce recurrence risk while lowering the frequency of administration.

NDV-01 is currently in a Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating its safety and efficacy in patients with aggressive NMIBC. The Phase 2 study is a single-arm, single-center study evaluating the safety and efficacy of NDV-01 in patients with High Grade-NMIBC. Patients are treated with NDV-01 in a biweekly induction phase, follow by monthly maintenance for up to one year, with regular assessments via cystoscopy, cytology, and biopsy, as indicated. The primary efficacy endpoints are safety and complete response rate (Complete Response Rate at 12 months), and secondary efficacy endpoints are duration of response (DOR) and event free survival (EFS).

Twelve-Month Safety and Efficacy Data

We obtained twelve-month safety and efficacy data for our Phase 2 study of NDV-01 in high-risk NMIBC. Among 48 enrolled patients who received at least one dose, no new safety signals were observed with respect to the type, frequency or severity of adverse events. No patients experienced Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events, and no patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Of the 48 patients, 30 (63%) experienced a treatment-related adverse event. Among treatment-related adverse events, 54% were transient uncomfortable urination (dysuria), 8% were asymptomatic positive urine culture and 8% were hematuria.

Efficacy and Tolerability

N= 48 patients in overall population; KM: Kaplan-Meier analysis; 10 patients awaiting 3 month response assessment

N= 20 patients dosed in BCG-UR subpopulation; * BCG-UR defined by FDA definition; BCG-UR: Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)- Unresponsive; KM: Kaplan-Meier analysis; 3 patients awaiting 3 month assessment

The Company also previously announced the successful completion and receipt of written feedback from a Type B pre-IND submissions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the planned Phase 3 program for NDV-01 in NMIBC patients. Relmada secured FDA alignment on certain key elements of the planned Phase 3 pivotal program for NDV-01, expected to begin in mid-2026, and incorporating two studies for two separate indications:

Also, importantly, the FDA agreed with our proposal to rely on FDA’s prior findings of safety for Gemzar and Taxotere and published literature for the non-clinical safety assessment of NDV-01 because this is a proposed 505(b)(2) approval.

About the Planned High-Grade Registrational Study

The planned pivotal Phase 3 study in 2nd-line, refractory, high-grade BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with CIS will be an open-label, single-arm trial evaluating:

The design reflects FDA’s written guidance on the study population, endpoint selection, and evaluation methodology and is consistent with prior FDA precedents for single-arm registrational trials in NMIBC.

About the Planned Intermediate-Risk Registrational Study

The planned pivotal Phase 3 study in intermediate-risk NMIBC in the adjuvant setting will be an open label randomized-to-observation study:

The design reflects FDA’s written guidance on the study population, endpoint selection, and evaluation methodology.

Sepranolone Program

The GABAergic system is the primary inhibitory neurotransmitter pathway. It consists of two types of receptors, GABAA and GABAB. GABAA receptors are a major target for neuropsychiatric drugs, including benzodiazepines, barbiturates and anesthetic agents. The GABAergic system regulates a host of physiological and neurological functions and their related moods and behaviors. The principal positive physiologic modulators of the GABAergic system are the neurotransmitter GABA (γ-aminobutyric acid) and the positive allosteric modulator Allopregnanolone. GABA generally inhibits nervous system excitability and thereby produces a calming effect that reduces anxiety and compulsive behavior, among other manifestations. While Allopregnanolone typically enhances GABA’s calming effects, in some individuals it paradoxically exacerbates anxiety and compulsive behavior.

Sepranolone is a synthetic version of isoallopregnanolone, a naturally occurring neurosteroid that counteracts the effects of allopregnanolone. Sepranolone is designed to normalize GABAA receptor activity by targeting two specific receptor subtypes (alpha-2 and alpha-4) without directly interfering with GABA signaling, making it a novel and selective treatment approach for diseases such as PWS and TS and other disorders that feature compulsive behavior.

Data from an open-label Phase 2a randomized study demonstrated that sepranolone has the potential to improve TS symptoms versus standard of care alone, as measured by changes in the YGTSS scoring system (the world-standard Yale Global Tic Severity Scale) compared to baseline. In the 12-week, dual-center, parallel-group study, 26 subjects were treated with sepranolone (10 mg, administered by subcutaneous injection twice weekly in addition to standard of care (SOC) versus standard of care alone.

The Phase 2a results showed competitive tic reduction and improved quality of life while displaying no CNS off-target effects. Sepranolone not only reduced tic severity in its primary clinical endpoint as measured by YGTSS by 28% (p=0.051) – but also achieved positive results in four key secondary endpoints compared with standard of care:

Importantly, no off-target CNS effects or systemic side effects were observed in this study. Further, sepranolone has been evaluated in multiple clinical neuro/hormonal studies involving over 335 participants.

Sepranolone was well tolerated with no serious treatment emergent adverse events reported. The most common adverse events were of mild or moderate intensity related to injection sites, with pain, erythema and pruritus being the most common.

Relmada expects to initiate a Phase 2 pilot study of sepranolone in PWS in mid-2026.

Our Corporate History and Background

We are a clinical-stage, publicly traded biotechnology company developing new chemical entities (NCE) and novel versions of drug products that potentially address areas of high unmet medical need in the treatment of cancer, neurological disorders, and other diseases.

Currently, none of our product candidates has been approved for sale in the United States or elsewhere. We have no commercial products, nor do we have a sales or marketing infrastructure. In order to market and sell our products we must conduct clinical trials on patients and obtain regulatory approvals from appropriate regulatory agencies, like the FDA in the United States, and similar organizations elsewhere in the world.

We have not generated revenues and do not anticipate generating revenues for the foreseeable future. We had net loss of approximately $57,385,200 and $79,979,400 for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $698,267,200.

Business Strategy

Our strategy is to leverage our considerable industry experience, understanding of pharmaceutical markets and development expertise to identify, develop and commercialize product candidates with significant market potential that can fulfill unmet medical needs. We have assembled a management team along with both scientific advisors, and business advisors with significant industry and regulatory experience to lead and execute the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Intellectual Property Portfolio and Market Exclusivity

We have more than 40 issued patents and pending patent applications related to sepranolone for multiple uses, including diseases and disorders exhibiting compulsive behaviors such as, TS, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and gambling disorder, potentially providing coverage beyond 2038.

We have more than 10 issued patents and pending patent applications related to NDV-01 for multiple uses, including formulations and methods for controlled release of therapeutics for treatment of diseases such as bladder cancer, potentially providing coverage beyond 2038.

Esmethadone License Agreement

Following the 2024 REL-1017 setback and subsequent post hoc analyses, this license agreement was terminated effective July 7, 2025.

Sepranolone Acquisition

On February 3, 2025, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Asarina, a Swedish corporation, pursuant to which we purchased, subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein, from Asarina all right, title, and interest in sepranolone. The total purchase price was €3,000,000. The Company paid Asarina $2,756,000 on February 5, 2025, which includes a credit of $250,000 for a previous payment made by the Company to Asarina pursuant to an exclusivity agreement in October 2024.

We only assumed liabilities arising after the effective date of the Purchase Agreement. All other liabilities, including those arising before the effective date of the Purchase Agreement, taxes, employment-related liabilities, and those related to the negotiation and consummation of the Purchase Agreement, remained with Asarina.

NDV-01 In-License Agreement

On March 24, 2025, the Company entered into an Exclusive License Agreement with Trigone, a privately held Israeli company. The license agreement is for Trigone’s NDV-01 product, which is a novel, sustained-release, intravesical gemcitabine/docetaxel, ready-for-use product candidate for the treatment of NMIBC. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company made a $3,500,000 upfront payment on March 25, 2025, and issued 3,017,420 shares of common stock, which represented 10% of the Company’s outstanding shares, for exclusive worldwide rights to NDV-01, excluding Israel, India and South Africa.

In addition, the Company will pay up to $200 million in development, regulatory and commercial milestones pending successful commercialization. The Company will also pay a royalty of 3% on any net sales. As of December 31, 2025, a milestone had been achieved with a $2 million payment. The milestone payment was accrued for as of December 31, 2025 and paid to Trigone in January 2026.

Inturrisi / Manfredi

On July 7, 2025, the Company delivered to Dr. Charles E. Inturrisi and Dr. Paolo Manfredi formal notice of termination of the License Agreement entered into in January 2018, under which we had licensed certain rights, including patents and patent applications, to esmethadone, in the context of other indications, thus ending the Company’s esmethadone development program. As a result of the notice of termination, all material obligations under the license agreement with the Licensor ceased as of October 5, 2025, which was 90 days after the date of the notice. There were no fees or costs associated with the termination of the License Agreement.

Psilocybin License Agreement

On May 12, 2025, the Company delivered to Arbormentis LLC a formal notice of termination of the License Agreement entered into in July 2021, under which the Company had licensed development and commercial rights to a noval psilocybin and derivative, thus ending the Company’s psilocybin development program. As a result of the cancellation, all obligations under the license agreement with Arbormentis ceased as of August 10, 2025, which was 90 days after the date of notice. There were no fees or costs associated with the termination of the License Agreement.

Key Strengths

We believe that the key elements for our market success include:

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry is characterized by intense competition, rapid product development and technological change. Competition is intense among manufacturers of prescription pharmaceuticals and other product areas where we may develop and market products in the future. Most of our competitors are large, well-established pharmaceutical or healthcare companies with considerably more financial, marketing, sales and technical resources than are available to us. Additionally, many of our competitors have research and development capabilities that may allow such competitors to develop new or improved products that may compete with our products. Our products could be rendered obsolete or made uneconomical by the development of new products.

Regarding our competitive position in the industry, we currently have no products approved for sale.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

FDA Approval Process

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending new drug applications (NDAs), warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved product in the U.S. typically involves non-clinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to FDA of an investigational new drug application (IND) which must become effective before clinical testing may commence, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.

Non-clinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the non-clinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including good laboratory practices. The results of non-clinical testing are submitted to FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long-term non-clinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. During this period, if FDA concludes that a deficiency exists in a clinical investigation that may be grounds for the imposition of clinical hold, FDA will usually attempt to discuss and satisfactorily resolve the matter with the IND applicant. If such resolution is not possible, FDA may issue a clinical hold order by telephone or other means of rapid communication or in writing. No more than 30 days after imposition of the clinical hold, a written explanation of the basis for the hold will be issued by FDA and sent to the applicant. The applicant must respond in writing to each deficiency before the clinical hold can be lifted. If FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with good clinical practice, or GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to FDA as part of the IND.

FDA may not permit a clinical trial to begin, or may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board (IRB) for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions.

Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the drug into healthy human subjects or patients, the drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence of effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a drug demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug. In many cases, particularly for prevalent diseases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials, each convincing on its own, to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. In many other conditions, particularly for rare disease therapies, a single adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 trial may be sufficient when in conjunction with confirmatory evidence. A single adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 trial may also be sufficient, through it is less common, where the study is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible.

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the U.S. The NDA must include the results of all non-clinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. The submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, and the applicant under an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee for each prescription product. These fees are typically increased annually. Sponsors of applications for drugs granted Orphan Drug Designation are exempt from these user fees.

FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be filed based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is filed, FDA begins an in-depth review. FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs to encourage timeliness. Applications for most standard review drug products are reviewed within twelve months from submission of NDAs for new molecular entities (NMEs) and ten months from submission of NDAs for non-NMEs. Priority review can be applied to drugs that FDA determines offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by FDA for three additional months to consider information that the FDA considers to be a major amendment to the NDA.

FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an outside advisory committee – typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts – for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.

Before approving an NDA, FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs) is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied.

After FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, FDA will issue an approval letter. FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of NDA approval, FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use (ETASU). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

Fast Track Designation

FDA is required to facilitate the development, and expedite the review, of drugs that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Under the Fast Track program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a Fast Track drug concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the drug candidate. FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for Fast Track Designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request.

If a submission is granted Fast Track Designation, the sponsor may engage in more frequent interactions with FDA, and FDA may review sections of the NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the applicant provides, and FDA approves, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the applicant pays applicable user fees. However, FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. Additionally, Fast Track Designation may be withdrawn by FDA if FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, FDA may grant Orphan Drug Designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition – generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. Orphan Drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by FDA. Orphan Drug Designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The first NDA applicant to receive FDA approval for a particular active ingredient to treat a particular disease with FDA Orphan Drug Designation is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the U.S. for the active ingredient in that product, for that indication. During the seven-year exclusivity period, FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of Orphan Drug Designation are tax credits for certain research and an exemption from the application user fee.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), NDAs or supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. With certain exceptions, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) provides NDA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity – patent or nonpatent – for a drug if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

Post-Approval Requirements

Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports are required following FDA approval of an NDA. FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, drug manufacture, packaging and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by FDA, during which the Agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drugs that are placed on the market. Advertising and promotion of drugs must be in compliance with the Federal FDCA and its implementing regulations and only for the approved indications and in a manner consistent with the approved labeling. FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities.

Generic Competition* *

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, non-clinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

The ANDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product (a Paragraph IV certification). The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a section viii statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carve out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or certifies that the listed patents will not be infringed by the new product, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification, the NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a such certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of an NCE, which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which FDA cannot receive any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug. An ANDA may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period. Certain changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, can be the subject of a three-year period of exclusivity if the application contains reports of new clinical investigations (other than bioavailability studies) conducted or sponsored by the sponsor that were essential to approval of the application. FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug that includes the change during the period of exclusivity.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase (the time between IND application and NDA submission) and all of the review phase (the time between NDA submission and approval up to a maximum of five years). The time can be shortened if FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years, and only one patent can be extended. For patents that might expire during the application phase, the patent owner may request an interim patent extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office must determine that approval of the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely. Interim patent extensions are not available for a drug for which an NDA has not been submitted.

Other Healthcare Laws

In the United States, biotechnology company activities are subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (e.g., the Office of Inspector General and the Office for Civil Rights), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully offering, soliciting or receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federally financed healthcare programs. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the ACA) amended the intent element of the federal statute so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to commit a violation. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers, among others, on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to commit a violation.

Federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibit any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to have a false claim paid. This includes claims made to programs where the federal government reimburses, such as Medicare and Medicaid, as well as programs where the federal government is a direct purchaser, such as when it purchases off the Federal Supply Schedule. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly inflating drug prices they report to pricing services, which in turn were used by the government to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false claims laws. Additionally, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. Most states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and civil False Claims Act, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

Other federal statutes pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse include the civil monetary penalties statute, which prohibits, among other things, the offer or payment of remuneration to a Medicaid or Medicare beneficiary that the offeror or payor knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary to order a receive a reimbursable item or service from a particular supplier.

Further, pursuant to the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, CMS, has issued a final rule that requires manufacturers of prescription drugs to collect and report information on certain payments or transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), physician assistants, certain types of advance practice nurses and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. The reports must be submitted on an annual basis. The reported data is made available in searchable form on a public website on an annual basis. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties.

In addition, several states now require prescription drug companies to report certain expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug products and to report gifts and payments to individual healthcare practitioners in these states. Other states prohibit various marketing-related activities, such as the provision of certain kinds of gifts or meals. Still other states require the posting of information relating to clinical studies and their outcomes. Some states require the reporting of certain drug pricing information, including information pertaining to and justifying price increases and new high-cost drug introductions. In addition, certain states require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs and/or marketing codes. Certain states and local jurisdictions also require the registration of pharmaceutical sales and medical representatives. Compliance with these laws is difficult and time consuming, and companies that do not comply with these state laws may face civil penalties.

Data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which business is conducted may also be applicable. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HIPAA prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises of any money or property owned by or under the control of any healthcare benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to commit a violation. HIPAA requires covered entities to limit the use and disclosure of protected health information to specifically authorized situations and requires covered entities to implement security measures to protect health information that they maintain in electronic form. Among other things, HITECH made HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, may not have the same effect, and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which went into effect on January 1, 2020, creates new data privacy obligations for covered companies and provides new privacy rights to California residents. On January 1, 2023, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which imposes additional obligations on companies covered by the legislation and substantially modifies the CCPA, went into effect. The CCPA and CPRA provide for unlimited civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CPRA also creates a new state agency that is vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and CPRA. Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act, which took effect on January 1, 2023, requires businesses subject to the legislation to conduct data protection assessments in certain circumstances and requires opt-in consent from consumers to acquire and process their sensitive personal information, which includes information revealing a consumer’s physical and mental health diagnosis and genetic and biometric information that can identify a consumer. Colorado enacted the Colorado Privacy Act, and Connecticut enacted the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, each of which took effect on July 1, 2023, and Utah enacted the Consumer Privacy Act, which became effective on December 31, 2023, and each of these laws may increase the complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions, and potential legal risks.

Healthcare Reform

Healthcare reforms that have been adopted, and that may be adopted in the future, could result in further reductions in coverage and levels of reimbursement for pharmaceutical products, increases in rebates payable under U.S. government rebate programs and additional downward pressure on pharmaceutical product prices. Healthcare reform proposals recently culminated in the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, which, among other things, requires HHS to directly negotiate the selling price of statutorily specified number of drugs and biologics each year that CMS reimburses under Medicare Part B and Part D. The negotiated price may not exceed a statutory ceiling price. Only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for single-source biologics) are eligible to be selected by CMS for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. For 2026, the first year in which negotiated prices become effective, CMS selected 10 high-cost Medicare Part D products in 2023, negotiations began in 2024, and the negotiated maximum fair price for each product has been announced. In addition, CMS has selected and announced the negotiated maximum fair price for 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs, which will be effective in 2027. For 2028, CMS has selected an additional 15 drugs, comprised of drugs covered under Medicare Part D and, for the first time, drugs payable under Medicare Part B. For 2029 and subsequent years, 20 Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. Currently, a drug or biological product that has an orphan drug designation for only one rare disease or condition will be excluded from the IRA’s price negotiation requirements, but will lose that exclusion if it receives designations for more than one rare disease or condition, or if it is approved for an indication that is not within that single designated rare disease or condition, unless such additional designation or such disqualifying approvals are withdrawn by the time CMS evaluates the drug for selection for negotiation. . However, as a result of a statutory amendment enacted in July 2025, beginning with the 2028 negotiated price applicability year, a drug may be designated for more than one rare disease or condition and still be excluded from price negotiation, as long as the only approved indications are for such rare diseases or conditions. The IRA also imposes rebates on Medicare Part D and Part B drugs whose prices have increased at a rate greater than the rate of inflation, and in November 2024, CMS finalized regulations for these inflation rebates. The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Manufacturers that fail to comply with the IRA may be subject to various penalties, including civil monetary penalties. It is unclear to what extent other statutory, regulatory, and administrative initiatives will be enacted and implemented.

The federal administration is pursuing executive and regulatory actions directing HHS to pursue most favored nation (MFN) pricing targets for prescription drugs and to evaluate other potential reforms including, for example, an executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending, and promote MFN drug pricing, among other directives. For example, on December 23, 2025, CMS issued proposed regulations to establish, under CMMI, two mandatory MFN demonstration models under Medicare Parts B and D, respectively. If these rules or other MFN pricing rules are finalized, they are likely to reduce prices of at least some drugs in the United States, if they are also sold in comparator countries. Even if a company does not market drugs in such countries, the company could be indirectly affected if its drugs compete with drugs whose prices were reduced as a result of MFN pricing initiatives.

Further, at the U.S. state level, legislatures are increasingly enacting laws and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or reimbursement constraints, discount requirements, marketing cost disclosure and price increase transparency reporting, and programs designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Additional state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services or increase manufacturers’ operational costs and compliance risks.

Insurance Coverage and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the insurance coverage and reimbursement status of any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. In the United States, sales of any product candidates for which regulatory approval for commercial sale is obtained will depend in part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities and health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products and services. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a drug product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the drug product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

Human Capital

As of December 31, 2025, we had a total of 17 employees. We understand people are our greatest asset and that our innovation and operational excellence are ultimately noted in our human capital. Our success depends in large part on our ability to recruit, develop and retain a qualified, productive, and engaged workforce.

Total Rewards and Employee Engagement

We maintain competitive compensation and benefits package including incentive compensation tied to both company and individual performance, and retirement benefits. Our performance-based compensation strategy is designed to recognize and reward employees for their contribution to our success, and we strive to provide strong, equitable incentives for performance. Compensation is comprised of two elements: base compensation, which is determined based upon a number of factors, including size, scope and impact of the employee’s role, the market value associated with the employee’s role, leadership skills, length of service and individual performance; and an annual bonus, which is a cash award determined based on a combination of individual and company performance during the period to which the bonus relates. We seek to determine compensation on the basis of merit and without regard to demographic characteristics. During 2025, we employed a third-party consultant to assist us in evaluating our pay practices. In conducting this exercise, we found no meaningful difference in compensation based upon gender, race or any other defining characteristic examined.

Corporate Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 2222 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Floor 3, Coral Gables, Florida 33134 and our telephone number is (786) 629-1376. Our website address is*www.relmada.com.*The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of, and is not incorporated in, this Annual Report.

Available Information

Reports we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), including annual and quarterly reports, and other reports we file, can be inspected and copied at the public reference facilities maintained by the SEC at 100 F Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20549.