ZEVRA THERAPEUTICS INC

Overview

We are a commercial-stage company focused on addressing unmet needs for the treatment of rare diseases. Our mission is to bring life-changing therapeutics to people living with rare diseases. With data-driven development and commercialization strategies, we are overcoming complex drug development challenges to make new therapies available to the rare disease community. We have a diverse portfolio of products and product candidates, which includes pre-clinical, clinical, and commercial stage assets. Our team has specialized expertise and a track record of success in advancing promising therapies that face complex clinical, regulatory, and commercial challenges with an approach that balances science with patient need.

Following the U.S. approval of AZSTARYS® (further described below) in March 2021, we undertook a strategic process to evaluate how to leverage and potentially augment the Company’s existing capabilities while also considering where to invest in our pipeline to generate long-term shareholder value. With a track record of drug development success leading to approvals for products which had either difficult pathways to approval or where approvals were won following a complete response letter (“CRL”) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), we determined to focus our expertise on rare disease indications, as well as seeking value-creating opportunities by building and directly commercializing product candidates in lieu of an out-licensing model. We are executing on this balanced approach by building a high-performing culture that is patient-focused and driven by our commitment to developing and commercializing therapies to address the myriad unmet needs within the rare disease community.

As part of our commitment to serving the rare disease community, in February 2023, we changed our name to Zevra Therapeutics, Inc. Our name, Zevra, is the Greek word for zebra, which is the internationally recognized symbol for rare disease. This name reflects our intense focus and dedication to developing transformational, patient-focused therapies for rare diseases with limited or no treatment options available, or treatment areas with significant unmet needs.

In May 2022, we purchased all of the assets and operations of Orphazyme A/S (“Orphazyme”) related to arimoclomol, settled all of Orphazyme’s actual outstanding liabilities to its creditors with a cash payment of $12.8 million, and agreed to assume an estimated reserve clawback liability of $5.2 million related to revenue generated from Orphazyme’s EAP in France.

On November 17, 2023, we completed the acquisition of Acer. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Acer continues as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zevra. The Merger included the acquisition of OLPRUVA® (sodium phenylbutyrate) for oral suspension, which was approved by the FDA on December 27, 2022, for the treatment of certain urea cycle disorders ("UCDs"). In addition, we acquired Acer's pipeline of investigational product candidates, including celiprolol for the treatment of Vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome ("VEDS") in, patients with a confirmed type III collagen (COL3A1) mutation.

On September 20, 2024, the FDA approved the New Drug Application (“NDA") for MIPLYFFA™ (arimoclomol), an orally-delivered treatment for Niemann-Pick disease type C (“NPC"), which is an ultra-rare and progressive neurodegenerative disease. In addition, we received a transferable rare pediatric disease priority review voucher (“PRV”) in conjunction with the approval. MIPLYFFA has also been granted orphan medical product designation for the treatment of NPC by the European Commission. In November 2024, MIPLYFFA became commercially available for dispense.

Our five-year strategic plan is focused on the continued transformation of Zevra into a leading rare-disease company. In addition to the commercialization of OLPRUVA and the approval and subsequent launch of MIPLYFFA, we discontinued our in-house drug discovery activities and closed our laboratory facilities in Iowa and Virginia to prioritize near-term resources for our late-stage clinical development and commercial opportunities in the third quarter of 2024. In the future we plan to outsource our discovery and early development activities, as well as seek to further expand our pipeline through both internal development and through our business development activities to collaborate, partner, and potentially acquire additional assets. We intend to target assets that will allow us to leverage the expertise and infrastructure that we have built to help mitigate risk and enhance our probability of success. If we are successful, expanding our pipeline could be accretive to our value proposition and has the potential to create incremental long-term value for stockholders.

Our Product Candidates and Approved Products

We have built a diverse portfolio of products and product candidates through a combination of internal development and strategic investments through acquisition. For example, we have employed our proprietary Ligand Activated Technology ("LAT") platform to develop approved products (e.g., AZSTARYS), and clinical development candidates (KP1077IH and KP1077N). Through our business development efforts, we have added commercial products (OLPRUVA and MIPLYFFA), and a clinical development candidate (celiprolol). We furthermore have a variety of product candidates and compounds that are clinical-stage and designed to address a variety of rare diseases and other indications.

Currently active commercial products and development assets are summarized in the table below:

Active Zevra Commercial and Development Assets

These anticipated milestones are based on information currently available to us. Our current plans and expectations are subject to a number of uncertainties, risks and other important factors that could materially impact our plans, including risks which are not solely within our control. See Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

MIPLYFFA

On September 20, 2024, the FDA approved the NDA for MIPLYFFA, an orally-delivered treatment for NPC, which is an ultra-rare and progressive neurodegenerative disease. MIPLYFFA, the first FDA-approved treatment for NPC, is indicated for use in combination with miglustat for the treatment of neurological manifestations of NPC in adult and pediatric patients two years of age and older. In addition, we received a transferable rare pediatric disease PRV in conjunction with the approval. On February 27, 2025, we announced entry into an asset purchase agreement with an undisclosed party for the sale of the PRV for gross proceeds of $150 million, subject to customary closing conditions. MIPLYFFA has also been granted orphan medical product designation for the treatment of NPC by the European Commission. As of December 31, 2025, there was a total of 109 enrollments to receive MIPLYFFA, which included conversion of all active participants in our U.S. EAP, which we expect to close by the end of the second quarter of 2025. Our commercial plans will focus on continuing to raise awareness among people who are living with NPC that are diagnosed and untreated, or undiagnosed.

Soon after approval of MIPLYFFA, the FDA approved a second therapy for NPC, AQNEURSA, which is approved for symptomatic treatment of ataxia in NPC patients, and is marketed by IntraBio, Inc. ("IntraBio").

To commercialize both of our commercial products, MIPLYFFA and OLPRUVA,** **in the U.S., we have built, or are making arrangements with third parties to perform, marketing, sales, medical affairs, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities. We initiated the commercial launch of MIPLYFFA in the U.S. immediately following receipt of FDA approval. Product became available for dispensing at our specialty pharmacy on November 21, 2024.

NPC is characterized by an inability of the body to transport cholesterol and lipids inside of cells. Symptoms of NPC include a progressive impairment of mobility, cognition, speech, and swallowing, often culminating in premature death. The incidence of NPC is estimated to be one in 100,000 to 130,000 live births. We estimate that there are approximately 1,800 individuals with NPC in the U.S. and Europe combined, of which approximately 900 are in the U.S. and 1,100 are in the EU where there is a mature market with an approved treatment available for NPC. Of these, approximately 300 to 350 people have been diagnosed in the U.S. However, diagnostic challenges may affect the number of potential patients, and we believe that the availability of treatment options in the U.S. could increase awareness of the disease and assist in more accurately identifying patients. Effective therapies to treat NPC are desperately needed, and for this reason, MIPLYFFA is currently being made available to NPC patients in France, Germany, and other EU member states under various EAPs.

Zevra holds global rights to develop and commercialize MIPLYFFA. We intend to seek regulatory approval for MIPLYFFA in the European Union ("EU"), and we are currently evaluating the potential to commercialize outside of the U.S., and/or to seek additional regulatory approvals to support future global commercialization opportunities. Our focus is currently on preparing for submission of a Marketing Authorisation Application, or MAA, in Europe in the second half of 2025.

MIPLYFFA summary:

OLPRUVA

OLPRUVA (sodium phenylbutyrate) for oral suspension is approved in the U.S. as adjunctive therapy to standard of care, which includes dietary management, for the chronic management of UCDs involving deficiencies of carbamylphosphate synthetase (CPS), ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC), or argininosuccinic acid synthetase (AS). OLPRUVA for oral suspension is a proprietary and novel formulation of sodium phenylbutyrate powder, packaged in pre-measured single-dose envelopes, that has shown bioequivalence to existing sodium phenylbutyrate powder but with a pH-sensitive polymer coating that is designed to minimize dissolution of the coating for up to five (5) minutes after preparation.

UCDs are a group of rare genetic disorders that can cause harmful ammonia to build up in the blood, potentially resulting in brain damage and neurocognitive impairments, if ammonia levels are not controlled. Any increase in ammonia over time is serious. Therefore, it is important to adhere to any dietary protein restrictions and have alternative medication options to help control ammonia levels. Approximately 1 in 100,000 people have UCD, and there are an estimated 800 patients who are actively treated with nitrogen scavenging therapy in the U.S. While there are therapies currently approved for the treatment of UCDs - specifically RAVICTI, marketed by Amgen, Inc. (formerly Horizon Therapeutics) and PHEBURANE, marketed by Medunik USA - there remain unmet needs for this community of patients. OLPRUVA offers benefits over other UCD treatments by eliminating issues with palatability, offering improved portability with its single-dose envelopes, and it comes in a dosage personalized to the patient based on weight.

During the quarter ended December 31, 2023, we began generating revenue from the sale of OLPRUVA in the U.S. For additional information regarding the Merger, see Note T of our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Zevra has a partnership with Relief Therapeutics who has rights to commercialize OLPRUVA in various EU countries, if approved. In addition, Zevra is obligated to pay royalties of 10% of U.S. net sales up to a maximum of $45 million, plus specified regulatory milestones to Relief Therapeutics.

During the first half of 2024, we initiated the commercial launch of OLPRUVA in the U.S. We have focused our initial efforts on the approximately 40 metabolic treatment centers of excellence across the United States which treat the majority of UCD patients to build awareness with physicians regarding the benefits of OLPRUVA. In the months since launch, our team has been able to engage with more than 90% of our prescribers. We have seen meaningful growth in reimbursement coverage, which was approximately 55% of U.S. covered lives at the time of acquisition, to now approximately 76%. In the third quarter of 2024, Zevra made a data-driven shift in our OLPRUVA commercial strategy to target specific patient segments that will receive the greatest benefit from OLPRUVA and face fewer reimbursement hurdles. To support this refinement in strategy, we focused our resources and promotional efforts in the third quarter to drive patient identification and to improve pull-through with payors. Specifically, we are targeting patients seeking greater lifestyle independence who could benefit from the “ammonia control on the go” that OLPRUVA offers.

OLPRUVA summary:

Celiprolol

The Merger with Acer included the acquisition of celiprolol. We are advancing celiprolol as an investigational product candidate for the treatment of VEDS in patients with a confirmed type III collagen (COL3A1) mutation. Celiprolol is a selective adrenergic modulator (“SAM“) and, if we receive the first approval in the U.S. for celiprolol, we believe it would be deemed a new chemical entity (“NCE”) in the U.S. Celiprolol is currently approved in certain EU states for the treatment of hypertension and angina.

Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome is an inherited disorder caused by mutations in the genes responsible for the structure, production, or processing of collagen, an important component of the connective tissues in the human body, or proteins that interact with collagen. VEDS causes abnormal fragility in blood vessels, which can give rise to aneurysms, abnormal connections between blood vessels known as arteriovenous fistulas, arterial dissections, and spontaneous vascular ruptures, all of which can be potentially life-threatening. The incidence of VEDS is estimated to be one in 50,000 to 200,000 people. There are approximately 7,500 patients in the U.S.

Currently, there are no approved therapies anywhere in the world for VEDS. However, celiprolol, prescribed off label, has become the standard of care therapy for VEDS in some European countries. Medical intervention for VEDS focuses on surgery, symptomatic treatment, genetic counseling, and prophylactic measures, such as avoiding intense physical activity, scuba diving, and violent sports. Therefore, patients must adopt a “watch and wait” approach following any confirmed diagnosis. Unfortunately, many of these arterial events have high mortality associated with them, and thus, a pharmacologic intervention that reduces the rate of events would be clinically meaningful.

Celiprolol received orphan drug designation from the FDA for the treatment of VEDS in 2015. In October 2018, a new celiprolol NDA was submitted to the FDA by Acer based on data obtained from the BBEST trial and was subsequently accepted by the FDA in October 2018 with priority review status. Following FDA review, Acer received a CRL from the FDA stating that it will be necessary to conduct an adequate and well-controlled trial to determine whether celiprolol reduces the risk of clinical events in patients with VEDS. Subsequently, Acer appealed the FDA decision, and while the FDA denied the appeal, it described possible paths forward toward approval. In a May 2021 Type B meeting with the FDA, Acer discussed the conduct of an U.S.-based prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, decentralized clinical trial in patients with COL3A1 positive VEDS, and sought the FDA’s opinion on various proposed design features of the study.

Based on FDA's feedback during the Type B meeting, we adopted a decentralized (virtual) event-based clinical trial design and use of an independent centralized adjudication committee with a primary endpoint based on clinical events associated with disease outcome. In April 2022, the FDA granted celiprolol Breakthrough Therapy designation (“BTD”) in the U.S. for the treatment of patients with COL3A1-positive VEDS.

In July 2022, Acer initiated enrollment in a Phase 3 long-term event-driven clinical trial designed based on the discussions from the May 2021 Type B meeting with the FDA, also known as the DiSCOVER trial. The DiSCOVER trial intends to enroll 150 VEDS patients, with 100 patients receiving celiprolol and 50 patients receiving placebo. Recruitment in the Phase-3 trial was restarted mid-2024 after a brief hiatus and the trial is actively enrolling patients. We believe that celiprolol could address significant unmet needs as there are currently no approved treatments for VEDS in the U.S.

Celiprolol summary:

KP1077

KP1077 is being developed and evaluated for the treatment of IH and narcolepsy. IH is a rare neurological sleep disorder affecting approximately 37,000 patients in the United States. The cardinal feature of IH is excessive daytime sleepiness ("EDS"), characterized by daytime lapses into sleep, or an irrepressible need to sleep that persists even with adequate or prolonged nighttime sleep. Additionally, those with IH have extreme difficulty waking, otherwise known as “sleep inertia,” suffer from severe and debilitating brain fog, and may fall asleep unintentionally or at inappropriate times, also known as narcolepsy. These symptoms often further lead to reported memory problems, difficulty maintaining focus, and depression.

There is currently only one approved product for the treatment of IH, XYWAV, developed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals. A second product, WAKIX, developed by Harmony Biosciences ("Harmony") and originally approved for the treatment of EDS or cataplexy in adult patients with narcolepsy, but in October 2023, Harmony announced that the difference in outcome for EDS when comparing WAKIX and placebo in its Phase 3 trial with IH patients did not reach statistical significance. Prescribers also utilize narcolepsy medications and various stimulant products “off-label” to treat IH symptoms, with methylphenidate, a stimulant which has been classified by the DEA as a Schedule II controlled substance, being one of the most commonly used stimulants for treating IH. While each of these medications can help to address certain IH symptoms, there are also potential shortcomings, including dosing inconvenience, serious adverse events, such as elevated blood pressure and heart rate, and significant drug-to-drug interactions ("DDIs"), including with medications used to manage contraception and depression. In addition, patients have indicated that the effectiveness of their current medication was poor.

Narcolepsy is a rare, chronic, debilitating neurologic disorder of sleep-wake state instability that impacts up to 200,000 Americans and is primarily characterized by EDS and cataplexy (sudden loss of muscle tone while a person is awake) along with other manifestations of rapid eye movement ("REM"), sleep dysregulation, which intrude into wakefulness. In most patients, narcolepsy is caused by the loss of hypocretin, a neuropeptide in the brain that supports sleep-wake state stability. Typical symptom onset occurs in adolescence or young adulthood, but it can take up to a decade to be properly diagnosed. Although there are several approved medications for narcolepsy, we believe a treatment option based on serdexmethylphenidate (“SDX”), our proprietary prodrug of d-methylphenidate (“d-MPH”) which has previously been classified as a Schedule IV controlled substance, with superior exposure/duration characteristics and low abuse potential may be beneficial.

We reported final data for the Phase 1 proof-of-concept study of SDX in the first quarter of 2022. Increased wakefulness, alertness, hypervigilance, and insomnia effects were reported by study participants, which we believe suggests that SDX produced targeted pharmacodynamic effects that have the potential to benefit patients with IH and other sleep disorders. In November 2022, we announced that the FDA has granted the orphan drug designation to SDX for the treatment of IH.

KP1077 utilizes SDX, our prodrug of d-MPH, as its API. During the first quarter of 2022, we initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial comparing the cardiovascular safety of SDX to immediate-release and long-acting formulations of RITALIN, a commonly prescribed central nervous system ("CNS") stimulant. In September 2022, we announced topline data from our exploratory Phase 1 clinical trial, which showed the potential for higher dose formulations of SDX to be safe and well tolerated while avoiding the potential for greater cardiovascular safety risk compared to immediate-release and long-acting formulations of RITALIN.

Based on the data, in December 2022, we announced the initiation of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized-withdrawal, dose-optimizing, multicenter Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of KP1077 for the treatment of IH. The trial concluded in March 2024 and provided meaningful information of the optimal dose and dosing regimen to inform Phase 3 trial design.

Clinically meaningful improvements were observed across all studied endpoints. The exploratory endpoints of sleep inertia and brain fog performed in-line with expectations and were stable when compared across a variety of other endpoints. Symptom improvements in patients receiving KP1077 were similar after both once-per-day, and twice-per-day dosing.

In the Phase 2 trial, KP1077 was observed to be well-tolerated at all dose levels and both dosing regimens, with adverse events that are typical for stimulants and mostly mild in severity. These results are consistent with data from the Phase 1 trial with SDX that indicated no greater cardiovascular safety risk despite higher overall exposure levels when compared to both immediate and long-acting methylphenidate products currently used off-label for the treatment of IH. On June 3, 2024, we announced final results from the Phase 2 Clinical Trial of KP1077 for IH. The proof-of-concept study was designed to evaluate safety and tolerability and was not powered to demonstrate statistical significance. However, the trial included several important secondary and exploratory endpoints, such as the change in Epworth Sleepiness Scale ("ESS") total score, the IH Severity Scale ("IHSS"), the Sleep Inertia Visual Analog Scale ("SIVAS"), and a new scale to assess the symptoms and severity of brain fog. These data gathered from the secondary endpoints will help inform the study design for a potential Phase 3 clinical trial of KP1077. We held the end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA in September 2024, to discuss the design of a Phase 3 trial to study KP1077 in IH. The FDA indicated that a single pivotal study with appropriate confirmatory evidence will be sufficient to submit a new NDA. We are evaluating strategic alternatives to advance clinical development toward NDA submission and later, commercialization. KP1077 is subject to the terms and conditions of the AZSTARYS License Agreement (as defined below) but is not currently licensed to Commave thereunder.

Key Takeaways from Phase 2 Clinical Trial of KP 1077 for IH include:

KP1077 Summary:

AZSTARYS (Partnered product)

AZSTARYS contains d-MPH and our prodrug of d-MPH, SDX. On March 2, 2021, the FDA approved AZSTARYS as a once-daily treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), in patients age six years and older. AZSTARYS is currently being marketed in the U.S. under our September 2019 collaboration and license agreement, or the AZSTARYS License Agreement, with Commave. Under the AZSTARYS License Agreement, we granted Commave an exclusive, worldwide license, to develop, manufacture, and commercialize AZSTARYS and any of our product candidates containing SDX and used to treat ADHD or any other CNS disease. In July 2020, we entered into the consulting agreement with Corium, Inc. ("Corium") (the “Corium Consulting Agreement”), under which Corium and Commave, respectively, engaged us to guide the product development and regulatory activities for certain current and potential future products in their portfolio, as well as continue supporting preparation for the potential commercial launch of AZSTARYS.

Commave has tasked Corium, another affiliate of Gurnet Point Capital, L.P., to lead all commercialization activities for AZSTARYS in the U.S. Corium commercially launched AZSTARYS in the U.S. during the third quarter of 2021. In December 2021, Commave entered into a sublicense of commercialization rights for AZSTARYS in greater China to Shanghai Ark Biopharmaceutical Ltd.

Pursuant to the AZSTARYS License Agreement, Commave agreed to pay up to $63.0 million in milestone payments upon the occurrence of specified regulatory milestones related to AZSTARYS, including FDA approval and specified conditions with respect to the final approval label. In addition, Corium agreed to make additional payments upon the achievement of specified U.S. sales milestones of up to $420 million in the aggregate. Further, Commave will pay us quarterly, tiered royalty payments based on a percentage of net sales on a product-by-product basis. Corium also agreed to be responsible for and reimburse us for all of development, commercialization and regulatory expenses for any products or product candidates containing SDX, subject to certain limitations as set forth in the AZSTARYS License Agreement, including consultation fees to be paid to us for services provided to Corium in performing such activities.

In April 2021, we entered into the AZSTARYS Amendment ("AZSTARYS Amendment"). Pursuant to the AZSTARYS Amendment, we and Commave agreed to modify the compensation terms of the AZSTARYS License Agreement. Commave paid us $10.0 million in connection with the execution of the AZSTARYS Amendment following the FDA approval of AZSTARYS in the United States. Corium also paid us $10.0 million following the SDX scheduling determination by the DEA, which occurred on May 7, 2021. In addition, the AZSTARYS Amendment increased the total remaining future regulatory and sales milestone payments related to AZSTARYS up to an aggregate of $590.0 million. The AZSTARYS License Agreement will continue on a product-by-product basis (i) until expiration of the royalty term for the applicable product candidate in the United States and (ii) perpetually for all other countries.

In May 2021, we announced that SDX, our proprietary prodrug of d-MPH and the primary active pharmaceutical ingredient ("API") in AZSTARYS, was classified as a Schedule IV controlled substance by the DEA. AZSTARYS is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance as its formulation includes a 70:30 mixture of SDX (Schedule IV) and d-MPH (Schedule II), respectively.

During the first half of 2023, annual net sales of AZSTARYS surpassed $25 million, triggering the first annual net sales milestone payment of $5.0 million under the AZSTARYS License Agreement, which was earned and recognized as revenue in the second quarter of 2023, and received after quarter-end. During the second half of 2023, annual net sales of AZSTARYS surpassed $50 million, triggering the second net sales milestone payment of $10.0 million under the AZSTARYS License Agreement, which was earned and recognized in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Other Third-Party Agreements

Aquestive Termination Agreement

Under our March 2012 termination agreement with Aquestive Therapeutics ("Aquestive"), Aquestive has the right to receive a royalty amount equal to 10% of any value generated by AZSTARYS and any product candidates containing SDX. In connection with the AZSTARYS License Agreement, we paid Aquestive a royalty equal to 10% of the quarterly royalty payments and of the regulatory and net sales milestones earned in 2020, 2021, and 2023.

Distributor Agreement

Our current single distributor for sales of our approved products, OLPRUVA and MIPLYFFA, is a specialty pharmacy provider. The Company, however, may establish additional specialty distributors or other retail pharmacies and certain medical centers or hospitals. In addition to distribution agreements, we may enter into arrangements with health care providers and payors that provide for government mandated and/or privately negotiated rebates with respect to the purchase of our products.

Relief Exclusive License Agreement

As a condition to entering into the Merger Agreement, Acer and Relief Therapeutics SA ("Relief") entered into an exclusive license agreement on August 30, 2023 (the "Relief License Agreement"). Pursuant to the Relief License Agreement, Relief will hold exclusive development and commercialization rights for OLPRUVA in the EU, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Vatican City, Norway, Iceland, Principality of Monaco, Andorra, Gibraltar, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and North Macedonia ("Geographical Europe"). We have the right to receive a royalty of up to 10% of the net sales of OLPRUVA in Geographical Europe.

License Agreements Related to MIPLYFFA (arimoclomol)

Prior to our acquisition of the assets of Orphazyme in May 2022, Orphazyme had entered into an asset purchase agreement with LadRx Corporation, which was assigned to XOMA (US) LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of XOMA Corporation ("XOMA"), in June 2023 ("XOMA License Agreement"), as well as a license agreement with Kansas University (“KU”) and UCLB Business, PLC (“UCLB”) (the “KU/UCLB License Agreement”). Under the XOMA License Agreement, XOMA is entitled to certain net sales and regulatory milestone payments in addition to a mid-single digit royalty with respect to worldwide net sales of MIPLYFFA. Under the KU/UCLB License Agreement, KU and UCLB, respectively, are entitled to a low-single digit royalty with respect to worldwide net sales of MIPLYFFA.

Our Intellectual Property

Our intellectual property (“IP”) strategy includes seeking composition-of-matter patents, among other patents, for our prodrugs, product candidates and conjugates of our prodrugs while also protecting, where appropriate as trade secrets, our proprietary LAT platform technology, the process by which we identify, screen, evaluate and select ligands to be conjugated with parent drugs to create our prodrugs. Our current prodrugs all consist of an approved parent drug and one or more ligands that we have selected using our proprietary LAT platform technology. The parent drug and ligand or ligands together may potentially constitute a new molecule and thus may be eligible for composition-of-matter patent protection, among other patent protections, in the U.S. and abroad. Beyond our internally generated IP, we have also acquired extensive IP portfolios through our business development efforts which support the products and product candidates that we are seeking to commercialize and/or develop.

In addition to the execution of our IP strategy, we also depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our LAT platform technology, as well as any proprietary know-how and show-how beyond that which is patentable, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we generally require our employees, consultants and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information and, in some cases, requiring disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries, inventions and improvements important to our business.

As of December 31, 2024, we have been granted and maintain 89 active patents within the United States, and an additional 375 active foreign patents covering our selected prodrugs and product candidates. The terms of the 89 issued U.S. patents extend to various dates ranging, for example, between 2029 and 2042. The term of our overall domestic and foreign patent portfolio related to our selected prodrugs and product candidates, including patent term adjustments but excluding possible patent term extensions, extend to various dates ranging, for example, between 2029 and 2042, if pending patent applications in each of our patent families are issued as patents. As of December 31, 2024, we had 25 pending patent applications under active prosecution in the United States, and an additional 109 pending foreign patent applications potentially covering our selected prodrugs and product candidates. Our issued and granted patents provide protection in jurisdictions that include the United States, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, European Countries, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, and Vietnam.

MIPLYFFA (arimoclomol)

Pursuant to our acquisition of the assets of Orphazyme, we have received method of use and method of treatment patents, and have filed related patent applications, related to the arimoclomol families in various jurisdictions, including the U.S., European countries, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Canada, China, Brazil, Russia and Turkey, with anticipated patent expiration dates of 2029, excluding any potential patent term adjustments or extensions. We anticipate filing additional patent applications related to the arimoclomol families.

OLPRUVA (sodium phenylbutyrate)

We acquired the IP portfolio supporting OLPRUVA as part of the Merger with Acer. We have both U.S. and foreign patents with claims related to OLPRUVA. Our U.S. patents are directed to pharmaceutical compositions, including OLPRUVA's polymer coated, multi-particulate dosage formulation for oral administration and covers certain methods of use claims related to OLPRUVA. Additionally, we have patents in Europe, Israel, and Mexico related to pharmaceutical compositions, including OLPRUVA's polymer coated, multi-particulate dosage formulation for oral administration. These patents expire in 2036.

In October 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") issued a Notice of Allowance for U.S. patent application No. 16/624,834 for claims related to a kit comprising a combination therapeutic product composed of sodium phenylbutyrate or glycerol phenylbutyrate and sodium benzoate. That application has now issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,517,547 and was exclusively licensed to Acer, which we acquired in November 2023, from Baylor College of Medicine ("BCM"), with an expiration date in June 2038.

In July 2022, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) issued Electronic Patent Certificate ZL202122004991.9 in May 2022, for Utility Model directed to OLPRUVA (sodium phenylbutyrate). Specifically, the patent covers dosage form claims related to OLPRUVA’s polymer coated formulation for oral administration as a potential treatment for UCDs and Maple Syrup Urine Disease ("MSUD"). The patent has an expiration date in August 2031.

We have exclusive rights to certain patents and other intellectual property from BCM for the use of sodium phenylbutyrate (NaPB) for the treatment of inborn errors of BCAA metabolism, including MSUD. The licensed patents cover methods and compositions for treating humans (and animals) with various formulations and prodrugs of NaPB for inborn errors of BCAA metabolism, including MSUD, with the latest expiring in 2032. We made filings in the geographic regions that represent the largest incidence and prevalence of MSUD, including the U.S., selected countries in Europe (including Turkey), and Brazil. BCM has received three patents in the U.S. and one in the EU with respect to OLPRUVA, each of which is exclusively licensed to us pursuant to our agreement with BCM.

We also expect to benefit from potential commercial exclusivity afforded to the first drug approved after obtaining orphan drug designation for the treatment of MSUD. Orphan drug designation for OLPRUVA for the treatment of MSUD was granted by the FDA in August 2014.

Furthermore, we may qualify to receive an additional six months of pediatric exclusivity in the U.S., which runs consecutively to an existing exclusivity, if we conduct a successful pediatric study of OLPRUVA for the treatment of MSUD, approved by the FDA for this purpose.

AZSTARYS and Serdexmethylphenidate (SDX)

We have received composition-of-matter patents and also additionally filed composition-of-matter and method of treatment patent applications related to the AZSTARYS and SDX families in the United States and in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, Hong Kong, European Countries, India, Israel, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Ukraine, and Vietnam. We anticipate filing additional patent applications for our prodrugs and product candidates covering SDX and KP1077.

Celiprolol

The Merger with Acer included the acquisition of celiprolol, for which we intend to protect our commercial rights in the U.S. via multiple pathways. We believe celiprolol will be eligible for NCE exclusivity which provides upon approval as an NCE five years of marketing exclusivity, during which time the FDA will not approve another drug with the same active ingredient, regardless of the indication for use, in the U.S. In January 2015, the FDA granted celiprolol Orphan Drug designation, which provides seven years of marketing exclusivity for a drug intended to treat a rare condition, if approved. During the Orphan Drug exclusivity period, the FDA cannot approve the same drug for the same indication, unless it demonstrates clinical superiority. Orphan Drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving the same drug for a different indication, or a different drug for the same indication. NCE exclusivity and Orphan Drug exclusivity periods run concurrently. Furthermore, celiprolol may qualify for an additional six months of pediatric exclusivity in the U.S., which requires the submission of one or more studies in pediatric subjects that meet requirements to be specified by the FDA in a written request for pediatric studies. Pediatric exclusivity can be obtained either before or after NDA approval. Pediatric exclusivity is attached to the end of an existing exclusivity and runs consecutively. We may also consider making modifications to the formulation in order to improve the product profile and to seek additional intellectual property. While unapproved drugs may be imported into the U.S. underspecified circumstances, such as for use in clinical studies under a valid and effective investigational new drug ("IND") or for further manufacture into an IND drug or an approved drug, we intend to aggressively assert our rights, via regulatory and legal means, to limit the importation of non-FDA approved versions of celiprolol.

In 2022, the USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance for a patent application exclusively licensed from Assistance Publique—Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), for claims related to certain methods of VEDS with celiprolol. This application, titled “Method of Providing Celiprolol Therapy to a Patient,” has now issued as a U.S. patent (US 11,523,997) with an expiration date in November 2038. There is one granted patent in Mexico, and further pending applications in various jurisdictions, including the U.S. as well as Mexico, Canada, and Brazil.

Commercialization

In March 2021, we announced that the FDA approved the NDA for AZSTARYS, a once-daily product for the treatment of ADHD in patients ranging from six years and older. Corium is leading the commercialization of AZSTARYS in the U.S. under the AZSTARYS License Agreement. Corium commercially launched AZSTARYS in the U.S. in July 2021. In December 2021, Commave Therapeutics, S.A. sublicensed to Shanghai Ark Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. the commercialization rights Greater China, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

In December 2022, the FDA approved OLPRUVA (sodium phenylbutyrate) for oral suspension in the U.S.

In September 2024, the FDA approved the NDA for MIPLYFFA™ (arimoclomol), an orally-delivered treatment for NPC. MIPLYFFA has also been granted orphan designation for the treatment of NPC by the European Commission.

To support the launch of OLPRUVA and MIPLYFFA, we have built in-house capabilities including rare disease sales specialists who are working with prescribing clinicians and healthcare providers, which include metabolic specialists and clinical geneticists, as well as marketing, patient reimbursement services, market access and contracting, patient advocacy, and medical affairs teams. We have successfully recruited, on-boarded and trained our full commercial team and full launch for OLPRUVA began on January 29, 2024. We also have arrangements with third parties to provide additional services such as distribution and specialty pharmacy offerings. To support the efforts of our team members which are in the field engaging with HCPs, we are actively engaged in negotiations with the major commercial payers and state Medicaid organizations to seek access for OLPRUVA and MIPLYFFA. We have established promotional programs to drive awareness and patient experience with OLPRUVA and MIPLYFFA including*Quick Start,*a thirty-day free trial program designed to provide patient experience, and other patient co-pay programs, reflecting our commitment to ensure access to innovative treatments to those in need.

We have established a targeted commercial team which is designed to fully service the patients and prescribers within the rare disease indications for which we are successful in gaining approval for our product candidates. However, if our product candidates have large potential market opportunities that would require significant marketing resources, we may conclude that the most appropriate approach to their commercialization, if they receive regulatory approval, will involve forming a commercial collaboration or strategic relationship similar to those we have entered into with Commave, or consummating some type of strategic transaction, with a larger pharmaceutical or other marketing organization. As we get closer to potential approval of our product candidates, we will work to identify and implement the most appropriate commercialization strategies that we conclude are the most desirable with regard to each specific product candidate.

Competition

Our industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We will face competition and potential competition from any number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, generic drug companies, drug delivery companies and academic and research institutions. Our competitors may develop or market drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products or product candidates and these competitors may also have significantly more resources than us and be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products. We anticipate facing intense and increasing competition as new products enter the market and advanced technologies become available.

OLPRUVA

OLPRUVA competes against several currently marketed, branded and generic forms of phenylbutyrate. In particular, RAVICTI, which is marketed by Amgen Inc. (formerly Horizon Therapeutics), and PHEBURANE,, which is marketed by Medunik USA. We are also aware that there are drug candidates in clinical development for the potential treatment of UCDs. In addition, there is the potential entrance of authorized generics for RAVICTI which could enter the market as early as July 2025.

MIPLYFFA

There is another treatment for NPC, AQNEURSA (IntraBio) that was recently approved in the U.S. While AQNEURSA has a similar indication, data included on its label has a different clinical endpoint and safety profile from MIPLYFFA. We are also aware that there are several other drug candidates in clinical development for the treatment of NPC. These include adrabetadex (Mandos), and cyclodextrin (Cyclo Therapeutics).

Celiprolol

We are not aware of any active ongoing clinical trials for the treatment of VEDS. Aytu BioPharma, Inc. development program known as AR101/enzastaurin was indefinitely suspended in October 2022.

KP1077

If approved, we intend for KP1077 to compete against XYWAV, marketed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and potentially with other products that are currently in development for the treatment of IH. KP1077 could face potential competition from any products for the treatment of IH that are currently in or which may enter into clinical development.

AZSTARYS

AZSTARYS competes against currently marketed, branded and generic methylphenidate products for the treatment of ADHD. Some of these currently marketed products include CONCERTA, marketed by J&J Innovative Medicines (formerly Jannsen), QUELBREE, marketed by Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., QUILLIVANT XR and QUILLICHEW ER, marketed by Tris Pharma, RITALIN, FOCALIN and FOCALIN XR, marketed by Novartis AG, METADATE CD, marketed by UCB SA, DAYTRANA, marketed by Noven Therapeutics, LLC, Neos Therapeutics’ CONTEMPLA XR-ODT, marketed Aytu BioScience, Inc., JORNAY PM, Ironshore Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and ADHANSIA XR, marketed by Adlon Therapeutics, in addition to multiple other branded and generic methylphenidate products. In addition, AZSTARYS will face potential competition from any other methylphenidate products for the treatment of ADHD that are currently in, or which may enter into clinical development.

Many of our competitors either alone or with strategic partners, have or will have substantially greater financial, technical, and human resources compared with us. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful in developing or marketing products and technologies that are more effective, safer or less costly. Additionally, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval for their products more rapidly and may achieve more widespread market acceptance. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. There are other non-pharmaceutical therapeutic approaches that are used or may be used for our targeted indications. For example, liver transplantation may be used in some cases to treat UCDs in pediatric patients who have developed acute liver failure.

Manufacturing

Our manufacturing strategy is to rely on contract manufacturers to produce our approved products and product candidates for clinical trials and, if approved, drug product for commercial sale. We currently have no manufacturing facilities and limited personnel in our manufacturing department. We have contracted with third parties for the manufacture, testing, and storage of our approved products and product candidates and intend to continue to do so in the future. We expect to contract with third-party manufacturers for the manufacture of all API supply needs outside the United States if and when we receive approval from regulatory authorities outside the United States.

Our current and any future third-party manufacturers, their facilities and all lots of drug substance and drug products used in our clinical trials are required to be in compliance with current good manufacturing practices ("cGMPs") and comparable foreign regulations. The cGMP and comparable foreign regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports, and returned or salvaged products. The manufacturing facilities for our products must meet cGMP and comparable foreign requirements and FDA and foreign regulatory authorities' satisfaction before any product is approved and we can manufacture commercial products. Our current and any future third-party manufacturers are also subject to periodic inspections of facilities by the FDA and other authorities, including procedures and operations used in the testing and manufacture of our products to assess our compliance with applicable regulations.

Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements subjects a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, including refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold or termination of clinical trials, warning letters, untitled letters, cyber letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreements to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, refusals of government contracts and new orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and individual imprisonments.

Third-Party Payor Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of pharmaceutical products depend in significant part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, such as state and federal governmental authorities, including those that administer the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and private managed care organizations and health insurers. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for each of our product and product candidates is and will be made on a plan-by-plan basis. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product. Each third-party payor determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a drug, what amount it will pay providers for the drug, and on what tier of its formulary the drug will be placed. These decisions are influenced by the existence of multiple drug products within a therapeutic class and the net cost to the plan, including the amount of the prescription price, if any, rebated by the drug’s manufacturer. Typically, generic versions of drugs are placed in a preferred tier. The position of a drug on the formulary generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the drug and can strongly influence the adoption of a drug by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided, and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Also, third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. As a result, coverage, reimbursement and placement determinations are complex and are often the subject of extensive negotiations between the payer and the manufacturer of the drug.

Unless we enter into a strategic collaboration under which our collaborator assumes responsibility for seeking coverage and reimbursement for a given product (such as the AZSTARYS License Agreement), we will be responsible for negotiating coverage, reimbursement and placement decisions for our product candidates, if approved. Coverage, reimbursement and placement decisions for a new product are based on many factors including the coverage, reimbursement and placement of already marketed branded drugs for the same or similar indications, the safety and efficacy of the new product, availability of generics for similar indications, the clinical need for the new product and the cost-effectiveness of the product. Increasingly, both purchasers and payors are also conducting comparative clinical and cost effectiveness analyses involving application of metrics, including data on patient outcomes, provided by manufacturers.

Within the Medicare program, as self-administered drugs, our product and product candidates would be reimbursed under the expanded prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D. This program is a voluntary Medicare benefit administered by private plans that operate under contracts with the federal government. These plans develop formularies that determine which products are covered and what co-pay will apply to covered drugs. The plans have considerable discretion in establishing formularies and tiered co-pay structures, negotiating rebates with manufacturers and placing prior authorization and other restrictions on the utilization of specific products, subject to review by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"), for discriminatory practices. These Part D plans negotiate discounts with drug manufacturers, which are passed on, in whole or in part, to each of the plan’s enrollees through reduced premiums. Historically, Part D beneficiaries have been exposed to significant out-of-pocket costs after they surpass an annual coverage limit and until they reach a catastrophic coverage threshold. However, changes made by recent legislation reduced this patient coverage gap, known as the “donut hole”, by transitioning patient responsibility in that coverage range from 100% in 2010 to only 25% currently. To help achieve this reduction, pharmaceutical manufacturers were required to provide quarterly discounts of 70%, which commenced January 1, 2019, and was replaced, beginning on January 1, 2025 (described below). In 2020, drug manufacturers became responsible for a larger share of total drug costs due to an increase to the catastrophic threshold. Such increase also resulted in a higher out-of-pocket threshold paid by Part D beneficiaries.

If a drug product is available for reimbursement by Medicare or Medicaid, its manufacturer must comply with various health regulatory requirements and price reporting metrics, which may include, as applicable, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, the Medicaid rebate requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (the "OBRA"), and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (the "VHCA"), each as amended. Among other things, the OBRA requires drug manufacturers with certain drugs covered by Medicaid to pay rebates on prescription drugs to state Medicaid programs. States may also negotiate “supplemental” Medicaid rebates on drug products dispensed under Medicaid. Manufacturers participating in Medicaid are also generally required to participate in the Public Health Service 340B Drug Discount Program, which imposes a mandatory discount on purchases by certain customers. Manufacturers of innovator drugs, including 505(b)(2) drugs, that participate in the Medicaid program are also required to offer the drugs on the Federal Supply Schedule purchasing program of the General Services Administration for purchase by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and other authorized users at a mandatory discount. Additional laws and requirements apply to these contracts. Participation in such federal programs may result in prices for our future products that will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain.

Third-party payers, including the U.S. government, continue to apply downward pressure on the reimbursement of pharmaceutical products. Also, the trend towards managed health care in the United States and the concurrent growth of organizations such as health maintenance organizations may result in lower reimbursement for pharmaceutical products. We expect that these trends will continue as these payors implement various proposals or regulatory policies, including various provisions of the recent health reform legislation that affect reimbursement of these products. There are currently, and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of federal, state and foreign proposals to implement controls on reimbursement and pricing, directly and indirectly.

In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. For example, in the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular medicinal product candidate to currently available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) which is currently governed by the national laws of the individual EU member states, is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU member states. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription medicines, has become very intense. Pharmaceutical products may face competition from lower-priced products in foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products and may also compete with imported foreign products. Furthermore, there is no assurance that a product will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be established even if coverage is available or that the third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect the ability for manufacturers to sell products profitably. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow the price structures which prevail in the U.S., and generally, prices tend to be significantly lower.

Government Regulation

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the clinical development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate research and development activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, packaging, recordkeeping, tracking, approval, import, export, distribution, advertising and promotion of our products and product candidates. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before it may be legally marketed in the United States. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

The process required by the FDA before product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Clinical Trials

The testing and regulatory approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of drug substance chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity and drug product formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Prior to commencing the first human clinical trial with a product candidate, we must submit the results of the preclinical tests and preclinical literature, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies.

The IND becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial by imposing a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND may not result in FDA authorization to commence a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development, as well as amendments to previously submitted clinical trials. Further, an independent IRB for each study site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial, its informed consent form and other communications to study subjects before the clinical trial commences at that site. The IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted, including any changes to the study plans. Regulatory authorities, an IRB or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the FDA’s or the IRB’s requirements, if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects, or based on evolving business objectives or competitive climate. Some studies also include a data safety monitoring board, which receives special access to unblinded data during the clinical trial and may advise us to halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. The FDA, or the sponsor, may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.

In general, for purposes of NDA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

In the case of a 505(b)(2) NDA, some of the above-described studies and preclinical studies may not be required or may be abbreviated. Pharmacokinetic and other bridging studies may be needed, however, to demonstrate the relevance of the studies that were previously conducted by other sponsors to the drug that is the subject of the NDA.

The FDA may require, or companies may pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved. These clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4, or post-market, studies may be used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

The manufacture of investigational drugs for the conduct of human clinical trials is subject to cGMP requirements. Investigational drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients imported into the United States are also subject to regulation by the FDA relating to their labeling and distribution. Further, the export of investigational drug products outside of the United States is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country as well as U.S. export requirements under the FFDCA. In addition, while the IND is active and before approval, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator’s brochure.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

NDA Submission and Review by the FDA

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical and preclinical testing, among other items, the results of product development, including chemistry, manufacture and controls, non-clinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA, along with proposed labeling, as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by independent investigators. The submission of an NDA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to the FDA. These user fees must be filed at the time of the first submission of the application, even if the application is being submitted on a rolling basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in some circumstances.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act ("PREA"), an NDA or supplement to an NDA for a new active ingredient, indication, dosage form, dosage regimen or route of administration must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and efficacy 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 product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

The FDA may refer drugs which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel that typically includes clinicians and other experts who review, evaluate and make a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Once the FDA receives an application, it has 60 days to review the NDA to determine if it is substantially complete to permit a substantive review, before it accepts the application for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. The timeline for the FDA to complete its review of an NDA may differ based on whether the application is a standard review or priority review application. The FDA may give a priority review to applications for drugs that are intended to treat serious conditions and if approved, would provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of such serious conditions. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA"), the FDA has set the review goal of ten months from the 60-day filing date to complete its initial review of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity, or NME, and make a decision on the application. For non-NME standard applications, the FDA has set the review goal of ten months from the submission date to complete its initial review and to make a decision on the application. For priority review applications, the FDA has set the review goal of reviewing NME NDAs within six months of the 60-day filing date and non-NME applications within six months of the date of receipt. Such deadlines are referred to as the PDUFA date. The review process and the PDUFA date may also be extended if the FDA requests or the NDA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding the submission.

The FDA reviews applications to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the manufacturing controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities, including contract manufacturers and subcontracts, are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs.

Once the FDA’s review of the application is complete, the FDA will issue either a CRL or approval letter. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application cannot be approved in its current form. A CRL will usually describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the NDA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the CRL without first conducting required inspections and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the CRL, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the NDA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. Even with the submission of additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA may issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

The FDA may delay or refuse approval of an NDA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms. For example, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy ("REMS"), as a condition of approval or following approval. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed or may include contraindications, warnings or precautions in the product labeling, including a boxed warning. If the FDA requires a boxed warning, the sponsor may also be subject to specified promotional restrictions, such as the prohibition of reminder advertisements. The FDA also may not approve the inclusion of labeling claims necessary for successful marketing. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. In addition, the FDA may require post-marketing studies to monitor the effect of approved products and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

Advertising and Promotion

The FDA and other federal regulatory agencies closely regulate the marketing and promotion of drugs through, among other things, guidance and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe drugs for “off-label” uses — that is, uses not approved by the FDA and therefore not described in the drug’s labeling because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements and restrictions in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity and enforcement action by the FDA, the U.S. Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of HHS, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including manufacturing, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising, promotion, drug shortage reporting, compliance with any post-approval requirements imposed as a conditional of approval such as post-marketing clinical trials, REMS and surveillance, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including adverse experiences.

After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual human prescription drug program fee requirements for approved products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and to list their drug products and are subject to periodic announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and other requirements, which impose procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. We cannot be certain that we or our present or future suppliers will be able to comply with the cGMP regulations and other FDA regulatory requirements.

Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented, or FDA notification. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and specifications and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in withdrawal of marketing approval, mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information or other limitations, imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program, among other consequences.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing and promotion of drugs. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA. Physicians, in their independent professional medical judgment, may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labelling.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products, including samples, is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act ("PDMA"), which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. The Drug Supply Chain Security Act also imposes obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing.

Failure to comply with any of the FDA’s requirements could result in significant adverse enforcement actions. These include a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold or termination of clinical trials, warning letters, untitled letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, refusals of government contracts and new orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and individual imprisonment. Any of these sanctions could result in adverse publicity, among other adverse consequences.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or a patient population greater than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. and when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug in the U.S. will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA, to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the 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 a waiver of the NDA application user fee.

A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. In addition, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or, as noted above, if a second applicant demonstrates that its product is clinically superior to the approved product with orphan exclusivity or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program

In 2012, the U.S. Congress authorized the FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of certain rare pediatric disease product applications. This program is designed to encourage development of new drug and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain rare pediatric diseases. Specifically, under this program, a sponsor who receives an approval for a drug or biologic for a “rare pediatric disease” may qualify for a voucher that can be redeemed to receive priority review of a subsequent marketing application for a different product. The sponsor of a rare pediatric disease drug product receiving a priority review voucher may transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another sponsor. The voucher may be further transferred any number of times before the voucher is used, as long as the sponsor making the transfer has not yet submitted the application. The FDA may also revoke any priority review voucher if the rare pediatric disease drug for which the voucher was awarded is not marketed in the U.S. within one year following the date of approval.

For purposes of this program, a “rare pediatric disease” is a (a) serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious or life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years, including age groups often called neonates, infants, children, and adolescents; and (b) rare diseases or conditions within the meaning of the Orphan Drug Act. Under the current statutory sunset provisions, as amended by the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, FDA may only award a voucher for an approved rare pediatric disease product application if the Sponsor has rare pediatric disease designation for the drug, and that designation was granted by December 20, 2024. After September 30, 2026, FDA may not award any Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher.

Hatch-Waxman Act

Section 505 of the FFDCA describes three types of marketing applications that may be submitted to the FDA to request marketing authorization for a new drug. A Section 505(b)(1) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy. A 505(b)(2) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy but where at least some of the information required for approval comes from investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. This regulatory pathway enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and efficacy for an existing product, or published literature, in support of its application. The FDA may also require 505(b)(2) applicants to perform additional studies or measurements to support any changes from the reference listed drug. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all or some of the labeled indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant. Section 505(j) establishes an abbreviated approval process for a generic version of approved drug products through the submission of an abbreviated new drug application ("ANDA"). An ANDA provides for marketing of a generic drug product that has the same active ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, labeling, performance characteristics and intended use, among other things, to a previously approved product. ANDAs are termed “abbreviated” because they are generally not required to include preclinical and clinical data to establish safety and efficacy. Instead, generic applicants must scientifically demonstrate that their product is bioequivalent to, or performs in the same manner as, the innovator drug through in vitro, in vivo, or other testing. The generic version must deliver the same amount of active ingredients into a subject’s bloodstream in the same amount of time as the innovator drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the reference listed drug.

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA patents whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of an NDA, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. These products may be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA.

Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the Orange Book or a 505(b)(2) NDA referencing a drug listed in the Orange Book must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug or method of use that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This last certification is known as a Paragraph IV certification. Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except where the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed patent through a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or does not indicate that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all of the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, or, if permissible, are carved out.

If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the holder of the NDA for the reference listed drug and the patent owner once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA holder or patent owner may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification prevents the FDA from approving the application until the earlier of 30 months from the date of the lawsuit, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the applicant or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay. In instances where an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant files a Paragraph IV certification, the NDA holder or patent owner regularly take action to trigger the 30-month stay, recognizing that the related patent litigation may take many months or years to resolve. Thus, approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA could be delayed for a significant period of time depending on the patent certification the applicant makes and the reference drug sponsor’s decision to initiate patent litigation. The applicant may also elect to submit a statement certifying that its proposed label does not contain, or carves out, any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent.

The FDA provides periods of regulatory exclusivity, which provides the holder of an approved NDA limited protection from new competition in the marketplace for the innovation represented by its approved drug for a period of three or five years following the FDA’s approval of the NDA. Five years of exclusivity are available to new chemical entities ("NCEs"). An NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion, excluding those appended portions of the molecule that cause the drug to be an ester, salt, including a salt with hydrogen or coordination bonds, or other noncovalent derivatives, such as a complex, chelate, or clathrate, of the molecule, responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review or approve an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application, however, may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. Applicants may also seek to carve out certain drug labeling that is protected by exclusivity.

If a product is not eligible for the NCE exclusivity, it may be eligible for three years of exclusivity. Three-year exclusivity is available to the holder of an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical trials, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence trials, was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted or sponsored by the applicant. This three-year exclusivity period protects against FDA approval of ANDAs and 505(b)(2) NDAs for the condition of the new drug’s approval. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

DEA Regulation

Our products and certain of our product candidates are, or if approved, will be regulated as “controlled substances” as defined in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 ("CSA"), and the DEA’s implementing regulations, which establish registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution, importation, exportation, inventory, quota and other requirements administered by the DEA. These requirements are directly applicable to us and also applicable to our contract manufacturers and to distributors, prescribers and dispensers of our product candidates. The DEA regulates the handling of controlled substances through a closed chain of distribution. This control extends to the equipment and raw materials used in their manufacture and packaging in order to prevent loss and diversion into illicit channels of commerce.

The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. Schedule II drugs are those that meet the following criteria:

AZSTARYS is listed as Schedule II controlled substances under the CSA. For Schedule II controlled substances, the importation of APIs for our product candidates, as well as the manufacture, shipping, storage, sales and use of the products, are subject to a high degree of regulation. In addition to maintaining an importer and/or exporter registration, importers and exporters of controlled substances must obtain a permit for every import of a Schedule I or II substance and a narcotic substance in Schedule III, IV and V, as well as every export of a Schedule I or II substance and a narcotic substance in Schedule III and IV. For all other drugs in Schedule III, IV and V, importers and exporters must submit an import or export declaration. Schedule II drugs are subject to the strictest requirements for registration, security, recordkeeping and reporting. Also, distribution and dispensing of these drugs are highly regulated. For example, all Schedule II drug prescriptions must be signed by a physician, physically presented to a pharmacist and may not be refilled without a new prescription. Electronic prescriptions may also be permissible depending on the state, so long as the prescription complies with the DEA’s requirements for electronic prescriptions.

SDX, which is the sole API in KP1077, has been listed as a Schedule IV controlled substance under the CSA. Controlled substances classified in Schedule III, IV, and V are also subject to registration, recordkeeping, reporting, and security requirements. For example, Schedule III drug prescriptions must be authorized by a physician and may not be refilled more than six months after the date of the original prescription or more than five times. A prescription for controlled substances classified in Schedules III, IV, and V issued by a physician, may be communicated either orally, in writing or by facsimile to the pharmacies. Controlled substances that are also classified as narcotics, such as hydrocodone, oxycodone and hydromorphone, are also subject to additional DEA requirements, such as manufacturer reporting of the import of narcotic raw material.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized. Similarly, separate registrations are also required for separate facilities. Acquisition and distribution transactions must also be reported for Schedule I and II controlled substances, as well as Schedule III narcotic substances.

The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration and on a periodic basis. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as cages, surveillance cameras and inventory reconciliations. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports made to the DEA, for example distribution reports for Schedule I and II controlled substances, Schedule III substances that are narcotics, and other designated substances. Reports must also be made for thefts or losses of any controlled substance, and to obtain authorization to destroy any controlled substance. In addition, special permits and notification requirements apply to imports and exports of narcotic drugs. To enforce these requirements, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate administrative proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings.

In addition, a DEA quota system controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. Distributions of any Schedule I or II controlled substance or Schedule III narcotic must also be accompanied by special order forms, with copies provided to the DEA. Because AZSTARYS and our product candidates may be regulated as Schedule II controlled substances, they may be subject to the DEA’s production and procurement quota scheme. The DEA establishes annually an aggregate quota for how much of a controlled substance may be produced in total in the United States based on the DEA’s estimate of the quantity needed to meet legitimate scientific and medicinal needs. The limited aggregate amount of stimulants that the DEA allows to be produced in the U.S. each year is allocated among individual companies, which must submit applications annually to the DEA for individual production and procurement quotas. We and our contract manufacturers must receive an annual quota from the DEA in order to produce or procure any Schedule I or Schedule II substances for use in manufacturing of our product candidates. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas and individual production and procurement quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments. Our, or our contract manufacturers’, quota of an active ingredient may not be sufficient to meet commercial demand or complete clinical trials. Any delay, limitation or refusal by the DEA in establishing our, or our contract manufacturers’, quota for controlled substances could delay or stop our clinical trials or product launches, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Individual states also independently regulate controlled substances. We and our contract manufacturers will be subject to state regulation on distribution of these products, including, for example, state requirements for licensures or registration.

Other Healthcare Regulatory Frameworks

Our business activities, including but not limited to, research, sales, promotion, distribution, medical education and other activities are subject to regulation by numerous regulatory and law enforcement authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including potentially the Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its various divisions, including the CMS and the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and state and local governments. Our business activities must comply with numerous healthcare laws, including those described below. Compliance with government regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, the referral of an individual for, or purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of, any good, facility, item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Additionally, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, or the specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation.

The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the federal False Claims Act, which can be enforced by private citizens through civil whistleblower orqui tam actions, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. In addition, a claim for payment of items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit 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, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of whether the payor is public or private, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a health care benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have committed a violation.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act and its implementing regulations, require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with specified exceptions) to report annually information related to specified payments or other transfers of value provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other healthcare providers (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants, and certified nurse-midwives) and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, such providers and teaching hospitals and to report annually specified ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

Depending on the circumstances, failure to comply with these laws can result in significant penalties, including criminal, civil and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, debarment from government contracts, individual imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, exclusion from government programs, refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

We may be subject to data privacy and security laws, regulations, and standards by foreign, federal, state and local governments that govern the collection, use, access to, confidentiality and security of health-related and other personal information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws and consumer protection laws and regulations govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. In addition, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Healthcare Reform Measures

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals designed to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

For example, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which has substantially changed health care financing by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly affected the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for specified branded prescription drugs, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, expanded health care fraud and abuse laws, revised the methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers to the state and federal government for covered outpatient drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated, imposed an inflation penalty on new formulations of drugs, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, expanded the 340B program which caps the price at which manufacturers can sell covered outpatient pharmaceuticals to specified hospitals, clinics and community health centers, and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

Since its enactment there have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect in April 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2032 with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020, through March 31, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. In addition, in January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several categories of healthcare providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price.

Further, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”), of 2022, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023), and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (which began in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. CMS has published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which will first be effective in 2026, and the list of the subsequent 15 drugs that will be subject to negotiation, although the drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure, drug price increase reporting and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Some states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, which ultimately may attempt to impose price limits on certain drugs in these states.

We expect that additional state, federal and foreign healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal, state and foreign governments will pay for healthcare product candidates and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressures.

On December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. The Regulation entered into force in January 2022, and has been applicable since January 2025, with a phased implementation based on the type of product, i.e. oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products as of 2025, orphan medicinal products as of 2028, and all other medicinal products by 2030. The Regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and provide the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It permits EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the highest potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the companies to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the companies, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products to the extent we choose to develop or sell any products outside of the United States. The foreign regulatory approval process includes all of the risks associated with FDA approval set forth above, as well as additional country-specific regulation.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Approval by one regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required to obtain FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

Non-clinical Studies and Clinical Trials

Similarly to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice (“GLP”) as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products, e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines on Good Clinical Practices as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU member states, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”) which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database.

While the EU Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application (“CTA”) to be submitted in each member state in which the clinical trial takes place, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed.

The CTR transition period ended on January 31, 2025, and all clinical trials (and related applications) are now fully subject to the provisions of the CTR. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”). Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.

Marketing Authorization

In order to market our product candidates in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EU, medicinal product candidates can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization (“MA”). To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a MA application (“MAA”). The process for this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs:

• “Centralized MAs” are issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) of the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) and are valid throughout the EU. The centralized procedure is compulsory for certain types of medicinal products such as (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) designated orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMPs”) (such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products) and (iv) medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU.

• “National MAs” are issued by the competent authorities of the EU member states, only cover their respective territory, and are available for product candidates not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in an EU member state, this national MA can be recognized in another member state through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any member state at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various member states through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the member states in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the reference member state.

Under the above-described procedures, in order to grant the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the EU member states make an assessment of the risk benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed based on a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.

Data and Marketing Exclusivity

In the EU, new products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon MA. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic and biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications, which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical or biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

Orphan Medicinal Products

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. A medicinal product can be designated as an orphan if its sponsor can establish that: (1) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life threatening or chronically debilitating condition (2) either (a) such condition affects not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from the orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an MAA. An EU orphan designation entitles a party to incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized procedure. Upon grant of a MA, orphan medicinal products are entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved indication, which means that the competent authorities cannot accept another MAA, or grant a MA, or accept an application to extend a MA for a similar medicinal product for the same indication for a period of ten years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”). No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted based on pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The orphan exclusivity period may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for which it received orphan destination, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, MA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (i) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

Pediatric Development

In the EU, MAAs for new medicinal products must include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a PIP agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all the EU member states and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension (if any is in effect at the time of approval) or, in the case of orphan pharmaceutical products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity is granted.

Controlled substances

The EU legislation does not establish different classes of narcotic or psychotropic substances. However, the United Nations (“UN”) Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 (“UN Conventions”) codify internationally applicable control measures to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes. The individual EU member states are all signatories to these UN Conventions. All signatories have a dual obligation to ensure that these substances are available for medical purposes and to protect populations against abuse and dependence. The UN Conventions regulate narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV substances with Schedule II substances presenting the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances and Schedule I and IV substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse.

The UN Conventions require signatories to require all persons manufacturing, trading (including exporting and importing) or distributing controlled substances to obtain a license from the relevant authority. Each individual export or import of a controlled substance must also be subject to an authorization. The obligations provided in the UN Conventions and additional requirements are implemented at national level and requirements may vary from one member state to another.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

Failure to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

Employees

As of December 31, 2024, we employed 59 full-time employees.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Iowa in October 2006 and were reincorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in May 2014. We changed our name from KemPharm, Inc. to Zevra Therapeutics, Inc. effective as of February 21,2023. Our website address iswww.zevra.com.