CervoMed Inc.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing treatments for age-related neurologic disorders. We are currently focused on the development of our lead drug candidate, neflamapimod, an investigational, orally administered, small molecule brain penetrant that inhibits p38α in the neurons of people with neurodegenerative diseases. We believe neflamapimod has the potential to treat synaptic dysfunction, the reversible aspect of the underlying disease processes in DLB and certain other major neurological disorders. Neflamapimod is currently being evaluated in our ongoing RewinD-LB Trial, a Phase 2b trial in patients with DLB funded primarily by a $21.3 million grant from the NIA.

Our novel approach focuses on reducing the impact of inflammation in the brain, or neuroinflammation, which we believe is a key factor in the manifestation of degenerative diseases of the brain, including DLB. Chronic activation of the enzyme p38α in the brains of people with certain neurodegenerative diseases is believed to impair how neurons communicate through synapses. This impairment, termed synaptic dysfunction, leads to deterioration of cognitive and motor abilities. Left untreated, synaptic dysfunction can result in irreversible neuronal loss that leads to devastating disabilities, significant reliance on a caretaker, long term care living, and, ultimately, death. However, before neuronal loss commences, disease progression in many major neurodegenerative disorders, including DLB, initially involves a protracted period of reversible functional loss, particularly with respect to the synapses. We believe that inhibiting p38α activity in the brain, by interfering with key pathogenic drivers of disease, has the potential to reverse the clinical progression observed in the early-stages of certain neurodegenerative diseases, as well as slow further progression by delaying permanent synaptic dysfunction and neuron death.

We believe we are a leader in the industry in developing a treatment for DLB, as neflamapimod is the only clinical drug candidate of which we are aware that has shown statistically significant improvements compared to placebo in a Phase 2a clinical trial (our AscenD-LB Trial) and improved outcomes (p < 0.001) on the trial’s primary endpoint in a Phase 2b evaluation (16-week Extension data from our ongoing RewinD-LB Trial). We are also the only company of which we are aware that is specifically targeting the treatment of DLB patients without AD co-pathology. Compared to patients with “pure” DLB – who may represent up to 50% of the total diagnosed DLB patient population at any given time – DLB patients with AD co-pathology have significant, irreversible neuronal loss in the hippocampus, which may be assessed via imaging or biomarker evidence of amyloid and/or tau pathology. DLB without AD co-pathology, however, is primarily a disease of reversible synaptic dysfunction in the BFC system and, based on available preclinical and clinical data, we believe if neflamapimod is given in the early stages of certain degenerative diseases of the brain, it may reverse synaptic dysfunction, improve neuron health and function, and slow further progression by delaying synaptic dysfunction and neuronal death. We believe that targeting DLB patients without AD co-pathology enhances the alignment of our development path with neflamapimod’s mechanism of action, reduces the heterogeneity of our target patient population, and thereby has the potential to improve outcomes for patients.

Our ongoing RewinD-LB Trial is a Phase 2b trial in 159 participants with DLB funded primarily by a $21.3 million grant from the NIA. Patients with AD co-pathology, as assessed by ptau181 levels at screening, were excluded from the trial. Intended to confirm the efficacy findings from the AscenD-LB Trial, we announced 16-week results from the Extension Phase of the RewinD-LB Trial in March 2025. In the first 16 weeks of the Extension, treatment with the New Capsules led to increased plasma drug concentrations and demonstrated improvement on the trial's primary outcome measure, change from baseline in CDR-SB (p<0.001 vs. Old Capsules; p=0.003 vs. placebo), and ADCS-CGIC, a secondary outcome measure in the trial (p=0.035 vs. Old Capsules; p=0.035 vs. placebo). We believe these results demonstrate proof-of-concept for neflamapimod as a potential treatment for DLB, and support our hypothesis that the failure of neflamapimod during the Initial Phase was the result of the Old Capsules delivering lower than expected drug concentrations and effectively underdosing participants. We expect to report 32-week results from the Extension in the second half of 2025 and we intend to meet with the FDA to discuss our Phase 3 plans following the availability of those data.

In addition to neflamapimod’s potential to treat DLB, we believe the benefit of targeting neuroinflammation-induced synaptic dysfunction in the BFC system can be applied to other neurologic indications in which treatment of BFC dysfunction and degeneration would be expected to be clinically beneficial, including as treatment for certain forms of FTD, such as PPA, and promoting recovery after ischemic stroke.

Our Pipeline

Set forth below is a table presenting our clinical pipeline:

Our Strategy

Our mission is to develop and commercialize innovative medicines that change the course of the disease of patients who suffer from age-related neurologic disorders.

The key elements of our strategy are:

Neflamapimod in Dementia with Lewy Bodies

Capitalizing on Our Strengths

We believe that the following competitive strengths will allow us to execute on our core mission to develop and commercialize neflamapimod, if approved, as an innovative treatment for patients who suffer from DLB:

DLB Background

Significant Disease Burden & High Unmet Medical Need

DLB is the second most common neurodegenerative dementia (after AD), representing 10-20% of the dementia population. Estimates by the Lewy Body Dementia Association suggest there are approximately 700,000 individuals with DLB in the U.S. and an additional 700,000 individuals with DLB in the European Union, and up to 50% of these patients have DLB without AD co-pathology. Despite this prevalence, there are currently no approved treatments specifically for DLB in the U.S. or the European Union.

DLB is characterized by progressive dementia and fluctuating cognition (particularly deficits in attention), visual hallucination, motor dysfunction (disturbances in gait and balance) and sleep disturbances. With respect to life expectancy, in a large cohort of DLB and AD cases (251 DLB, 222 AD), after controlling for age at diagnosis, comorbidity, and antipsychotic prescribing, the survival for DLB was shorter compared to AD, with an average survival of less than four years with DLB, as compared to nearly seven years with AD. Antecedent to death, the time progression to severe dementia is also shorter by nearly two years with DLB compared to AD. Separate from survival and progression to severe disease, even in the mild-to-moderate stages, the disease burden with respect to quality of life and caregiver burden is greater in DLB than in AD with deficits occurring in both cognitive and motor function. Patients with DLB are more frequently admitted to general hospitals and utilize inpatient care to a substantially higher degree than patients with AD or the general elderly population. Perhaps most importantly, in a large prospective study, mild dementia patients with DLB were admitted to a nursing home after only a median of 1.8 years from presentation and diagnosis, nearly two years shorter than the 3.7 years in the AD group.

In sum, DLB in afflicted persons often progresses quickly and severely impacts not only the daily lives of patients suffering from the disease but that of their caregivers. There are currently no disease-modifying treatments available for DLB, so management of DLB currently focuses on relief of symptoms, including its cognitive and parkinsonian (e.g., tremor) manifestations. No approaches have been shown to clinically slow neuronal loss or prevent cognitive decline, and there are no approved therapies for treating the underlying disease process or disease-modifying drugs in Phase 3 clinical trials. Though not approved for DLB, cholinesterase inhibitors are used in its management, with some limited and transient improvement in cognition and a reduction in the frequency and severity of visual hallucinations. However, despite treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors, the cognitive and functional impairments progress rapidly, caregiver burden remains high, and new treatments are needed for these patients. With respect to the motor component of DLB, dopaminergic medications (e.g., carbidopa/levodopa) work less well in DLB as compared to PD and patients with DLB generally have a limited response to these medications, which are in any case poorly tolerated in this patient population.

Neflamapimod’s Mechanism of Action & Scientific Rationale

Our approach is based on an understanding of the mechanism by which neuroinflammation leads to the initiation and establishment of the neurodegenerative process. The process of neurodegeneration starts with dysfunction of synapses, i.e., the interconnections between neurons. Treating synaptic dysfunction has emerged as a major therapeutic objective to address progression of neurodegenerative diseases, particularly in the early stages prior to the onset of significant cell death. Importantly, in animal models, while neurodegeneration is irreversible, synaptic dysfunction has been observed to be reversible. In addition, even in animal models of rapidly progressive neurodegeneration (e.g., prion disease), interventions that reverse synaptic dysfunction both improve function and “arrest” the neurodegenerative process. Thus, therapeutic interventions that target synaptic dysfunction have the potential to both reverse and slow disease progression in the early stages of neurodegenerative dementias.

The basal forebrain – specifically, nerve cells producing the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (i.e., “cholinergic neurons”) – plays critical roles in controlling and optimizing a wide range of cognitive, motor, and visual tasks. Synaptic dysfunction in the BFC system is the primary pathogenic driver of disease expression and progression in DLB. In collaborative work conducted with the New York University Langone Medical Center, and published in the journalNature Communications, we have demonstrated that neflamapimod targets the specific molecular mechanisms underlying BFC dysfunction and degeneration, and may successfully reverse disease progression in the early-stages of BFC dysfunction.

Neflamapimod was hypothesized to reduce Rab5 protein activity – a key therapeutic target in this pathogenic model for cholinergic degeneration in DLB – because of scientific literature showing that the immediate target of neflamapimod, p38α kinase, is the major activator of Rab5. As shown in the figure below, the cholinergic degeneration is believed to result from inflammation and various aggregated proteins that lead to aberrant activation of the protein Rab5, a master regulator of endocytosis and endosomal trafficking, further leading to impaired retrograde axonal transport and a block in NGF signaling from the synapses at the ends of nerve fibers (or “axons”) back to cell body of the cholinergic neuron in the basal forebrain. The resulting loss of support of neuronal health that NGF provides is then believed to lead to dysfunction, and, eventually, degeneration of cholinergic neurons, which are particularly vulnerable to this pathogenic process because of their very long fibers.

Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Cholinergic Neurodegeneration in DLB and Point of Intervention for Neflamapimod

AD Co-Pathology and "Pure" DLB

More specifically, our DLB development program for neflamapimod is currently focused on the treatment of DLB patients without AD co-pathology. Compared to patients with “pure” DLB – who may represent up to 50% of the total diagnosed DLB patient population at any given time – DLB patients with AD co-pathology have significant, irreversible neuronal loss in the hippocampus. Pure DLB, therefore, is primarily a disease of reversible synaptic dysfunction in the BFC system. Relative to patients with AD co-pathology, these patients have limited neurodegeneration and neuronal loss in the cortical regions of the brain, including and particularly in the hippocampus.

Based on a range of animal and human pathology studies, the cholinergic degenerative process in the basal forebrain is believed to be reversible. The cholinergic neurons in that region of the brain do not die, rather they stop functioning normally (i.e., stop producing acetylcholine) and atrophy, or shrink in size. However, as those neurons are still alive, with successful pharmacological treatment they can be rescued and the disease process reversed.

We believe that the results of preclinical studies and our clinical trials evaluating neflamapimod in DLB, through demonstration of reduction in Rab5 activity and reversal cholinergic dysfunction & degeneration, demonstrate neflamapimod’s potential to treat synaptic dysfunction, the reversible aspect of the underlying neurodegenerative processes in the BFC system that causes disease in DLB. We also have obtained and published results from a pilot clinical trial in patients with early AD that demonstrate that neflamapimod treatment increases the volume of the basal forebrain, as well its functional connectivity to the cortex, as assessed by structural and functional MRI, respectively.

AscenD-LB Trial: Our Completed Phase 2a Trial in Dementia with Lewy Bodies

The AscenD-LB Trial was an exploratory, Phase 2a clinical trial designed to evaluate the effects of neflamapimod against a range of clinical endpoints. A total of 91 participants were enrolled between October 2019 and March 2020 and randomized to receive neflamapimod capsules at one of two doses (40mg BID or 40mg TID) or matching placebo capsules (randomized 1:1) for 16 weeks. In the primary analysis of the AscenD-LB Trial, which included all participants enrolled and evaluated for treatment effects, neflamapimod demonstrated improvement compared to placebo in dementia severity (assessed by CDR-SB, p=0.023 vs. placebo) and functional mobility (gait or walking ability as assessed by the TUG test, p=0.044 vs. placebo). In additional analyses, at the highest dose (40mg TID), improvement on NTB was evident as compared to placebo (p=0.049), while significant improvement compared to placebo on the NTB was not evident in the primary analysis. In addition, encouraging positive trends on the ten-item Neuropsychiatric Inventory were seen, particularly with respect to visual hallucinations, where a significant reduction in frequency relative to placebo was seen. This primary analysis of the AscenD-LB Trial data showing neflamapimod significantly improved dementia severity and motor function was published in the major scientific journalNature Communications in September 2022.

Additional pre-specified analyses of the AscenD-LB Trial data stratified by baseline plasma ptau181 were conducted to evaluate the results specifically in a DLB patient population without evidence of AD co-pathology. As shown in the table below, participants in the AscenD-LB Trial without evidence of AD co-pathology had an average higher treatment response (evaluated by Cohen’sd effect size) compared to the average response in the overall trial, and demonstrated significant improvement in cognitive tests of attention, the CDR-SB, the TUG test, and in a test of recognition memory (International Shopping List Test recognition index), with Cohen’sd treatment effect sizes for each of these endpoints indicating clinical effects that are moderate-to-large in magnitude (> 0.7). By comparison, in published studies in the scientific literature, the cholinesterase inhibitors have Cohen’sd effect size of approximately 0.3 in the treatment of AD or DLB.

Magnitude of 40mg TID Neflamapimod Treatment Effect vs. Placebo in Overall Patient Population and in the Pure DLB Patient Population) of the AscenD-LB Trial*

• By convention the magnitude of a treatment is considered small when the Cohen’sd effect size between 0.2 and, moderate when it is 0.4 to 0.8 and large when it is 0.8 or greater.

RewinD-LB Trial: Our Ongoing Phase 2b Trial in Dementia with Lewy Bodies

Trial Design and Background

In the second quarter of 2023, we initiated our ongoing RewinD-LB Trial, a Phase 2b clinical trial of neflamapimod in participants with DLB funded primarily by a $21.3 million grant from the NIA, and, in August 2023, we announced dosing of the first patient in the trial. The design of the RewinD-LB Trial was based on our findings and learnings from the AscenD-LB Trial, including the following:

In the double-blind, placebo-controlled Initial Phase of the RewinD-LB Trial, neflamapimod was administered orally, 40mg TID, with a second group receiving matching placebo. Each treatment group included approximately 80 participants (enrolling a total of 159 participants) diagnosed with DLB by consensus criteria (global CDR = 0.5 or 1.0). Patients with elevated plasma ptau181 (> 2.4 pg/ml) were excluded such that patients with AD co-pathology were excluded from the trial. Treatments (neflamapimod or placebo) were administered for 16 weeks in the Initial Phase and a 32-week open-label treatment extension for participants completing the Initial Phase remains ongoing.

The primary objective of the trial is to demonstrate that neflamapimod, compared with placebo, improves dementia severity, as assessed by change from baseline to week 16 in CDR-SB score. The CDR-SB is designed to assess both cognition and function, and is obtained by clinicians rating the severity of symptoms across six domains – memory, orientation, judgment & problem solving, community affairs, home & hobbies, and personal care – after a semi-structured interview with the patient and a reliable informant (e.g., family member) on a 0–3 scale for each domain (total range 0–18, with a higher score indicating worse dementia).

Secondary objectives include further evaluation of the safety and tolerability of neflamapimod and treatment effects on (1) global rating of treatment effect, assessed by the ADCS-CGIC, (2) motor function, as assessed by the TUG test, and (3) cognition, assessed by a DLB-specific cognitive test battery. Tertiary endpoints will examine whether neflamapimod affects neuropsychiatric outcomes as assessed by the NPI-12, effect on fluctuations in cognition as assessed by the Dementia Cognitive Fluctuations Scale, impact on resting-state EEG (as well alpha-reactivity evaluated by EEG) and in a sub-set of participants, basal forebrain atrophy assessed by structural MRI.

Initial Phase Topline Results

In December 2024, we announced topline results from the Initial Phase of the RewinD-LB Trial. In the Initial Phase, during which all participants received Old Capsules, no discernible differences were observed between the neflamapimod and placebo treatment groups with respect to CDR-SB, the primary endpoint, or any of the trial's secondary endpoint. However, average measured trough plasma drug concentrations during the Initial Phase (3.9 ng/mL, SD=1.5) were similar to those seen with 40mg BID dosing in certain of our prior clinical trials, despite the fact that the dosing regimen in the RewinD-LB Trial is 40mg TID. Effectively, we did not get the amount of drug into participants' systems that we intended and expected based on the dosing regimen, and instead concentration levels were similar to those observed in prior trials with a lower dose that we had previously determined was insufficient to achieve therapeutic levels.

While our prior clinical trials had primarily used neflamapimod capsules less than three years of age post-manufacture, the Old Capsules utilized during the Initial Phase of the RewinD-LB Trial were three-to-four years of age at the time of dosing, depending on when a participant enrolled in the trial. While customary pre-trial testing suggested that these capsules would remain viable through the four-year timepoint, following the announcement of topline results from the Initial Phase, we conducted additional evaluations of the Old Capsules utilized during the Initial Phase. While there was no evidence of chemical degradation in these capsules, an analysis utilizing a sensitive dissolution assay indicates that the Old Capsules' dissolution kinetics may have been impacted by age at approximately three to four years after the manufacture date, a potential explanation for the difference in the results observed during the Initial Phase relative to the results previously observed at the same dose in the same patient population in the AscenD-LB Trial.

Extension Phase 16 Week Results

In March 2025, we announced 16-week results from the Extension Phase of the RewinD-LB Trial. In the first 16 weeks of the Extension, treatment with the New Capsules led to increased plasma drug concentrations and demonstrated improvement on the trial's primary outcome measure, change from baseline in CDR-SB (p<0.001 vs. Old Capsules; p=0.003 vs. placebo), and ADCS-CGIC, a secondary outcome measure in the trial (p=0.035 vs. Old Capsules; p=0.035 vs. placebo). We believe these results demonstrate proof-of-concept for neflamapimod as a potential treatment for DLB, and support our hypothesis that the failure of neflamapimod during the Initial Phase was the result of the Old Capsules delivering lower than expected drug concentrations and effectively underdosing participants. Though all analyses reported from the Extension are exploratory in nature, in the discussion below, p-values and 95% confidence intervals are reported to provide a measure of the probability that any differences identified between the samples are due to chance.

Of the 159 participants randomized in the Initial Phase, 152 completed the Initial Phase and 149 entered the Extension, during which all participants received neflamapimod. Though participants were aware that the treatment for all participants during the Extension was neflamapimod (i.e., treatment was “open-label” neflamapimod), it is our understanding that they were not aware of which batch of capsules was administered to any given participant during the first 16 weeks of the Extension. Of the 149 participants who entered the Extension, 55 received the same batch of Old Capsules utilized in the Initial phase throughout the first 16 weeks of the Extension and 94 received New Capsules for all or a portion of those 16 weeks — 46 starting at day 1 of the Extension, 22 starting at week 4 of the Extension, and 26 starting at week 8 of the Extension; except as otherwise indicated, references to “New Capsule” data in this discussion of the 16-week Extension results include these 94 participants as a single cohort. 87.3% of Old Capsule recipients and 91.5% of New Capsule recipients who entered the Extension completed the first 16 weeks of treatment in the Extension.

As specified by the protocol and statistical analysis plan, linear MMRM was utilized to analyze the change from baseline in CDR-SB, the metric used as the primary endpoint for the Initial Phase. From the end of the Initial Phase (i.e., day 1 of the Extension) through to Week 16 of the Extension, the change in CDR-SB was lower in the New Capsule group compared to the Old Capsule group (difference = -0.73, 95% CI: -1.14, -0.32; p<0.001). When analyzed from baseline of the trial overall through to Week 16 of the Extension, (i.e., including all data from the first 32 weeks of the trial, from day 1 of the Initial Phase through to Week 16 of the Extension), the New Capsules demonstrated a positive benefit compared to placebo (difference= -0.45, 95% CI: -0.78, -0.15; p=0.003). The difference for both comparisons in the participants whose screening ptau181 was < 2.2 pg/mL, the cut-off in the AscenD-LB Trial for evidence of AD co-pathology, were more pronounced.

On ADCS-CGIC, a major secondary outcome measure which was administered at Week 8 of the Extension, administration of the New Capsules led to an improved score (4.02 vs. 4.46 with Old Capsules, p=0.035), indicating less worsening with New Capsule administration. A greater magnitude difference was also observed in participants with screening ptau181 < 2.2 pg/mL (3.90 with New Capsules vs. 4.45 with Old Capsules, p=0.011). In addition, in a within-subject analysis (i.e., comparing results in participants who received placebo in the Initial Phase and New Capsules in the Extension), the ADCS-CGIC score was reduced in participants administered the New Capsule compared to placebo (3.94 vs. 4.46, p=0.035). With respect to the trial's other secondary outcome measures, comparing the New Capsule group to the Old Capsule group, a trend towards improvement in the TUG test was observed at week 16 of the Extension while no discernible difference was observed in NTB, the latter of which is consistent with low levels of baseline deficits.

Both Old Capsules and New Capsules demonstrated comparable tolerability profiles and no new safety signals were identified during the first 16 weeks of the Extension. The incidence of falls was lower in participants who received New Capsules compared to those who received with Old Capsules during the Extension (7.4% vs. 14.5% for all participants; 4.0% vs. 15.4%, p=0.025, for participants with screening plasma ptau181 < 2.2 pg/mL). The incidence of falls measured during the Extension were also lower in participants who received New Capsules compared to those who received placebo during the Initial Phase (7.4% vs. 18.8% for all participants, p=0.04; 4.0% vs. 19.7%, p=0.007, for participants with screening plasma ptau181 < 2.2 pg/mL).

In a within-subject comparison (N=13), the participants' mean plasma drug trough concentration was significantly higher (5.1 vs. 4.0 ng/mL, p=0.03) with the New Capsules than with the Old Capsules. Analyses conducted to date suggest the lower–than-expected bioavailability with the Old Capsules — which all participants received during the Initial Phase — is related to the to the age of the capsules and the development of inferior dissolution kinetics with extended aging, rather than chemical degradation.

We expect to report 32-week data from the Extension in the second half of 2025.

Other Ongoing DLB Trials

In August 2024, we initiated a Phase 2a trial in Strasbourg, France, to evaluate a twice daily regimen (80mg BID) of neflamapimod in up to 25 patients with DLB with MCI (MoCA score >= 18 during screening). The primary objective of the trial is to obtain additional PK data on a dosing regimen not previously evaluated in any of our clinical trials (80mg BID) that may provide additional dosing flexibility in future trials. On an exploratory basis, we will also collect data on basal forebrain atrophy, as measured by MRI, and a broad range of clinical endpoints. Initial safety, biomarker and pharmacokinetic data from the trial is expected to be available in the fourth quarter of 2025

Next Steps in DLB Development Program

The results of our ongoing trials in DLB and related non-clinical studies we are conducting in parallel are expected to provide the data necessary to finalize our design of a Phase 3 clinical trial in DLB, the general framework of which has been previously discussed with the FDA.

We met with the FDA in January 2020, after completion of the AscenD-LB Trial and availability of the preliminary analysis of the results, in an end-of-phase 2 meeting, to discuss potential Phase 3 clinical designs that may support approval of neflamapimod for the treatment of DLB. In that meeting, the FDA stated that a single Phase 3 clinical trial of six months’ treatment duration may be sufficient to support approval of neflamapimod if the trial demonstrated robust, clinically meaningful effects on cognition and on either function or a global measure (e.g., ADCS-CGIC). The size of a Phase 3 clinical trial and certain other aspects of the trial design (e.g., choice of secondary endpoints) would be discussed with the FDA that we would expect to schedule after sufficient data are available from our ongoing trials in DLB, which we expect to be available in the second half of 2025. Subject to available funding and FDA feedback, we are targeting initiation of what we expect will be a single 24-week treatment duration Phase 3 clinical trial in DLB in mid-2026.

Neflamapimod’s Potential in Additional Indications

Frontotemporal Dementia // Primary Progressive Aphasia

FTD is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by progressive deterioration in behavior, personality, and language abilities, typically affecting individuals between the ages of 40 and 65 including an estimated tens of thousands of individuals in the U.S. alone. Unlike AD, which primarily targets memory, FTD primarily affects the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain, leading to changes in social conduct, emotional regulation, and decision-making. There are several subtypes of FTD, including the behavioral variant FTD, the most common subtype (approximately half the patients with FTD) and PPA, each presenting with distinct symptom profiles. PPA, a subtype of FTD itself, has three main variants: nonfluent/agrammatic variant PPA, semantic variant PPA, and logopenic variant PPA, though the latter is not considered an FTD subtype. The prevalence of these PPA subtypes varies, with approximately 40% of PPA patients being nonfluent/agrammatic variant PPA, 40% being semantic variant PPA, and 20% being logopenic variant PPA. As the disease progresses, individuals with FTD may require increasing levels of care and support, with management focusing on alleviating symptoms and maximizing function.

The rationale for potentially evaluating neflamapimod as a treatment for FTD is based on the effects of p38α on axonal transport and tau pathologies, as well as atrophy of the BFC system being a driver of disease and the mechanisms that neflamapimod targets being operative in FTD. Additionally, when assessed by MRI, the volume of the basal forebrain is reduced, relative to age-matched healthy control, most prominently in patients who semantic variant PPA and behavioral variant FTD and in patients who have “tauopathies” (i.e., patients at autopsy who have tau pathology, rather than TDP-43 pathology). Moreover, in March 2024, at the AD/PD 2024 scientific conference in Lisbon, Portugal, academic collaborators from University College London presented data that showed that p38 MAPK inhibitors generally, and neflamapimod specifically, enhanced axonal transport in a transgenic mouse model of FTD (rg4510 transgenic harboring P301L mutation).

Based in part on these results, in November 2024, the FDA granted neflamapimodo rphandrug designation for the treatment of FTD and we plan to initiate a Phase 2a trial evaluating neflamapimod in up to 20 participants with the nonfluent/agrammatic variant of PPA in mid-2025.

Acute Indication: Recovery after Ischemic Stroke

We believe the therapeutic benefit of targeting neuroinflammation-induced synaptic dysfunction is not limited to chronic neurodegenerative diseases. A drug that improves synaptic function could also be considered for evaluation of the potential to improve brain function after acute neurological injury.

A treatment to improve recovery from stroke remains a significant unmet medical need. Every year, more than 795,000 people in the U.S. suffer a stroke, and approximately 610,000 of these are first or new strokes. About 87% of all strokes are ischemic strokes, in which blood flow to the brain is blocked. The prognosis for recovery from stroke is influenced by a number of different factors, including stroke severity, type of stroke, location of infarct, co-morbidity with other disorders, and other clinical complications. The majority of survivors of an acute stroke demonstrate some level of neurological recovery during the three to six months after the initial event. Despite this initial period of recovery, 40-50% of patients exhibit persistent neurological deficits.

During the last 10 years, the medical and scientific communities have gained a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying neuronal recovery following a stroke. The major translational opportunity for therapeutics that target recovery after stroke is the time window in which intervention must be initiated. Rather than just the first few hours after the stroke (as is the case with neuroprotection, i.e., acute stroke therapy to reduce the size of stroke), the window for therapeutics that could improve recovery is days and even weeks after an acute stroke. Waiting to initiate therapy until 48 hours after the stroke allows inclusion of a homogenous patient population as the diagnosis and extent of the stroke can be definitively established by that time in most patients (the exception being the minority who have a “stuttering” stroke). As a result, a POC study in stroke recovery is in the range 50-100 patients per treatment arm, compared to 500+ per treatment arm in neuroprotection trials.

The scientific rationale for evaluating neflamapimod to promote recovery after stroke is that the BFC system plays a critical role in recovery after ischemic stroke, particularly motor function recovery. The BFC system is suppressed by residual inflammation in the weeks and months after the acute stroke event. Neflamapimod, through the same mechanisms operating in DLB, would be expected to reverse the suppression of BFC function, leading to improved recovery of motor function. Supporting that concept is our preclinical data with neflamapimod demonstrating significant improvement in neurological recovery vs. vehicle treatment, and TUG results from the AscenD-LB clinical trial where positive effects of neflamapimod on basal forebrain mediated control of movement were observed in the clinic.

In a preclinical study of neflamapimod that evaluated effects on recovery after stroke, which has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, transient ischemia of sufficient duration was induced in rats such that significant neurologic disability developed without mortality, and the neurologic disability did not substantially reverse during follow-up without therapy. These rats were then treated with either vehicle or one of two different doses of neflamapimod. The three groups in the study were: vehicle control (n =18), 1.5 mg/kg neflamapimod (n = 21) and 4.5 mg/kg neflamapimod (n = 21). Six weeks of neflamapimod treatment, starting at 48-hours after stroke, led to substantial improvement on multiple parameters of neurologic function compared to vehicle controls (p<0.001 for each of global neurologic scores; motor and sensory specific tests).

Based upon these data and hypotheses, we plan to initiate our Restore Trial, a Phase 2 trial evaluating neflamapimod in up to 90 participants recovering from ischemic stroke, in the second quarter of 2025.

Additional Neflamapimod Development Background

Toxicology

A full chronic repeated dose toxicology program has been completed in rodents (rats) and non-rodents (dogs). In the rodent species, in the six-month toxicology study, no human relevant findings were evident at dose levels that provided plasma neflamapimod drug concentration levels approximately ten-fold higher than those achieved in the AD clinical trials. In shorter-term studies, the primary target organ was the liver, with findings commencing at plasma drug concentration levels 20-fold higher than the AD clinical trial exposures. In the non-rodent species, in 9- and 12-month toxicology studies, dose dependent findings were evident beginning at plasma neflamapimod drug concentrations more than ten-fold higher than achieved with 40mg BID in AD clinical trials, with minimal to equivocal findings at that dose level in the liver, bone marrow and CNS. The CNS findings indicated potential damage to axons, or nerve fibers, primarily in the spinal cord. p38α and p38β have been reported to have a role in transport of proteins in axons, and therefore we believe these toxicity findings are related to the inhibition of both p38α and p38β at the very high doses administered in the non-rodent studies. The doses we are using in our clinical trials in the U.S. are at least ten-fold lower than the no adverse effect level for these effects.

Regulatory Status

We submitted an IND application to the FDA in February 2015. The FDA cleared our application in March 2015, and the IND remains open and active. In addition, the FDA granted neflamapimod Fast Track designation for the treatment of DLB in October 2019 and Orphan Drug designation for the treatment of FTD in November 2024.

Following a review of the long-term animal toxicology studies discussed above, the FDA placed a partial clinical hold on our first Phase 2a Trial in mild AD (Study 303) in August 2015, limiting administration of neflamapimod to doses that lead to plasma drug levels which provide at least a 10-fold safety margin to the plasma drug levels in animals to the no adverse effect level in long-term animal toxicity studies . At the present time, this partial clinical hold effectively limits our clinical dosing in the U.S. to 40mg TID in patients with a weight of greater than or equal to 50kg (110 pounds), based on agreements with the FDA and on our current understanding of plasma drug levels achieved with neflamapimod in humans.

In Europe, clinical trial applications in support of our clinical trials have been reviewed and approved by the national regulatory authorities in each of the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Czech Republic and Denmark. In addition, the Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé (the French national regulatory authority) has reviewed and approved a clinical trial application for an investigator-initiated study of neflamapimod in Toulouse, France.Our ongoing Phase 2a trial in Strasbourg, France, which is not subject to the FDA’s partial clinical hold, is evaluating an 80mg BID dosing regimen in participants with mild-to-moderate DLB.

Clinical Safety Results

Adverse events seen in all completed Phase 2 clinical trials evaluating neflamapimod in both CNS and non-CNS disorders are shown in the table below. This includes 149 participants with either AD or DLB who have received neflamapimod for up to 24 weeks at either 40mg BID or TID or 125mg BID. Among this group of participants with CNS disorders, the most commonly reported adverse events were headache (15 events, 10%), respiratory infection (11 events, 7%), diarrhea (11 events, 7%), fall, (11 events, 7%), and somnolence (seven events, 5%), all mild to moderate in severity. Headache, diarrhea, and somnolence appear to have the strongest association with neflamapimod treatment. As the Extensionp hase of the RewinD-LB Trial remains ongoing as of the date of this Annual Report, the safety and tolerability data from the trial reported below and elsewhere in this Annual Report is not included in the table below.

There were five SAEs reported in the 149 participants with AD and DLB treated with neflamapimod (vs. eight who were administered placebo), involving hypokalemia, myeloma, head injury, brain tumor, and brain lesion, none of which were considered related to neflamapimod.

Adverse Events in Neflamapimod Phase 2 Clinical Trials of≥ 12 weeks duration in AD or DLB

With respect to liver enzyme abnormalities, during 12 weeks of dosing at 250mg BID (i.e., four-fold higher daily dosing than in the RewinD-LB Trial) in 44 participants with RA, elevations in liver transaminase levels were noted in six participants (14%). Additionally, in one participant (1%) participating in the Reverse-SD 24-week trial in mild AD who received 40mg BID neflamapimod, ALT and AST levels increased to three times the upper limit of normal. In each instance, participants were asymptomatic, there were no associated increases in bilirubin, and the elevations resolved with treatment discontinuation.

In both our AscenD-LB Trial involving 91 participants with DLB and the first 32 weeks of our ongoing RewinD-LB Trial involving 159 participants with DLB, neflamapimod was generally well tolerated with no treatment discontinuations due to study drug-related adverse events.

In the AscenD-LB Trial, there were four SAEs reported in the placebo group (haematochezia, internal bleeding, intraparenchymal hemorrhage, asthma exacerbation) and two among the neflamapimod BID treatment group (brain lesions, head injury), all of which were considered unrelated to treatment. In addition, one SAE (brain tumor diagnosis) was reported 34 days after the last dose in a neflamapimod BID recipient. There were no SAEs or early treatment discontinuations in the neflamapimod TID recipients. Liver enzyme abnormalities were not observed in the AscenD-LB trial.

In the first 16 weeks of the Extensionp hase of the RewinD-LB Trial, there were two adverse events leading to discontinuation in both the New Capsule group (confusion, fatigue) and the Old Capsule group (stomach ache, gastritis and worsening palpitations). In addition, six other participants in the New Capsule group discontinued treatment early, compared to five other participants in the Old Capsule group. As there were more participants in the New Capsule group (N=94) than in the Old Capsule group (N=55) during the first 16 weeks of the Extension, the percentage of participants discontinuing treatment early in the New Capsule group was lower than in the Old Capsule group.

Preclinical Studies

Ts2 Transgenic Mice

Nearly all individuals who have Down Syndrome, characterized by trisomic chromosome 21, develop AD by their fourth decade of life, and have typical AD pathology when autopsied at death. This may be explained by chromosome 21 containing the gene for amyloid-precursor-protein, which is the gene linked to familial or genetic EOAD in humans. The Ts2 transgenic mouse model of Down Syndrome utilizes mice that are partially trisomic at chromosome 16, which is the mouse equivalent of chromosome 21. Along with developmental behavioral abnormalities, Ts2 mice develop typical early onset dementia pathology, including endosomal abnormalities and cholinergic neurodegeneration in the BFC system. Accordingly, Ts2 mice provide an ideal opportunity to evaluate the effects of drug treatment on BFC dysfunction and degeneration.

To evaluate the potential of neflamapimod on the neurodegenerative process, the effects of neflamapimod were evaluated in Ts2 mice. Wild-type mice, referred to as either wild-type or 2N, and Ts2 mice were treated over 28 days, twice daily, with either vehicle or 3 mg/kg of neflamapimod in vehicle, with nine mice in each group. Treatment was initiated at 6-7 months of age, representing a time point at which endosomal pathology and cholinergic neuronal loss is developing. To assess for effects on cholinergic neurodegeneration, ChAT+ neurons were quantitated in the region of the forebrain that is enriched for cholinergic neurons, which is known as the MSN.

At the end of treatment, consistent with current scientific literature, the number of cholinergic neurons in the MSN region was significantly decreased in vehicle-treated TS 2 mice compared to vehicle-treated wild-type mice (p<0.001). This effect was reversed with neflamapimod treatment, with the number cholinergic neurons in the MSN increased in neflamapimod-treated TS 2 mice compared to vehicle-treated Ts2 mice, and the number of ChAT+ neurons were similar to those seen in wild-type mice (p<0.001). Neflamapimod treatment also normalized Rab5 activity and phosphorylated (i.e., activated) p38 MAP kinase and its downstream substrates.

Neflamapimod restores numbers of cholinergic neurons in basal forebrain (i.e., reverses disease progression) in Ts2 transgenic mouse.

Cholinergic neurons, as assessed by staining positive for ChAT+ neurons in the MSN of the basal forebrain, in wild-type treated with vehicle or Ts2 transgenic mice after treatment for four weeks with either vehicle or neflamapimod.

The finding of reversal of disease progression is consistent with studies in the scientific literature that suggest that “loss” of cholinergic neurons in the BFC system is not due to cell death. Rather, the “degeneration” and loss of such BFC neurons appears to be due to a loss of cholinergic phenotype and functional properties, and neuronal shrinkage, all of which in animal studies can be reversed. That is, the effect of reversing disease progression, evidenced by increased number of cholinergic neurons. This is not a regenerative effect. Rather, we believe it reflects that treatment with neflamapimod is restoring the function of diseased neurons (those that don’t express ChAT), allowing them to express ChAT. There is also evidence from studies in early AD, that cholinergic phenotype loss, rather than frank neuronal death and loss, occurs in the basal forebrain of humans as well. We believe this is consistent with the results obtained from the MRI evaluation of neflamapimod-treated patients with AD discussed above in whom an increase in the volume of BFC neurons was observed in the NbM.

Aged Rat Model

To obtain preclinical proof-of-principle and confirm the role of p38α in the development of synaptic dysfunction, we tested neflamapimod in a rat model of age-related cognitive decline. When evaluated in the Morris-Water-Maze test of spatial learning, rats show cognitive deficits starting at 20 to 22 months of age, which is equivalent to approximately 60 years of age in humans. Of note, because the deficits in Morris-Water-Maze performance can be fully reversed by implanting healthy cholinergic neurons in the basal forebrain, those deficits are believed to be due to BFC dysfunction and degeneration.

The results of these tests showed that treatment with neflamapimod fully reversed the learning deficits in the Morris-Water-Maze test in 20- to 22-month-old rats. Specifically, the performance of aged rats on the last day of testing (day 17) showed that animals treated with neflamapimod at the optimal dose performed significantly better than vehicle–treated aged rats (p=0.007 for latency; p=0.01 for distance). Further, the performance of neflamapimod-treated aged rats was similar to that of young rats (i.e., fully reversed cognitive deficits). The figure below further details the results of these tests, in which two groups of 15 rats each (aged rats with cognitive deficits and a control group of young rats) received vehicle or active drug treatment for 21 days. The Morris-Water-Maze test was conducted on days 4-8 and days 11-17.

Results of Imaging of Basal Forebrain by MRI in Patients with Early AD after Treatment with Neflamapimod

With the development and availability of analytic MRI-based techniques to evaluate potential treatment effects on the basal forebrain, the MRI images from patients with mild AD (n=15) from one of our Phase 2a studies were reanalyzed by a specialized neuroimaging group at the Amsterdam Medical Center. The goal of this exploratory analysis, which was presented at the AD/PD meeting in Gothenburg, Sweden in April 2023, was to assess by MRI the treatment effects of neflamapimod on the NbM, the largest cluster of cholinergic neurons in the basal forebrain. Structural and MRI assessments had been conducted as part of the study at baseline and following 12 weeks of treatment with neflamapimod. The additional analysis demonstrated that the NbM volume was statistically significantly higher at EOT (mean 3.1% higher vs. baseline, p=0.026). Eight of 15 participants had greater than 3% NbM higher volume at EOT, as compared to baseline. Treatment with neflamapimod was also associated with a statistically significantly higher functional dynamic connectivity between the NbM and DGM at EOT (mean 11% higher vs. baseline, p=0.043), with six of 13 participants showing a greater than 10% higher dynamic NbM-DGM connectivity at EOT, as compared to baseline. We believe the potential reversal of atrophy and recovery of function in neflamapimod-treated participants in this trial suggests a restoration of cholinergic neurons in the NbM in line with the data generated in previous preclinical studies that demonstrated neflamapimod reversed the neurodegenerative process in the BFC system.

Neflamapimod treatment was associated with increased basal forebrain volume and functional connectivity

NbM – Nucleus basalis of Meynert, the largest cluster of cholinergic neurons in the basal forebrain; DGM – Deep Grey Matter

Lin C-P, Noteboom S, Bet M, Alam J, Prins N, Barkhof F, Jonkman L, Schoonheim M, Oral Presentation at AD/PD™ 2023, Gothenburg, Sweden, 1 April 2023

Vertex Agreement

In August 2012, based on our team’s previous direct experience with this compound and our understanding of its profile and emerging science around p38α in the brain, we entered into the Vertex Agreement, which granted us an option to acquire an exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize neflamapimod for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of AD and other neurodegenerative diseases. In August 2014, we exercised that option to acquire the license to neflamapimod.

The Vertex Agreement contains certain milestone events and the related payments that we would be obligated to make to Vertex if and when such events occur. Each milestone payment is payable only once for each distinct licensed product, upon the first occurrence of the applicable milestone event. The first expected milestone events concern filing of an NDA, with the FDA for marketing approval of neflamapimod, in the U.S., or a similar filing for a non-U.S. major market, as specified in the Vertex Agreement. The Vertex Agreement also provides that we will make royalty payments to Vertex in the event aggregate net sales, as defined in the agreement, for a commercialized licensed product meet specified thresholds. Such royalties will be on a sliding scale of percentages of net sales in the low- to mid-teens, depending on the amount of net sales in the applicable years. We are also obligated to make a milestone payment to Vertex upon net sales reaching a certain specified amount in any 12-month period. The Vertex Agreement states that royalties will be reduced by 50% during any portion of the royalty term when there is no valid claim of an issued patent within specified patent rights covering the licensed product. We also have the right to deduct, on a country by country basis, from royalties otherwise payable to Vertex under the terms of the Vertex Agreement, 50% of all royalties, upfront fees, milestones and other payments paid by us or any of our affiliates or sublicensees to third parties under licenses that are necessary for the development, manufacture, sale or use of a licensed product, provided that in no event will the royalty payable to Vertex be reduced to less than 50% of the rates specified in the Vertex Agreement, subject to certain adjustments specified therein. In the aggregate, our potential milestone payment obligations, all of which relate to development milestones, under the Vertex Agreement are up to $122.0 million. To date, we have made an aggregate of $100,000 in payments to Vertex. In connection with our obligations under the Vertex Agreement, there is no minimum annual expenditure requirement. Our diligence obligations under the Vertex Agreement have included the making of annual expenditures in connection with the development of neflamapimod, commencement of a Phase 2 clinical trial of neflamapimod, and the commercial sale of neflamapimod within six months of market approval.

The Vertex Agreement provides that we may sublicense the rights granted to us by Vertex, in whole or in part, to a third party (through multiple levels of sublicensing) (i) who is providing services to us in connection with the manufacture or development of the licensed product, solely for the purpose of providing such services, or (ii) with the prior written consent of Vertex, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

The license term under the Vertex Agreement is deemed to have commenced on August 21, 2014, and continues until the expiration of the royalty term, unless sooner terminated in accordance with the terms of the Vertex Agreement. The royalty term commences on the first commercial sale of a licensed product and ends upon the later of (i) the date of expiration, unenforceability or invalidation of the last valid claim of certain specified underlying patent rights, or (ii) ten years after the date of such first commercial sale. Upon the expiration of the royalty term, the license will convert to a perpetual, fully paid-up non-royalty bearing license with the same scope.

The Vertex Agreement may be terminated by us for any reason upon 90 days’ prior written notice to Vertex if such termination occurs before receipt of the first marketing approval of a licensed product, and otherwise upon twelve months’ prior written notice to Vertex. Either party may terminate the Vertex Agreement if the other party is in material breach of its obligations thereunder, following a 60-day notice and cure period, or if the other party files for bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation, receivership, or an assignment of a substantial portion of assets to creditors. The Vertex Agreement also provides that in the event we materially breach any of certain specified diligence obligations as to a specific major market, Vertex’s sole remedy for such breach, following the applicable notice and cure period, will be to terminate the license as to such specific major market country.

EIP200–** Novel Co-Crystal of Neflamapimod**

We have an issued patent, set to expire in 2038, in the U.S. for novel co-crystals of neflamapimod with identified, specific, Generally Recognized as Safe compounds that have the potential to improve the solubility and other physical properties of neflamapimod. The development of one of these co-crystals as a product would be supported by composition of matter protection afforded by this patent, providing additional patent protection if we developed such a co-crystal product ourselves, the opportunity to license such a product to another pharmaceutical company while retaining the rights to neflamapimod and other potential benefits. The ability to develop one or more of these co-crystal products requires a fuller evaluation of the potential manufacturing processes than has been performed to date.

Sales and Marketing

We do not currently have any infrastructure for the sales, marketing or distribution of an approved drug product. In order to market and successfully commercialize neflamapimod or any other future product candidate, to the extent it or they are approved, we must either develop these capabilities internally or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services. We may also collaborate with strategic partners that have experience in these fields. There are significant expenses and risks involved in establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution functions, including our ability to hire, retain and appropriately incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel, and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Alternatively, to the extent that we depend on third parties for such services, any revenues we receive will depend upon the efforts of those third parties, and there can be no assurance that such efforts will be successful.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. Our lead product candidate, neflamapimod, is a small molecule drug that is manufactured using commercially available technologies.

Our RewinD-LB Trial is being conducted with drug substance (or API) that has already been manufactured. This drug substance was manufactured at an established commercial CMO, that is approved for and manufactures drug both for investigational use and marketed products. We would anticipate utilizing this or a similar CMO for the manufacture of drug substance to be used in future clinical trials beyond our currently planned studies, as well as potentially for commercial use if neflamapimod is approved. However, supplies of our neflamapimod drug substance could be interrupted from time to time, and we cannot be certain that alternative supplies could be obtained within a reasonable timeframe, at an acceptable cost, or at all. For a further description of certain risks related to our manufacturing, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors–* Risks Related to the Company*’s Clinical Development and Regulatory Approval–* The Company*’s reliance on third parties for the production of neflamapimod may result in delays in the Company’s clinical trials or regulatory approvals and may impair the development and ultimate commercialization of neflamapimod, which would adversely impact the Company’s business and financial position.”

We also currently rely on a third-party CMO (different than that for drug substance) for the manufacture of our neflamapimod drug product. We have used the same manufacturer for our neflamapimod drug product in all our clinical trials to date. If neflamapimod is ultimately approved for commercial sale, we expect to continue to rely on third-party contractors for manufacturing the drug product. Although we may do so prior to any commercial launch, we have not yet entered into long-term agreements for the commercial supply of either drug substance or drug product with our current manufacturing providers, or with any alternate manufacturers.

Competition

Given the potential market opportunity for the treatment of DLB and other neurodegenerative diseases, an increasing number of established pharmaceutical firms and smaller biotechnology/biopharmaceutical companies are pursuing a range of potential therapies for these diseases in various stages of clinical development.

While there are numerous companies pursuing AD disease modifying approaches, we believe there are a limited number of companies in later-stage development for DLB. With regard to public biopharmaceutical companies that we would consider competitive with our approach, and actively evaluating treatments in DLB, we are aware of Eisai Co. Ltd., Cognition Therapeutics, Inc. and Athira Pharma, Inc., all of whom remain in clinical stage development of their potential DLB treatments. None of these companies, however, are developing a treatment specifically targeting DLB patients that do not exhibit AD co-pathology, the target patient population of our ongoing RewinD-LB Trial.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face potential competition from many different sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize, including neflamapimod, may compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources, an established presence in the market, and significantly greater expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales, marketing and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in 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.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of neflamapimod, and any other product candidates that we develop to address DLB and other CNS diseases, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our potential commercial opportunity could also be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technologies, inventions and improvements that we believe are important to our business, including seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the U.S. and in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements and our product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business.

We have made a number of discoveries related to our lead product candidate, neflamapimod, which are reflected in ten main patent families, each of which we wholly own (dates below are without consideration of potential patent term extension, see section titled “—Patent Term Restoration” below):

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Vertex Agreement, Vertex has granted us an exclusive license under specified Vertex patent rights, including U.S patent No. 5,945,418, which relates to the composition of matter for neflamapimod. This patent expired in 2017.

Individual patents extend for varying periods depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued for regularly filed applications in the U.S. are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest effective non-provisional filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the USPTO delay in issuing the patent as well as a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. However, as to the FDA component, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country to country and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

We also rely upon trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our collaborators, employees and consultants, as we determine necessary. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, or our drugs or processes, obtain licenses from third parties or cease certain activities.

From time to time, we may find it necessary or prudent to obtain licenses from third-party patent owners. Where licenses are available at reasonable cost, such licenses are considered a normal cost of doing business. In other instances, we may use the results of freedom-to-operate studies to guide our early-stage research away from areas where we are likely to encounter obstacles in the form of third-party intellectual property. We strive to identify potential third-party intellectual property issues in the early stages of research in our programs in order to minimize the cost and disruption of resolving such issues.

Our breach of any license agreements or failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights that we may require to develop or commercialize our future drugs may have an adverse impact on us.

For more information, please see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Company’s Intellectual Property.”

Government Regulation

The FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in other countries impose requirements upon companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of drugs, such as those we are developing. These requirements can, in some instances, be substantial and burdensome. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate, among other things, the research and development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and export and import of pharmaceutical products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Government Regulation of Drug Products

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA and its implementing regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development and approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve a pending NDA, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters or other notices of violation, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

Preclinical Studies and IND

Preclinical, or nonclinical, studies generally include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for the investigational product’s therapeutic use. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, signed into law on December 29, 2022, (P.L. 117-328) amended the FDCA to specify that nonclinical testing for drugs may, but is not required to, include in vivo animal testing. According to the amended language, a sponsor may fulfill nonclinical testing requirements by completing various in vitro assays (e.g., cell-based assays, organ chips, or microphysiological systems), in silico studies (i.e., computer modeling), other human or non-human biology-based tests (e.g., bioprinting), orin vivo animal tests. The conduct of nonclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations.

An IND sponsor must submit the results of preclinical tests, 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 to humans, and it must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some long-term nonclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted and clinical trials have been initiated. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA issues a notice expressly authorizing the proposed trial to proceed or raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. If the agency imposes a hold, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to initiate. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators (generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control) in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial, as well as review and approval of the trial by an IRB for each participating site. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the trial procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB acting on behalf of each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the trial plan, informed consent forms, and communications to trial subjects before the trial commences at that institution. An IRB considers, among other things, whether the risks to individuals participating in the trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, and whether the planned human subject protections are adequate. The IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted and must operate in compliance with FDA regulations.

Sponsors of certain clinical trials generally must register such trials and disclose certain trial information within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on the ClinicalTrials.gov data registry. Information related to the investigational product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion, but such disclosures may be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Final Rule and NIH’s complementary policy on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements became effective in 2017, and the government has brought enforcement actions against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. Competitors may use the publicly available information about clinical trials to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs. Sponsors or distributors of investigational products for the diagnosis, monitoring, or treatment of one or more serious diseases or conditions must also have a publicly available policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access requests.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

reports detailing the progress of and safety data from the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the investigational drug, findings from animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. It is possible that Phase 1, Phase 2 or Phase 3 trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects 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. Sponsors may also choose to discontinue clinical trials as a result of risks to subjects, a lack of favorable results, or changing business priorities. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated checkpoints based on access to certain data from the trial.

Congress also recently amended the FDCA, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, in order to require each sponsor of a Phase 3 clinical trial, or other “pivotal study” of a new drug to support MA, to design and submit a diversity action plan for such clinical trial. The action plan must include the sponsor’s diversity goals for enrollment, as well as a rationale for the goals and a description of how the sponsor will meet them. A sponsor must submit a diversity action plan to the FDA by the time the sponsor submits the relevant clinical trial protocol to the agency for review. The FDA may grant a waiver for some or all of the requirements for a diversity action plan. It is unknown at this time how the diversity action plan may affect Phase 3 trial planning and timing, but if the FDA objects to a sponsor’s diversity action plan or otherwise requires significant changes to be made, it could delay initiation of the relevant clinical trial.

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

Marketing Application Submission, Review by the FDA, and Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The NDA must contain proof of the product candidate’s safety and substantial evidence of effectiveness for its proposed indication or indications in the form of relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical studies, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. In particular, a marketing application must demonstrate that the manufacturing methods and quality controls used to produce the drug product are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality, and purity. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before the corresponding drug may be marketed in the U.S.

Under PDUFA, each NDA submission is subject to a substantial application user fee, and the sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. The application user fee must be paid 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 certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for products with Orphan Drug designation or for the first application filed by a small business.

The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted to determine if they are substantially complete before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting a submission for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor by the 74th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may refuse to file any submission that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the marketing application must be resubmitted with the additional information requested by the agency. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

Once an NDA is accepted for filing, the FDA’s goal is to review the application within 10 months after it accepts the application for filing, or, if the application meets the criteria for “priority review,” within six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. The review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification after the NDA has been accepted for filing. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

During the review process, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued strength, quality, and purity. The FDA may refer any NDA, including applications for novel drug candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making final decisions on approval.

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 are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent manufacture 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 GCP. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies as part of the review process and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

Under the PREA, amendments to the FDCA, an NDA or supplement to an NDA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric populations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric population for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The PREA requires a sponsor that is planning to submit a marketing application for a product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration to submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within sixty days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 clinical trial. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including trial objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from pre-clinical studies, early-phase clinical trials or other clinical development programs.

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and each may take several years to complete. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all, and we may encounter difficulties or unanticipated costs in our efforts to secure necessary governmental approvals, which could delay or preclude us from marketing its products. After the FDA evaluates an NDA and conducts inspections of the manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a CRL. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, information or clarification for the FDA to reconsider the application. 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. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. If and when the deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the marketing application, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the application and may entail further limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a REMS plan to mitigate risks, which 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. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS plan is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS to obtain approval for the product. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling (e.g., adding contraindications, warnings or precautions) or the development of adequate controls and specifications. 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. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. Some types of changes to an approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and separate FDA review and approval. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

Fast Track, Priority Review, and Breakthrough Therapy Designations

A sponsor may seek approval of its product candidate under programs designed to accelerate FDA’s review and approval of new drugs that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs are eligible forfastt rack designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fastt rack designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed, meaning that the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept the sections and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. Afastt rack designated product candidate may also qualify for accelerated approval (described below) or priority review, under which the FDA sets the target date for FDA action on the NDA or biologics license application at six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing.

Priority review is granted when there is evidence that the proposed product would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious condition. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. If criteria are not met for priority review, the application is subject to the standard FDA review period of 10 months after FDA accepts the application for filing.

In addition, a sponsor may seek FDA designation of its product candidate as a breakthrough therapy if the product candidate is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough therapy designation provides all the features offastt rack designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient development program beginning as early as Phase 1, and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review and regulatory staff in a proactive, collaborative, cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate. A drug designated as breakthrough therapy is also eligible for accelerated approval if the relevant criteria are met.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Fastt rack, priority review and breakthrough therapy designations do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Accelerated Approval

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval from the FDA and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a drug or biologic when it has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform post-marketing clinical trials to verify and describe the predicted effect on IMM or other clinical endpoint, and the product may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures. Drugs granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug or biologic, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints, but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval when the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate long-term clinical benefit of a drug.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a drug, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. For example, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of drugs for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large clinical trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product candidate’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm the predicted clinical benefit of the product during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw approval of the product. As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress provided the FDA additional statutory authority to mitigate potential risks to patients from continued marketing of ineffective drugs or biologics previously being considered for accelerated approval. Under the act’s amendments to the FDCA, the FDA may require the sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to approval. The sponsor must also submit progress reports on a confirmatory trial every six months until the trial is complete, and such reports are published on the FDA’s website. The amendments also give the FDA the option of using expedited procedures to withdraw product approval if the sponsor’s confirmatory trial fails to verify the claimed clinical benefits of the product.

All promotional materials for product candidates being considered and approved under the accelerated approval program are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug 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 U.S. 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 indication are disclosed publicly by the FDA.

If a drug 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 product exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan product exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan product to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Orphan product 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 drug with orphan drug designation may not receive orphan product exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan drug designation. In addition, orphan product exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Court cases have challenged FDA’s approach to determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity; however, at this time, the agency continues to apply its long-standing interpretation of the governing regulations and has stated that it does not plan to change any orphan drug implementing regulations.

We have obtained orphan drug designation in the U.S. for neflamapimod in FTD.

Patent Term Restoration

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, informally known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product candidate’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one half of the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of the NDA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved product candidate is eligible for the extension and the application for extension must be made prior to expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we intend to apply for restorations of patent term for some of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond their current expiration date, depending on the expected length of clinical trials and other factors involved in the submission of the relevant NDA.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is a type of non-patent marketing exclusivity available in the U.S. and, if granted, it provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. The issuance of a written request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described studies.

Abbreviated NDAs for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Act, which established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs based on an innovator or “reference” product, Congress also enacted Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, which provides a hybrid pathway combining features of a traditional NDA and a generic drug application. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an ANDA to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the RLD.

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to an RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.”

Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also referred to as the Orange Book. Clinicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing clinicians or patient.

In contrast, Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Section 505(b)(2) NDAs may provide an alternate path to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products; for example, an applicant may be seeking approval to market a previously approved drug for new indications or for a new patient population that would require new clinical data to demonstrate safety or effectiveness. A Section 505(b)(2) applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies, if it can establish that reliance on studies conducted for a previously-approved product is scientifically appropriate. Unlike the ANDA pathway used by developers of bioequivalent versions of innovator drugs, which does not allow applicants to submit new clinical data other than bioavailability or bioequivalence data, the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway does not preclude the possibility that a follow-on applicant would need to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies. The FDA may then approve the new product for all or some of the label indications for which the RLD has been approved, or for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant, as applicable.

In addition, under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. These market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing an NCE. For the purposes of this provision, an NCE, is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification (described below), in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement thereto if one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication. The three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving follow-on applications for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity also will not delay the submission or approval of a traditional NDA filed under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. However, an applicant submitting a traditional NDA would be required to either 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 effectiveness.

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

Upon approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the Orange Book. When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

If a Paragraph I or II certification is filed, the FDA may make approval of the application effective immediately upon completion of its review. If a Paragraph III certification is filed, the approval may be made effective on the patent expiration date specified in the application, although a tentative approval may be issued before that time. If an application contains a Paragraph IV certification, a series of events will be triggered, the outcome of which will determine the effective date of approval of the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application.

If the follow-on applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the follow-on application in question has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders 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 after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant. Alternatively, if the listed patent holder does not file a patent infringement lawsuit within the required 45-day period, the follow-on applicant’s ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA will not be subject to the 30-month stay.

Post-Approval Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, product sampling and distribution restrictions, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. The manufacturer and its products are also subject to similar post-approval requirements by regulatory authorities comparable to FDA in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. where the products are approved. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. If there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or a supplement to an NDA, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional nonclinical studies and clinical trials. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS to assure the safe use of the product. A REMS 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. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP 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 product candidates must meet applicable cGMP requirements to the FDA's or comparable foreign regulatory authorities' satisfaction before any product is approved and our commercial products can be manufactured. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic prescheduled or unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Future inspections by the FDA and other regulatory agencies may identify compliance issues at the facilities of our CMOs that may disrupt production or distribution or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, the discovery of conditions that violate these rules, including failure to conform to cGMPs, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including voluntary recall and regulatory sanctions as described below.

Once an approval or clearance of a drug is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. 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 mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program.

Other potential consequences include, among other things:

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the 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. Most recently, the DSCSA was enacted with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the U.S. The DSCSA mandates phased-in and resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers over a 10-year period, which culminated in November 2023. After an initial one-year stabilization period to give entities subject to the DSCSA additional time to finalize interoperable tracking systems and to ensure supply chain continuity, the applicable requirements under the DSCSA became fully enforceable as of November 27, 2024. From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

Other U.S. Health Care Laws and Regulations

If our product candidates are approved in the U.S., we will have to comply with various U.S. federal and state laws, rules and regulations pertaining to health care fraud and abuse, including anti-kickback laws and physician self-referral laws, rules and regulations. Violations of the fraud and abuse laws are punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. These laws include:

The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the aforementioned federal laws, some of which are broader in scope and apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines, or the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures to the extent that those laws impose requirements that are more stringent than the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health information in some circumstances, and many such laws differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Due to the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of their exceptions and safe harbors, it is possible that business activities can be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry.

Ensuring that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations is costly and time consuming. If business operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other applicable governmental regulations a pharmaceutical manufacturer may be subject to penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from governmental funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment or restructuring of operations, any of which could adversely affect a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s ability to operate its business and the results of its operations.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing, and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Sales of our products, when and if approved for marketing in the U.S., will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. In addition, these third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. Furthermore, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Limited third-party reimbursement for our product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover our product candidates could reduce physician usage of our products once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

Healthcare Reform

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product and therapeutic candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product and therapeutic candidates that obtain marketing approval. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product and therapeutic candidates. In addition, future legislative and regulatory proposals may materially impact the ability of the FDA and other regulatory agencies to operate as they have historically operated. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether any of the FDA’s regulations, guidances or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the agency and its scientific review staff, if any, may be. For example, the next FDA user fee reauthorization package is expected to enter stakeholder negotiations beginning in mid-2025, with any agreement sent to Congress in early 2027 for purposes of initiating the legislative process. Reauthorization of the prescription drug user fee program would need to be finalized by Congress by the end of September 2027 in order to avoid a disruption in FDA’s review goals for NDAs and other activities supported by user fees assessed against industry. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

As previously mentioned, the primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products and services, implementing reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and applying new payment methodologies. The U.S. Congress has considered reductions in Medicare reimbursement levels for medicines administered by physicians. CMS, the agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, also has authority to revise reimbursement rates and to implement coverage restrictions for most drugs and biologics. Cost reduction initiatives and changes in coverage implemented through legislation or regulation could decrease utilization of and reimbursement for any approved products we may market in the future. While Medicare regulations apply only to pharmaceutical benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from federal legislation or regulation may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In recent years, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Notably, the CREATES Act, which became effective on December 20, 2019, addresses concerns articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers have improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny generic and biosimilar product developers access to samples of brand products. Because generic and biosimilar product developers need samples to conduct certain comparative testing required by the FDA, some have attributed the inability to timely obtain samples as a cause of delay in the entry of generic and biosimilar products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a generic or biosimilar product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Although lawsuits have been filed under the CREATES Act since its enactment, those lawsuits have settled privately; therefore, to date no federal court has reviewed or opined on the statutory language and there continues to be uncertainty regarding the scope and application of the law.

More recently, in August 2022, the IRA was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the U.S. For example, a manufacturer of a drug or biological product covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if the drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a drug product by drug product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, starting in payment year 2026, CMS will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single-source Part D drugs without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS will also negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities and entered into the first set of agreements with drug and biologic manufacturers for negotiated prices of ten products, which will become applicable for payment year 2026.. However, the IRA’s impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, in recent years, several states have formed PDABs. Much like the IRA’s drug price negotiation program, these PDABs have attempted to implement UPLs on drugs sold in their respective states in both public and commercial health plans. For example, in August 2023, Colorado’s PDAB announced a list of five prescription drugs that would undergo an affordability review. The effects of these efforts remain uncertain pending the outcomes of several federal lawsuits challenging state authority to regulate prescription drug payment limits. We expect that federal, state and local governments in the U.S. will continue to consider legislation directed at lowering the total cost of healthcare. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate PBMs and other members of the healthcare and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area. The FTC in mid-2022 also launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry that could lead to additional federal and state legislative or regulatory proposals targeting such entities’ operations, pharmacy networks, or financial arrangements. Significant efforts to change the PBM industry as it currently exists in the U.S. may affect the entire pharmaceutical supply chain and the business of other stakeholders, including pharmaceutical developers like us. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the U.S. or abroad. We expect that additional federal, state, and foreign healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in limited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, once approved, or additional pricing pressures.

Regulation Outside the United States

For countries outside of the U.S., the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the other applicable regulatory requirements. To the extent that any of our product candidates, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we and our collaborators will be subject to applicable foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals. If we or our collaborators fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecution.

For example, to market our future products in the EEA (which is comprised of the 28 Member States of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EEA, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining an MA. There are two types of MAs:

Under the procedures described above, before granting the MA the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA assess the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

In April 2023 the European Commission issued a proposal that will revise and replace the existing general pharmaceutical legislation. If adopted and implemented as currently proposed, these revisions will significantly change several aspects of drug development and approval in the European Union.

Data and Marketing Exclusivity

In the EEA, new products authorized for marketing, or reference products, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon MA. The data exclusivity period prevents generic applicants from relying on the nonclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic MA in the European Union during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the European Union. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic applicant from commercializing its product in the European Union until 10 years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the European Union. The 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those 10 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.

Other Regulatory Requirements

We are or may become subject to various laws and regulations regarding laboratory practices, the experimental use of animals, and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances in connection with our research. In each of these areas, as above, the FDA has broad regulatory and enforcement authority, including, among other things, the ability to levy fines and civil penalties, suspend or delay issuance of approvals, seize or recall products, and withdraw approvals, any one or more of which could have an adverse effect on our ability to operate our business and generate revenues. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition.

Our People

Overview

As of December 31, 2024, we had fifteen employees, all of whom we classify as full-time employees, up from eight employees as of December 31, 2023. We consider the relationship with our employees to be good. We also engage outside consultants and contractors with unique expertise and skills for specific purposes.

Our success depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified management and technical employees. Talent management is critical to our ability to execute our long-term growth strategy, including providing career growth, on-the-job learning opportunities and competitive compensation. We are committed to an inclusive culture which values equality, opportunity and respect.

None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements.

Company Culture

We believe that an inclusive culture is required to understand and develop products that benefit all patients. By embracing differences, we aim to foster an environment of respect and trust in an effort to facilitate creativity, spark passion and help us achieve better outcomes for all those who work at and with CervoMed. We are committed to creating and maintaining a workplace free from discrimination or harassment, including on the basis of any class protected by applicable law, and our recruitment, hiring, development, training, compensation, and advancement practices are based on qualifications, performance, skills, and experience without regard to gender, race, ethnicity or other demographics.

Our management team and employees are expected to exhibit and promote honest, ethical, and respectful conduct in the workplace, including adhering to the standards for appropriate behavior set forth in our code of conduct. An “open door” policy is maintained at all levels of the organization and any form of retaliation against an employee reporting or registering complaints in the event of any violation of our policies is strictly prohibited.

Compensation and Benefits

We operate in a highly competitive environment for human capital, particularly as we seek to attract and retain talent with relevant experience in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors. Therefore, we strive to provide a total rewards package to our employees that is competitive with our peer companies and helps meet the needs of our employees. This package currently includes competitive salaries, a cash bonus plan, a comprehensive healthcare benefits package (including a 90% employer contribution to family medical coverage), unlimited paid time off, a company-sponsored 401(k) savings plan, short-term and long-term disability, and other benefits, as well as remote working and flexible work schedules. We also offer every full-time employee the benefit of equity ownership in CervoMed through stock option grants with vesting conditions designed to facilitate retention through the opportunity to benefit financially from our growth and profitability, as they generally vest over a three- or four-year period. We believe these grants also help promote alignment between our employees and our stockholders.

Employee Engagement, Safety and Wellness

At CervoMed, we believe that health matters to everyone and that the success of our business is fundamentally connected to the physical and mental well-being of our people. Accordingly, the safety health, and wellness of our employees is one of our top priorities. We are committed to developing and fostering a work environment that is safe, professional, and promotes teamwork, and trust in order to afford all of our employees the opportunity to contribute to the best of their abilities. In addition to the benefits package described above, in recent years, we have taken certain measures and responded to changes in our operational needs, including actions designed to further promote a safe work environment for our employees, such as investing in technology solutions to support increased work-from-home capabilities and moving to an unlimited paid leave policy.

Development and Training

Many of our employees attend scientific, clinical, technological, and other relevant meetings and conferences and we strive to provide employees access to a broad set of internal resources intended to help them be successful, including a variety of training and educational experiences. We have also implemented a comprehensive employee evaluation program tied to the achievement of individual, team, and company goals to help further support, retain, and develop our people and further promote alignment of interests between our employees and our stockholders.

Our Team

We have assembled a diverse team of experienced company builders and drug developers, complemented by an experienced Board and world-class scientific advisors. This group shares a long-term commitment to execute our strategy, advance the development of neflamapimod, and improve treatment outcomes and quality of life for patients suffering from age-related neurologic disorders. Moreover, we benefit from the significant pharmaceutical development experience of our management team members and directors, several of whom have worked on neflamapimod in the past at Vertex and are well acquainted with the unique properties of the compound for application in DLB and other potential target indications.

Our Directors

The table below sets forth, as of March 15, 2025, certain information concerning our current directors.

Our Executive Officers

The table below sets forth, as of March 15, 2025, certain information concerning our current executive officers.

Our Scientific Advisory Board

We have assembled a highly qualified SAB comprised of thought leaders in the fields of cell biology, intracellular signal transduction, neurotherapeutics, and translational neuroscience.

Corporate Information

Our History

We were originally incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on January 10, 1995, and reincorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on June 18, 2015. On August 16, 2023, we completed the Merger, which was treated as a "reverse recapitalization" under U.S. GAAP pursuant to which EIP’s historical results of operations replaced the Company's for all periods prior to the Merger. Immediately following the closing of the Merger, we changed our name from "Diffusion Pharmaceuticals Inc." to "CervoMed Inc."

Where to Find Us

Our principal corporate office is located at 20 Park Plaza, Suite 424, Boston, Massachusetts 02116, and our telephone number is (617) 744-4400. Our website, www.cervomed.com, including the Investor Relations section, ir.cervomed.com, contains a significant amount of information about the Company.

However, the information included on our website is not incorporated by reference into, and should not be considered part of, this Annual Report or any other filings we make with the SEC.

Other Available Information

We make available on or through our website certain reports that we file with or furnish to the SEC in accordance with Exchange Act. These include our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and our Current Reports on Form 8-K, as well as any amendments to those reports, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. We make this information available free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the information with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The SEC also maintains a website, www.sec.gov, that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding the Company and other issuers that file electronically with the SEC. We also make available, free of charge and through our website, the charters of the committees of the Board, our Corporate Governance Guidelines, and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.