Neuraxis, INC

Overview

Neuraxis, Inc. (“we”, “us”, the “Company” or “Neuraxis”) is a medical technology company focused on developing neuromodulation therapies to address chronic and debilitating conditions in children and adults. We are dedicated to advancing science with our proprietary IB-Stim therapy, based on our Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Field Stimulation (PENFS) technology, which was developed internally by the Company. We believe that superior science and evidence-based research, are necessary for adoption by the medical and scientific community. With one FDA indication (functional abdominal pain associated with IBS in adolescents 8-21 years old) on the market, additional clinical trials of PENFS in multiple pediatric conditions are underway focused on unmet healthcare needs in children, see “Our Pipeline” for more information.

Our first product, IB-Stim, is a PENFS system intended to be used in patients 8-21 years of age with functional abdominal pain associated with IBS. IB-Stim is a US FDA Class II medical device that has received one regulatory clearance: IB-Stim (DEN180057, 2019), under the regulation name of “non-implanted nerve stimulator for functional abdominal pain relief.”

Our second product, Rectal Expulsion Device (“RED”), is indicated to evaluate the neuromuscular function of a patient’s ability to expel its contents from the rectum and as a qualitative test for rectal hypersensitivity. RED (K242304, 2024) helps identify patients with rectal hypersensitivity who experience a desire or urge to defecate at lower volumes of distension. RED is intended to be used in a clinical setting by trained health care providers in adult populations.

Our Mission

Our mission is to provide solutions that create value and provide better and safer patient outcomes. We believe in improving lives and minimizing suffering; particularly in the pediatric population, where research and therapeutics are usually lacking. The Company already has market clearance for its IB-Stim ® that targets functional abdominal pain associated with IBS, in children, with a total addressable market of up to 6 million children. Through innovation and research, we are reimagining the future of patient care.

Our Corporate History

Neuraxis, Inc. was established in 2011 and incorporated in the state of Indiana on April 17, 2012, under the name of Innovative Health Solutions, Inc. The name was changed to Neuraxis, Inc. in March of 2022. Additionally, the Company filed a Certificate of Conversion to become a Delaware corporation on June 23, 2022. The authorized shares were increased, and a par value established. On September 7, 2021, the Company’s board of directors authorized a 4-for-1 stock split. They also increased the number of authorized common stock shares from 2,700,000 to 10,800,000. Furthermore, on September 9, 2021, the board authorized an increase of authorized shares of common stock from 10,800,000 to 13,400,000 in anticipation of a capital offering.

As part of the conversion to a Delaware corporation, the total number of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue was 101,120,000 shares, consisting of (i) 100,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, and (ii) 1,120,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Preferred Stock”), 1,000,000 of which was designated as “Series A Preferred Stock” and 120,000 of which was designated as “Series Seed Preferred Stock”.

Furthermore, on January 10, 2023, the Company’s board of directors authorized a 1-for-2 reverse stock split. All per share information has been adjusted for this reverse stock split. The reverse split became effective on January 12, 2023.

On August 9, 2023, the Company consummated an initial public offering (“IPO”), conducted on a firm commitment basis, pursuant to which it sold 1,098,667 shares of its common stock at a price of $6.00 per share, resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $6,592,002. Net proceeds to the Company, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses paid by the Company, were $4,110,721. All shares sold in our IPO were registered pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333- 269179), as amended, declared effective by the SEC on August 9, 2023.

On August 15, 2024, the Company’s shareholders (i) authorized 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock of which 4,000,000 were designated at $0.001 par value “Series B Preferred Stock” inclusive of cumulative dividends, due and payable quarterly at the Company’s discretion either in cash or common stock when declared, at a rate of 8.5% per annum through June 30, 2025, (ii) retired 1,000,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock and (iii) retired 120,000 shares of Series Seed Preferred Stock. On November 11, 2024, the holders of a majority of the then-outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock authorized (i) an increase in the number of designated Series B Preferred Stock to 5,000,000 shares and (ii) an extension of the 8.5% cumulative dividend period to December 31, 2026. The stated value of the Series B Preferred Stock is $2.38 per share. As of March 13, 2025, there are 4,280,939 shares of Series B Preferred Stock issued and outstanding, which are convertible (based on the stated value of each share and the conversion price both equalling $2.38) into 4,280,939 shares of common stock, subject to a maximum ownership cap of between 4.99% and 19.99% of the shares outstanding (following conversion by the holder) set at the discretion of each holder of Series B Preferred Stock.

Each holder of Series B Preferred Stock is entitled to cast the number of votes equal to the number of whole shares of common stock into which the shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by such holder. Solely for purposes of voting rights, the conversion price is $3.80 per share. The 4,280,939 shares of Series B Preferred Stock outstanding therefore represent 2,681,208 votes of common stock, subject to a maximum voting percentage cap of between 4.99% and 19.99% of the votes outstanding (inclusive of all 2,681,208 votes plus the shares outstanding on the record date for any particular shareholder meeting) set at the discretion of each holder of Series B Preferred Stock.

We have developed three FDA cleared products, the IB-Stim (DEN180057, 2019), the RED (K242304, 2024), the NSS-2 Bridge (DEN170018, 2017), and the original 510(K) clearance (K140530, 2014), all of which were developed internally by the Company.

Pediatrics Industry Overview

Pediatric providers, as a whole, had expressed concern about the lack of attention given to children with functional abdominal pain disorders (including IBS) and the limited treatment options available for a population that suffers from significant disabilities. With 20% of the United States population under age 18, our Company focus is on opportunities in pediatrics industry. The pediatrics industry has multi-billion-dollar market opportunities. The following points clearly outline the unmet need in children:

Our Opportunity

For years, physicians and qualified healthcare professionals have resorted to the use of off-label medications without proper evidence of efficacy or safety. This is despite a technical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and NASPGHAN which found very little evidence to endorse the use of any drugs in the treatment of FAPDs in children. Medications including tricyclic antidepressants, SSRIs and gabapentinoids continue to be used off-label despite lack of evidence to support efficacy or safety. Not only have the most commonly used medications (amitriptyline and citalopram) failed to beat placebo in clinical trials, but new studies also suggest significant risks with the potential for serious side effects with these drugs. The absence of conclusive data to support treatments based on scientific evidence, and the fact no drug therapies have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of FAPDs or IBS in children, presents a unique market opportunity for Neuraxis. Below are the current standard treatments in children with functional abdominal pain and IBS.

Our Solutions

We entered the pediatric market with clinical evidence, key opinion leaders and society endorsement, including a signed letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics and NASPGHAN supporting our request for insurers to pay for our IB-Stim device. Our IB-Stim® is a non-drug alternative to reduce functional abdominal pain in patients with IBS. In June 2019, the FDA cleared IB-Stim, a non-surgical, neuromodulation device for children and adolescents who suffer from IBS, through a de novo process (DEN180057, 2019). The FDA created a new classification of PENFS for the IB-Stim device. This is based on pre-clinical and clinical studies demonstrating the mechanism of action and efficacy. Based on this new class of devices, the IB-Stim falls under 21 CFR Part 876, Subpart F – Therapeutic Devices, 876.5340, Product Code QHH. As a PENFS device, it is non-implantable and provides field stimulation to cranial nerves V, VII, IX and X in the ear to access the CNS. It stimulates remotely from the source of pain to modulate central pain regions, such as the limbic system, and relieve functional abdominal pain associated with IBS. Studies have demonstrated long-term benefits in functional disability, psychological co-morbidities, and pain. For example, the table below is from a recently published study of IB-Stim in a population of patients with chronic functional abdominal pain. The follow-up was done at 6-12 months post-treatment and shows improvements in validated questionnaires compared to baseline (API), functional disability index (FDI), pain catastrophizing scale (PCS), Screen for Childhood Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) and the Promis Anxiety.

Santucci NR, King C, El-Chammas KI, Wongteerasut A, Damrongmanee A, Graham K, Fei L, Sahay R, Jones C, Cunningham NR, Coghill RC.Effect of percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation on mechanosensitivity, sleep, and psychological comorbidities in adolescents with functional abdominal pain disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2022;34:e14358.

We have only submitted one FDA De Novo request and two 510(k) submissions and plan to submit additional 510(k) premarket notifications from our pipeline indications in the future.

Compliance with treatment so far has been outstanding with the four weeks of therapy required to sustain long-term benefits. Compliance has been an issue with non-pharmacological treatment for children, particularly with some of the psychological approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy or guided imagery, which sometimes requires 8-12 weeks of treatment. In fact, 95% of adolescents who used IB-Stim said that they would recommend this treatment to family and friends. Many children’s hospitals across the country are already treating children with IB-Stim successfully since it provides a better alternative for therapy in children with IBS and disability and allows them to treat them safely and effectively.

We have concentrated our marketing focus on the 260 children’s hospitals within the United States. To date, we have sold our IB-Stim product to approximately 77 children’s hospitals within our target market.

Competition

The competitive landscape for therapies includes off-label drugs and drugs with FDA approved only for adults with IBS while there is no FDA indicated treatments for patients 8-21 years of age with functional abdominal pain associated with IBS and prescriptions often contain FDA black box labels. Psychological treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or guided imagery have been shown to be some of the most effective treatments for these conditions, however, these are limited by access to trained therapists. It also includes devices that could theoretically be used, but do not have supporting data or FDA clearance for functional bowel disorders or IBS. Digital therapeutics that offer CBT for IBS have been developed for adults with IBS with limited success in terms of reaching large numbers of patients. Virtual reality could potentially be used in the future to also deliver CBT to patients with IBS. Our method patents also limit other devices from targeting IBS through stimulation of cranial nerve branches in the ear.

Approved drugs for Adults with IBS

Devices

The neurostimulation market is predominantly comprised of surgically implanted, invasive technologies that are not directly competitive with our technology. Several neurostimulation companies are large, publicly traded companies that have a history in the market, have significantly easier access to capital and other resources and have an established product pipeline. The combined clinical research and product development done by the industry, including by us and all our competitors, is uncovering the beneficial effects of neurostimulation which now establishes neuromodulation as a valid and scientifically supported approach to the treatment of neurological conditions, and accordingly, we expect for competition in the non-implanted space to grow in the future.

While many companies have joined the neuromodulation space, there are no companies targeting the CNS or the brain-gut axis through auricular nerves for functional bowel disorders or IBS. Currently, the Neuraxis method patents protect access to the brain, particularly the limbic systems through branches of cranial nerves in the ear.

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe that the following competitive strengths will enable us to compete effectively:

Our Growth Strategies

Our Pipeline

The IB-Stim device is to be used for the indication of functional abdominal pain associated with IBS and functional nausea in children. The same underlying technology will be used for the remaining pipeline indications, but we may use a name other than “IB-Stim” for marketing and commercialization purposes.

With one FDA indication—functional abdominal pain associated with IBS in adolescents 8-21 years old—on the market, additional clinical trials of PENFS in multiple pediatric conditions are underway focused on unmet healthcare needs in children. These indications consist of chronic nausea, post-concussion syndrome, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, cyclic vomiting syndrome.

The chart below shows our status in the FDA review process for IB-Stim and each of the following pediatric indications:

1.Functional dyspepsia (nausea): RCT completed, and data being analyzed. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03675321,Defining Adolescent Nausea Through Brain-Gut Physiology and Non-Invasive Neurostimulation Response. A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of IB-Stim in children with functional nausea. The primary endpoint was to measure improvements in nausea using the Nausea Severity Scale after IB-Stim therapy compared to a placebo device. The study enrolled 110 participants and was conducted at Children’s Wisconsin/Medical College of Wisconsin.

2.Post-concussion: RCT currently enrolling patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04978571,A Prospective Study on the Effect of Auricular Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Field Stimulation (PENFS) in Patients with Post-Concussion Syndrome (PCS). A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of IB-Stim in children with post-concussion symptoms. The primary endpoint will be to measure improvements in validated measures, including the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment, Post-Concussion Symptom Scale, and Balance Error Scoring Symptom compared to placebo. The study will enroll 100 participants and is being conducted at Children’s Hospital of Orange County.

3.Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: RCT currently enrolling patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05143554,Efficacy of Auricular Neurostimulation for Children Adolescents and Young Adults with Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting. Subject will be randomized to five days of active vs placebo device during administered chemotherapy known to cause moderate to severe nausea/vomiting. With the next scheduled identical chemotherapy cycle, each subject will cross over to the other device (active vs placebo). The primary endpoint will be to measure improvements in validated measures of nausea and vomiting including the Baxter Retching Faces Scale, Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting and Retching, and also assessment of rescue medication. The study will enroll 50 participants and is being conducted at Children’s Wisconsin/Medical College of Wisconsin.

4.Cyclic vomiting syndrome: Pilot study completed, see ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03434652.Auricular Neurostimulation for Children with Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. RCT anticipated to begin enrolling patients in the second half of 2023. This will be a double blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate efficacy of IB-Stim in pediatric patients with cyclic vomiting syndrome. The primary endpoint will be to measure decreases in the frequency and severity of cyclic vomiting episodes compared to a placebo device. The study will include a minimum of 120 patients and the site is yet to be finalized.

Each step in the FDA review process differs in duration and cannot be predicted with accuracy. Timing of FDA review and approval, if ever received, cannot be assured and the process and any approval is within the sole control and discretion of the FDA.

Products

The IB-Stim is a percutaneous PENFS system intended to be used in patients 8-21 years of age with functional abdominal pain associated with IBS. IB-Stim already has market clearance from FDA for functional abdominal pain associated with IBS in children. FDA has classified the non-implanted nerve stimulator for functional abdominal pain relief as Class II devices.

The IB-Stim is intended to be used for 120 hours per week, using one (1) device per week, for four (4) consecutive weeks, through application to branches of Cranial Nerves V, VII, IX and X, and the occipital nerves identified by transillumination, as an aid in the reduction of pain when combined with other therapies for IBS (DEN180057, 2019). In published studies, patients treated with IB-Stim demonstrated significant improvement in pain, disability and global symptoms with no serious adverse events, and minimal to no side effects, including localized skin irritation. The following table presents a summary of IB-STIM studies performed to date:

The ability of the IB-Stim to produce systemic effects by modulating the central nervous system has been demonstrated in a pre-clinical animal model of IBS (see Business—Pre-Clinical Data). In patients with IBS, the largest effect on all pain measures, including composite pain scores, worst pain, disability and global symptoms, was seen after completing three consecutive weeks of treatment (see Business—Clinical Data). A fourth consecutive week of treatment was included in clinical testing; no safety concerns were identified with this extra consecutive week of treatment. In the trial of 115 subjects, 10 patients reported side-effects and only three discontinued the study because of side-effects. Of such 10 patients, six experienced ear discomfort (three in the PENFS group, three in the sham group), three experienced adhesive allergies (one in the PENFS group, 2 in the sham group), and one experienced syncope due to needle phobia (in the sham group). There were no serious adverse events.

Medical providers are trained to place the IB-Stim through IB-Stim Training and Certification. Once the provider is trained, the device can be placed in the outpatient clinic and can be removed by the provider in the clinic or the patient at home. IB-Stim stays on for a total of five-days to allow delivery of gentle electrical pulses to nerves below the skin that access the central nervous system. A study in adolescents showed greater improvement in functional abdominal pain and global symptom improvement with every week of treatment (up to four weeks). At the end of the four-week study, 95% of adolescents stated they would recommend the treatment to family or friends. Safety of percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation has also been reported in a separate study of over 1200 adult patients with no serious adverse events and minimal to no side-effects.

When wearing our IB-Stim device and following an easy-to-learn and efficient procedure, patients can still attend school and extracurricular activities, exercise or play non-contact sports, shower, wear ear buds or headphones, and travel.

Our IB-Stim device costs $1,195 per device, and each patient will use four (4) devices. Potential patients with other indications are expected to use six (6) or more devices per patient.

Technology

A maladaptive central nervous system can process pain and emotions differently. This often occurs in children following a traumatic event, viral infections, inflammation or trauma. Changes in brain pathways are known to be involved in the pathophysiology of functional bowel disorders and IBS. The IB-Stim works by sending gentle electrical impulses into cranial nerve bundles located in the ear. This stimulation targets brain areas that process pain and helps reduce functional abdominal pain associated with IBS. An animal model of IBS demonstrated that the firing of neurons in the amygdala could be reduced by more than 50% in just 15 minutes of stimulation with the IB-Stim technology. A recent human study in adults with pain related to fibromyalgia suggested that the IB-Stim technology exerts its effect by modulating emotional and executive control centers related to pain processing, seeFeasibility of Auricular Field Stimulation in Fibromyalgia: Evaluation by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Randomized Trial, Woodbury et.al., Pain Med. 2021;22:715-726. The field of art pertains to an electrical stimulation device, including a stimulator containing a generator to deliver electrical pulses with defined parameters, and a power supply for supplying the electrical energy through four separate needles, and at least one of which is a needle array.

Pre-Clinical Data

In an animal model of IBS, extracellular, electrophysiologic recordings were performed from neurons in the rat amygdala before and 15 minutes after PENFS treatment. There was a 65% decrease in the spontaneous firing of these neurons after 15 minutes of PENFS. This dampening of neurons in the CNS likely accounts for the modulation of pain responses in a model of post-inflammatory visceral and somatic hyperalgesia.

Clinical Data

We have over 700 published patients specific to our first FDA indication which is functional abdominal pain associated with irritable bowel syndrome in patients 8-21 years of age. A published patient is defined as a patient who went through a study, the study was analyzed and now the study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

A randomized, controlled study in children 11-18 year of age used primary endpoint of improvements in abdominal pain. The Pain Frequency-Severity-Duration (“PFSD”) questionnaires was completed at baseline by all subjects and after each week of treatment (weeks 1–3), as well as at extended follow-up occurring in the 8–12 weeks following the end of treatment. The PFSD scale incorporates multiple aspects of the pain experience and was administered weekly during treatment and at extended follow-up appointments. The PFSD scale validated for chronic pain in children (aged 8–18 years). The PFSD was also used to rate weekly worst abdominal pain on a numerical rating scale (0 for no pain, 10 for worst pain). Patients were followed up for a median of 9.2 weeks from the last week of treatment.

For the active PENFS group, median worst pain at follow-up remained lower (baseline: 8.0 vs. follow-up: 6.0), whereas there was no difference at follow-up in the control group (baseline: 7.5 vs. follow-up: 7.0). The between-group differences in worst pain ratings after 3 weeks of treatment showed that the PENFS group improved to a greater extent, with the control group reporting significantly higher worst pain (median 7.0) than the PENFS group (median 5.0).

At long-term follow-up, median PFSD composite scores were 12.6 (IQR 3.6–22.5) in the PENFS group and 16.8 (4.8–33.6) in the control group. A comparison of changes in PFSD composite scores (baseline to follow-up) showed that patients in the PENFS group reported significantly greater improvement in pain (median –8.4) than those in the control group (median 0.0). This study was published in the Lancet Gastroenterology Hepatology, (Kovacic K, et.al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:727-737).

A secondary endpoint in the same study used the functional disability index (FDI) to assess functional disability in those treated with PENFS and compared to sham treatment. Those treated with PENFS changed from moderate disability to minimal at the 2–3-month follow-up while the sham device group had no change.

A separate published paper looked at 51 pediatric patients with IBS and used the symptoms response scale (SRS) to assess global symptoms improvement following PENFS treatment compared to sham. Global symptom improvement was assessed with a validated pediatric questionnaire, Symptom Response Scale (SRS). Symptoms were recorded as better, worse, or no change based on a 15-point scale across individual domains for both improvement and deterioration of overall symptoms. Findings from several studies that used the SRS have shown that using 7-point scale response options in disease-specific measures, a change score of 0.5 represents the minimal clinically important difference (Juniper et.al. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81–87 and Guyatt GH et.al.1987; 42: 773–78). As previously noted, a minimum change in score of ≥ 2 was chosen for this study as a more stringent criterion for global improvement before and after PENFS treatment and to compare between groups. Patients and providers were blinded in terms of those who received active PENFS or sham. At the end 3 weeks of therapy using the change of ≥ 2, 81% of the PENFS group compared with 26% of the sham group (*p≤ 0.001, #p=0.002) reported overall symptom improvement. When applying an even more stringent criteria with a change ≥ 3 on the SRS, 67% of the PENFS group compared with 22% of the sham group reported symptoms improvement (p=0.002) (Krasaelap A et.al. Efficacy of Auricular Neurostimulation in Adolescents With Irritable Bowel Syndrome in a Randomized, Double-Blind Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:1987-1994).

Recently, the largest, prospective, multicenter registry for any drug or device in pediatric patients with pain associated DGBIs was published. It evaluated outcomes of pediatric patients (8-18 years) following a 4-week course of IB-Stim in a real-world clinical setting. Overall, 292 patients met Rome IV Diagnostic criteria for any pain associated disorder of the gut-brain interaction (DGBIs). In this cohort, 92% had failed medication therapy and 61% of patients had failed 4 or more medications when they entered the study. Patients were asked to fill out several validated pediatric measures, including the abdominal pain index (API) and a validated questionnaire that assesses frequency, duration, and intensity of abdominal pain episodes. Data were collected weekly for the first 3 weeks and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Compared to baseline scores, there were significant improvements in the API after 4 weeks of IB-Stim treatment at every time point, including 6 month (p<0.001) and 12 months (p<0.001). Although there were many dropouts by the end of the 12 months, the results were still significant and sustained. No serious adverse effects were recorded during the entire 12 month follow-up. (Chogle, A. et. al. A multicenter registry study on percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation for pediatric disorders of gut-brain interaction. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2024 Mar 7.).

An open-label study of 20 patients treated with PENFS in a “real-world” clinical setting at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital demonstrated that after PENFS, abdominal pain (p < 0.0001), nausea (p=0.001), pain catastrophizing (p = 0.001), functional disability (p<0.0001), and anxiety (p = 0.03) exhibited significant improvements, and were sustained 6-12 months after treatment (Santucci et.al. Effect of percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation on mechanosensitivity, sleep, and psychological comorbidities in adolescents with functional abdominal pain disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2022;34:e14358). Validated questionnaires included the abdominal pain index (API), nausea severity scale (NSS), functional disability index (FDI), as well as psychological measures of catastrophizing (PCS-C) and anxiety (SCARED). The table below summarizes the results pre, during and post PENFS results at long-term follow-up (Santucci et.al. Effect of percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation on mechanosensitivity, sleep, and psychological comorbidities in adolescents with functional abdominal pain disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2022;34:e14358).

A clinically meaningful endpoint is the number needed to treat (NNT) used in treatment for abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorders in adolescents. NNT means the number of patients that need to be treated for one patient to get the targeted improvement (≥30% improvement).

PENFS Reimbursement

The American Medical Association (AMA) assigned a procedure-specific Category III CPT Code (0720T) to PENFS, which was published on December 30, 2021 and became effective for utilization on July 1, 2022. Category III CPT Codes are temporary codes issued to define and track the utilization of new procedural technology. To expand patient access to PENFS procedures and IB-Stim technology, we launched our internal Prior Authorization team under our Guidance & Patient Support function in 2023. This continues to address the Prior Authorization process barriers for providers and children’s hospitals and streamlines a patient’s access to our Patient Advocacy and Financial Assistance offerings, if needed. In September of 2024, the AMA’s CPT Editorial Panel accepted addition of Category I CPT Code (placeholder 64X11) for PENFS and deletion of Category III CPT Code 0720T. The finalized Category I CPT Code for PENFS, and associated valuations, will be announced publicly in Q4 of 2025. The new code will become effective for utilization on January 1, 2026. Sixteen (16) commercial health insurers, including certain Blue Cross Blue Shield licensees, have instituted formal medical policy coverage for PENFS. The total membership of these health insurers is approximately 45,000,000 covered lives. An additional health insurer, with approximately 6,000,000 members, will institute formal medical policy coverage for PENFS beginning the second quarter of 2025, bringing the total number of covered lives to approximately 51,000,000 across seventeen (17) commercial health insurers. Patients who are appropriate clinical candidates may have policy-covered access to PENFS and IB-Stim technology under their specific health plan. We continue to actively leverage clinical evidence and peer-reviewed publications to expand patient access to IB-Stim technology. In addition, we anticipate academic medical society support in the form of a position paper and an update to treatment guidelines to support the use of PENFS as a potential standard of care.

Marketing

We market our products through search engine optimization, or SEO, internet channels and to physicians via the academic society. We plan to extensively ramp-up our marketing efforts to patients and physicians as we gain additional indications.

Patients/Customers

Our current patient base is children 8-21 years of age and suffering from functional abdominal pain. Our customers are primarily children’s hospitals who serve these children.

Rectal Expulsion Device (RED)

The Rectal Expulsion Device (RED) enables comprehensive constipation care for every gastroenterology practice. The mission is to develop the best tool for clinical decision making with the physician and patient in mind. RED was designed to be the most efficient, accurate, and cost-effective diagnostic tool for patients with chronic constipation. The goal is for every Gastroenterologist practice to be able to safely and confidently perform meaningful anorectal testing without it impacting clinical workflow or requiring a large capital expense. Eight (8) million patients each year present with constipation. Of those eight million patients, 700,000 patients present to the Emergency Room.

Clinical Background

Constipation is one of the most encountered gastrointestinal complaints in clinical practice. A recent systematic review reported that the prevalence of chronic constipation (CC) in North America is between 10-15%. This condition causes significantly reduced quality of life, reduced work-related productivity and billions of dollars in health expenditures. Clinical practice guidelines recommend empiric treatment of chronically constipated patients with fiber supplements or laxative therapies. Approximately 40% of patients do not adequately respond to empiric laxative therapy. In these patients, anorectal physiology testing is essential.

There is a clinical need for an easy-to-use, office-based, point-of-care, anorectal function test that can measure rectal sensitivity and be used as a rectal expulsion device to assess pelvic floor dysfunction. Current testing methods typically require elaborate volumetric testing equipment to assess sensation and expulsion, which makes them not practical in the clinical setting. The current standard is to refer patients to specialized motility centers for evaluation, resulting in sub-optimal number of patients with constipation undergoing anal-rectal testing. In the current clinical setting, only about 2% of all patients with constipation are referred for anal-rectal testing and thus, a large number with pelvic floor dysfunction and rectal hypersensitivity are missed and/or fail to get proper treatment. The design of RED allows for it to be used as a self-inflating expulsion device and as a balloon to assess patients who experience rectal hypersensitivity. When it is opened to atmospheric pressure, RED safely self inflates and contains a specially selected foam that mimics the “feel” of stool. This provides an alternative to sensation and expulsion testing in the office without affecting clinical workflow.

Rectal Sensation Testing

Rectal sensation is an important metric to guide clinical care, particularly rectal hypersensitivity. For example, a patient that reports an immediate perceived immediate need to defecate or discomfort (max tolerated) to low volumes of distension would have rectal hypersensitivity. This diagnosis is important because it would impact how a patient is treated. Rectal hypersensitivity is addressed by pelvic floor physical therapists who deliver education and re-training to help the patient align the desire to defecate according to the actual volume of stool contained within the rectal vault. The basis of sensory re-training during physical therapy involves inflating a balloon in the rectum until urge threshold is reached. With repeated inflations, the patient learns to associate a given sensory intensity with the inflated volume. Over time, the balloon is inflated with decreasing volumes and the patient is asked to closely monitor and attend to sensations experienced. Eventually, new sensory thresholds are established. Unfortunately, because of the difficulty in performing hypersensitivity testing in routine clinical care, only a small percentage of all patients with constipation undergo anorectal testing in the clinical setting.

In a recent study, 60 adult patients (mean±standard deviation age of 46.4±17.6 years; 93.3% women) that underwent evaluation with RED and answered the questions were included in the analysis. One patient did not undergo rectal sensation testing due to suspected anal fissure and overall, 58 patients were included in the analysis.

As outlined in the figure below, 18 of 58 patients, or 31.%, had rectal hypersensitivity on RED when defined on a single yes/no question of “do you feel you have to poop right now” that evaluates the patient perception to defecate.

These data suggest that approximately 31% of patients with chronic constipation reported urge to defecate with RED baseline distension volume, thus meeting the London criteria for hypersensitivity.

Balloon Expulsion Testing

RED can be used as a rectal expulsion device and in a recent prospective trial of 60 adults with functional constipation (defined by Rome IV criteria), it was demonstrated to be safe in a clinical setting. It can be quickly performed in the left lateral position (i.e., the patient lying on their left side) immediately after a rectal examination. Further, it proved to be effective for patients who fail a trial of laxative therapy. In those patients with constipation who failed laxative treatment, RED was able to reliably identify patients for whom pelvic floor physical therapy was unlikely to provide substantial benefit (i.e, patients who might be more likely to benefit from intensifying medical therapy). Patients with an abnormal RED in the left lateral position or commode were likely to respond to pelvic floor therapy (48.8% to 71.4%, respectively). Also, RED showed very high sensitivity (>95%) to broadly detect evacuation disorders as a simple screening tool as noted in the table below.

RED Benefits Over Predicates

There is an urgent need to better identify patients with pelvic floor abnormalities and/or rectal hypersensitivity. Making the right diagnosis can impact care and ensure that patients are properly assessed and treated. The figure below demonstrates how RED can impact clinical decision making.

Overall, RED is a point-of-care device designed to be used in the office. Rectal sensation is an important component of evaluating pelvic floor function among patients with chronic constipation. Currently, 98% of clinically appropriate patients do not receive anorectal testing. The study findings demonstrate that RED impacts clinical decision making by identifying patients who would benefit from physical therapy or who would require optimization of laxatives. It is also sufficient to qualitatively assess for rectal hypersensitivity which was evident in almost one-third of patients with chronic constipation failing a trial of fiber/laxatives. It is critical to assess rectal sensation and balloon expulsion in patients with constipation and/or fecal incontinence.

RED Safety

RED Reimbursement

RED is billable under CPT 91120. The documentation is Rectal Hypersensitivity at 52-60mL: present/absent.

Intellectual Property

Our intellectual property consists of patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. Our trade secrets consist of product formulas, research, and development, and unpatentable know-how, all of which we seek to protect, in part, by confidentiality agreements. To protect our intellectual property, we rely on a combination of laws and regulations, as well as contractual restrictions. Federal trademark law protects our registered trademarks. We also rely on the protection of laws regarding unregistered copyrights for certain content we create and trade secret laws to protect our proprietary technology. To further protect our intellectual property, we enter into confidentiality agreements with our executive officers and directors.

Trademarks

The Company has seven (7) registered trademarks, and two (2) allowed pending applications for registration:

The Company has no core trademarks that are currently unregistered.

Patents

The Company has twelve (12) granted patents in the United States and seven (7) applied for patent applications in the United States and one (1) granted foreign patent and two (2) applied for foreign patent applications.

License Agreements

TKBMN Exclusive License Agreement

On May 7, 2020, the Company entered into an exclusive license agreement with TKBMN, LLC to obtain an exclusive license under certain patent rights (the “Patent Rights”) owned by TKBMN. Dr. Thomas Carrico, our Chief Regulatory Officer, is the manager of TKBMN. Brian Carrico, our Chief Executive Officer, and Matt Carrico, our National Sales Director, are members of TKBMN. TKBMN owns the Patent Rights set forth in the patents listed in the following table (the “TKBMN Patents”) by virtue of an assignment from Dr. Carrico, who is the sole inventor listed on the TKBMN Patents. TKBMN has assigned the auricular portion of the TKBMN Patent Rights to the Company.

Licensed TKBMN Patents

• If all maintenance fees remain paid

Pursuant to the exclusive license agreement, TKBMN agreed to grant an exclusive, worldwide, non-transferable, royalty-free license under Patent Rights, which including three patents applications filed by TKBMN in connection with systems and methods for elector-therapy treatment, to the Company to develop, market, and sell licensed products, in the field of electro-therapy treatment by stimulation of cranial nerves, cranial nerve branches, auricular nerves, auricular nerve branches, auricular nerve bundles, and/or auricular anatomical structures in human patients (the “Field”), in consideration of a one-time license fee of $1.00. The Company has the right to grant sublicenses to the Patents Rights in the Field. The exclusive license agreement expires upon the expiration of the last to expire valid claim within the Patent Rights and may be terminated by the Company upon 60 days prior written notice. Upon expiration or termination of the exclusive license agreement, all rights in the Patent Rights will revert to TKBMN. There are no royalties or any other form of committed revenue to TKBMN or any of its members Under the agreement, the Company has agreed to cover fees and expenses associated with maintenance, prosecution, and additional associated/continuation patent filings for the TKBMN Patents.

Masimo License and Collaboration Agreement

On April 9, 2020, the Company entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Masimo. As consideration, in part, Masimo entered into a Series A Preferred Stock purchase agreement with the Company. Under the license and collaboration agreement, the Company grants an exclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free license to specifically identified patents and trademarks in a limited Field of use. At all times, the Company remains the owner of all licensed intellectual property rights, and there is a possibility of joint ownership of collaboratively developed products and methods. The licensed patents are generally directed to a device and the treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms. The licensed trademarks are generally directed to the NSS-2 Bridge mark. The license agreement includes a collaboration component to efficiently develop, obtain regulatory approval, and commercialize products for the limited field of use. The term of the agreement is in effect until the expiration or lapse of the last intellectual property rights. Masimo paid a one-time fee of $250,000. The license and collaboration agreement may not be terminated by the Company for any reason, and the sole remedy for any breach or default by Masimo shall be to seek monetary damages and equitable remedies. The license and collaboration agreement may be terminated by Masimo if there is material breach by the Company that remain uncured for thirty (30) days or without cause by providing thirty (30) days prior written notice. See*”—Our Corporate History*” for more information.

Implications of Being a Smaller Reporting Company

We are a “smaller reporting company” as defined in Rule 10(f)(1) of Regulation S-K. Smaller reporting companies may take advantage of certain reduced disclosure obligations, including, among other things, providing only two years of audited financial statements. We will remain a smaller reporting company until the last day of the fiscal year in which (1) the market value of our shares held by non-affiliates equals or exceeds $250 million as of the prior June 30 th, or (2) our annual revenues equaled or exceeded $100 million during such completed fiscal year and the market value of our shares held by non-affiliates equals or exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30 th. Such reduced disclosure and corporate governance obligations may make it more challenging for investors to analyze our results of operations and financial prospects.

For additional information, see “Risk Factors – Because the Company is a ‘smaller reporting company,’ we may take advantage of certain scaled disclosures available to us, resulting in holders of our securities receiving less Company information than they would receive from a public company that is not a smaller reporting company” and “As a smaller reporting company,” we may at some time in the future choose to exempt our Company from certain corporate governance requirements that could have an adverse effect on our public stockholders.”

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) December 31, 2028, (2) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion, (3) the last day of the fiscal year in which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, which would occur on the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period. An emerging growth company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting requirements and is relieved of certain other significant requirements that are otherwise generally applicable to public companies. As an emerging growth company, we may:

In addition, under the JOBS Act, an emerging growth company can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected not to take advantage of the extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards provided to emerging growth companies under the JOBS Act.

Government Regulation

Our products and our operations are subject to extensive regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and other federal, state, and local authorities in the United States, as well as comparable authorities in foreign jurisdictions. Our products are subject to regulation as medical devices in the United States under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations.

United States Regulation

The FDA regulates, among other things, the development, design, non-clinical and clinical testing, manufacturing, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, installation, servicing, recordkeeping, premarket clearance or approval, adverse event reporting, advertising, promotion, marketing and distribution, and import and export and post-marketing surveillance of medical devices in the United States to ensure that medical devices distributed domestically are safe and effective for their intended uses and otherwise meet the requirements of the FDCA.

FDA Premarket Clearance and Approval Requirements

Unless an exemption applies, each new or significantly modified medical device commercially distributed in the United States requires FDA clearance of a 510(k) premarket notification. The 510(k) clearance can be resource intensive, expensive, and lengthy.

Under the FDCA, medical devices are classified into one of three classes—Class I, Class II or Class III—depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of manufacturer and regulatory control needed to ensure its safety and effectiveness. Class I devices are those for which safety and effectiveness can be assured by adherence to the FDA’s general controls for medical devices, which include compliance with the applicable portions of FDA’s current good manufacturing practices for devices, as reflected in the Quality System Regulation, or QSR, establishment registration and device listing, reporting of adverse medical events, and truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising, and promotional materials. Some Class I devices, also called Class I reserved devices, also require premarket clearance by the FDA through the 510(k) premarket notification process described below. Most Class I devices are exempt from the premarket notification requirements.

Class II devices are subject to the FDA’s general controls, and any other special controls deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device. These special controls can include performance standards, special labeling requirements, post-market surveillance, patient registries and FDA guidance documents.

Most Class II devices are required to submit to the FDA a premarket notification under Section 510(k) of the FDCA requesting permission to commercially distribute the device. The FDA’s permission to commercially distribute a device subject to a 510(k) premarket notification is generally known as 510(k) clearance.

If a new medical device does not qualify for the 510(k) premarket notification process because no predicate device to which it is substantially equivalent can be identified, the device is automatically classified into Class III. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a new route to market for low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification process. This process allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down-classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk. If the manufacturer seeks reclassification into Class II, the manufacturer must include a draft proposal for special controls that are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. The FDA may reject the reclassification petition if it identifies a legally marketed predicate device that would be appropriate for a 510(k) or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed.

Obtaining FDA marketing authorization, de novo down-classification, or approval for medical devices is expensive and uncertain, and may take several years, and generally requires significant scientific and clinical data.

Some pre-amendment devices are unclassified, but are subject to FDA’s premarket notification and clearance process in order to be commercially distributed.

Investigational Device Process

Clinical trials are sometimes required to support a 510(k) submission. In the United States, absent certain limited exceptions, human clinical trials intended to support medical device clearance or approval or to determine safety and effectiveness of a device for an investigational use must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s investigational device exemption, or IDE, regulations which govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion of the investigational device, and specify an array of recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. If the device presents a “significant risk,” to human health, as defined by the FDA, the FDA requires the device sponsor to submit an IDE application to the FDA, which must become effective prior to commencing human clinical trials. The IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory testing results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE application must be approved in advance by the FDA for a specified number of subjects. Generally, clinical trials for a significant risk device may begin once the IDE application is approved by the FDA and the study protocol and informed consent are approved by appropriate institutional review boards at the clinical trial sites. There can be no assurance that submission of an IDE will result in the ability to commence clinical trials, and although the FDA’s approval of an IDE allows clinical testing to go forward for a specified number of subjects, it does not bind the FDA to accept the results of the trial as sufficient to prove the product’s safety and effectiveness, even if the trial meets its intended success criteria.

If the device under evaluation does not present a significant risk to human health, then the device sponsor is not required to submit an IDE application to the FDA before initiating human clinical trials, but must still comply with abbreviated IDE requirements when conducting such trials. A significant risk device is one that presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of a patient and either is implanted, used in supporting or sustaining human life, substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating or treating disease or otherwise preventing impairment of human health, or otherwise presents a potential for serious risk to a subject. An IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory test results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE will automatically become effective thirty (30) days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA notifies the company that the investigation may not begin. If the FDA determines that there are deficiencies or other concerns with an IDE for which it requires modification, the FDA may permit a clinical trial to proceed under a conditional approval.

Regardless of the degree of risk presented by the medical device, clinical studies must be approved by, and conducted under the oversight of, an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, for each clinical site. The IRB is responsible for the initial and continuing review of the IDE, and may pose additional requirements for the conduct of the study. If an IDE application is approved by the FDA and one or more IRBs, human clinical trials may begin at a specific number of investigational sites with a specific number of patients, as approved by the FDA. If the device presents a non-significant risk to the patient, a sponsor may begin the clinical trial after obtaining approval for the trial by one or more IRBs without separate approval from the FDA, but must still follow abbreviated IDE requirements, such as monitoring the investigation, ensuring that the investigators obtain informed consent, and labeling and record-keeping requirements. Acceptance of an IDE application for review does not guarantee that the FDA will allow the IDE to become effective and, if it does become effective, the FDA may or may not determine that the data derived from the trials support the safety and effectiveness of the device or warrant the continuation of clinical trials. An IDE supplement must be submitted to, and approved by, the FDA before a sponsor or investigator may make a change to the investigational plan that may affect its scientific soundness, study plan or the rights, safety or welfare of human subjects.

During a study, the sponsor is required to comply with the applicable FDA requirements, including, for example, trial monitoring, selecting clinical investigators and providing them with the investigational plan, ensuring IRB review, adverse event reporting, record keeping and prohibitions on the promotion of investigational devices or on making safety or effectiveness claims for them. The clinical investigators in the clinical study are also subject to FDA’s regulations and must obtain patient informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan and study protocol, control the disposition of the investigational device, and comply with all reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Additionally, after a trial begins, we, the FDA or the IRB could suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including the following:

510(k) Clearance Process

Under the 510(k) process, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification submission demonstrating that the proposed device is “substantially equivalent,” as defined in the FDCA, to a legally marketed predicate device.

A predicate device is a legally marketed device that is not subject to premarket approval, i.e., a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976 (pre-amendments device) and for which a PMA is not required, a device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class II or I, or a device that was found substantially equivalent through the 510(k) process. A device is considered to be substantially equivalent if, with respect to the predicate device, it has the same intended use and has either (i) the same technological characteristics; or (ii) different technological characteristics, but the information provided in the 510(k) submission demonstrates that the device does not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than the predicate device.

Before the FDA will accept a 510(k) premarket notification for substantive review, the FDA will first assess whether the submission satisfies a minimum threshold of acceptability. If the FDA determines that the 510(k) submission lacks necessary information for substantive review, the FDA will issue a “Refuse to Accept” letter which generally outlines the information the FDA believes is necessary to permit a substantive review and to reach a determination regarding substantial equivalence. An applicant must submit the requested information before the FDA will proceed with additional review of the submission. If a 510(k) submission is accepted for substantive review, the Medical Device User Fee Amendments sets a performance goal of 90 days for FDA review of a 510(k) submission, but the review time can be delayed if FDA raises questions or requests additional information during the review process. As a practical matter, clearance often takes longer, and clearance is never assured. Thus, as a practical matter, clearance often takes longer than 90 days. Although many 510(k) premarket notifications are cleared without clinical data, the FDA may require further information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence, which may significantly prolong the review process. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent, it will grant clearance to commercially market the device.

If the FDA determines that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, it will grant 510(k) clearance to commercially market the device. If the FDA determines that the device is “not substantially equivalent” to a previously cleared device, the device is automatically designated as a Class III device. The device sponsor must then fulfill more rigorous requirements of the PMA approval process, or can request a risk-based classification determination for the device in accordance with the “de novo” process, which is a route to market for certain novel medical devices that are low to moderate risk and are not substantially equivalent to a predicate device.

Medical devices can only be marketed for the indications for use for which they are cleared or approved. After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change or modification in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or, depending on the modification, PMA approval orde novo reclassification. The FDA requires each manufacturer to determine whether the proposed change requires submission of a 510(k),de novo request or a PMA in the first instance, but the FDA may review this determination to evaluate the regulatory status of the modified product at any time and may require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or request the recall of the modified device until 510(k) marketing clearance or PMA approval is obtained or ade novo request is granted. Also, in these circumstances, the manufacturer may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.

Over the last several years, the FDA has proposed reforms to its 510(k) clearance process, and such proposals could include increased requirements for clinical data and a longer review period, or could make it more difficult for manufacturers to utilize the 510(k) clearance process for their products. For example, in November 2018, FDA officials announced steps that the FDA intended to take to modernize the premarket notification pathway under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. Among other things, the FDA announced that it planned to develop proposals to drive manufacturers utilizing the 510(k) pathway toward the use of newer predicates. These proposals included plans to potentially sunset certain older devices that were used as predicates under the 510(k) clearance pathway, and to potentially publish a list of devices that have been cleared on the basis of demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate devices that are more than 10 years old. These proposals have not yet been finalized or adopted, although the FDA may work with Congress to implement such proposals through legislation.

More recently, in September 2019, the FDA issued revised final guidance describing an optional “safety and performance based” premarket review pathway for manufacturers of “certain, well-understood device types” to demonstrate substantial equivalence under the 510(k) clearance pathway by showing that such device meets objective safety and performance criteria established by the FDA, thereby obviating the need for manufacturers to compare the safety and performance of their medical devices to specific predicate devices in the clearance process. The FDA has developed and maintains a list device types appropriate for the “safety and performance based” pathway and continues to develop product-specific guidance documents that identify the performance criteria for each such device type, as well as recommended testing methods, where feasible.

PMA Approval Process

Class III devices require PMA approval before they can be marketed, although some pre-amendment Class III devices for which FDA has not yet required a PMA are cleared through the 510(k) process. The PMA process is more demanding than the 510(k) premarket notification process. In a PMA, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the device is safe and effective for its intended use, and the PMA must be supported by extensive data, including data from preclinical studies and human clinical trials. The PMA must also contain a full description of the device and its components, a full description of the methods, facilities, and controls used for manufacturing, and proposed labeling. Following receipt of a PMA, the FDA conducts an administrative review to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If it is not, the agency will refuse to file the PMA. If FDA accepts the application for substantive review, it has 180 days under the FDCA to complete its review of a filed PMA application, although in practice, the FDA’s review often takes significantly longer, and can take up to several years. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of information already provided, and the FDA may issue a major deficiency letter to the applicant, requesting the applicant’s response to deficiencies communicated by the FDA. The FDA considers a PMA or PMA supplement to have been voluntarily withdrawn if an applicant fails to respond to an FDA request for information (e.g., major deficiency letter) within a total of 360 days. Before approving or denying a PMA application, an advisory panel of experts from outside the FDA may be convened to review and evaluate the application and provide recommendations to the FDA as to whether the FDA should approve the submission, approve it with specific conditions, or not approve it. The FDA may or may not accept the panel’s recommendation. Prior to approval of a PMA, the FDA may conduct inspections of the clinical trial data and clinical trial sites, as well as conduct inspections of the applicant or its third-party manufacturers’ or suppliers’ manufacturing facility or facilities to, among other things, ensure compliance with the QSR. PMA applications are also subject to the payment of user fees, which for fiscal year 2021 includes a standard application fee of $365,657.

If the FDA evaluation of a PMA is favorable, the FDA will issue either an approval letter, or an approvable letter, the latter of which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the PMA. When and if those conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the FDA, the agency will issue a PMA approval letter authorizing commercial marketing of the device, subject to the conditions of approval and the limitations established in the approval letter. The FDA may approve a PMA with post-approval conditions intended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution, and collection of long-term follow-up data from patients in the clinical study that supported PMA approval or requirements to conduct additional clinical studies post-approval. The FDA may condition PMA approval on some form of post-market surveillance when deemed necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and effectiveness data for the device in a larger population or for a longer period of use. In such cases, the manufacturer might be required to follow certain patient groups for a number of years and to make periodic reports to the FDA on the clinical status of those patients. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval can result in material adverse enforcement action, including withdrawal of the approval. If the FDA’s evaluation of a PMA application or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. The FDA also may determine that additional tests or clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the trials are conducted and data is submitted in an amendment to the PMA, or the PMA is withdrawn and resubmitted when the data are available. The PMA process can be expensive, uncertain and lengthy and a number of devices for which the FDA approval has been sought by other companies have never been approved by the FDA for marketing.

Certain changes to an approved medical device, such as changes in manufacturing facilities, methods, quality control procedures, sterilization (if applicable), packaging, expiration date, labeling, device specifications, materials, or design of a device, or other changes which affect the safety or effectiveness of the device that has been approved through the PMA process require submission of a new PMA or PMA supplement. PMA supplements often require submission of the same type of information as a PMA, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the original, approved PMA and may not require as extensive clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel, depending on the nature of the proposed change. Certain other changes to an approved device require the submission of a new PMA, such as when the design change causes a different intended use, mode of operation, and technical basis of operation, or when the design change is so significant that a new generation of the device will be developed, and the data that were submitted with the original PMA are not applicable for the change in demonstrating a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.

Ongoing Regulation by the FDA

Even after the FDA permits a device to be marketed, numerous and pervasive regulatory requirements continue to apply. These include:

After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, will require a new 510(k). The FDA requires each manufacturer to make this determination initially, but the FDA can review any such decision and can disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination not to seek a new 510(k) clearance, the FDA may retroactively require it to seek 510(k) clearance. The FDA could also require the manufacturer to cease marketing and distribution and/or recall the modified device until 510(k) clearance is obtained. Also, in these circumstances, the manufacturer may be subject to significant regulatory fines and penalties.

FDA regulations require us to register as a medical device manufacturer with the FDA. Additionally, some states also require medical device manufacturers and/or distributors doing business within the state to register with the state or apply for a state license, which could subject our facility to state inspection as well as FDA inspection on a routine basis for compliance with the QSR and any applicable state requirements. These regulations require that we manufacture our products and maintain related documentation in a prescribed manner with respect to manufacturing, testing and control activities.

Manufacturing processes for medical devices are required to comply with the applicable portions of the QSR, which cover the methods and the facilities and controls for the design, manufacture, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, distribution, installation and servicing of finished devices intended for human use. The QSR also requires, among other things, maintenance of a device master file, device history file, and complaint files. As a manufacturer, we are subject to periodic scheduled or unscheduled inspections by the FDA. Failure to maintain compliance with the QSR requirements could result in the shutdown of, or restrictions on, manufacturing operations and the recall or seizure of marketed products, which would have a material adverse effect on our business. The discovery of previously unknown problems with any of our products, including unanticipated adverse events or adverse events of increasing severity or frequency, whether resulting from the use of the device within the scope of its clearance or off-label by a physician in the practice of medicine, could result in restrictions on the device, including the removal of the product from the market or voluntary or mandatory device recalls.

The FDA has broad regulatory compliance and enforcement powers. If the FDA determines that a manufacturer has failed to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, it can take a variety of compliance or enforcement actions, which may result in any of the following sanctions:

Our facilities, records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. Failure to comply with the applicable United States medical device regulatory requirements could result in, among other things, warning letters, untitled letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees, civil penalties, unanticipated expenditures, repairs, replacements, refunds, recalls or seizures of products, operating restrictions, total or partial suspension of production, the FDA’s refusal to issue certificates to foreign governments needed to export products for sale in other countries, the FDA’s refusal to grant future premarket clearances or approvals, withdrawals or suspensions of current product clearances or approvals and criminal prosecution.

Regulation of Medical Devices in the European Union

The European Union, or EU, has adopted specific directives regulating the design, manufacture, clinical investigations, conformity assessment, labeling and adverse event reporting for medical devices. EU directives must be implemented into the national laws of the EU member states and national laws may vary from one member state to another.

In the EU, there is currently no premarket government review of medical devices. However, the EU requires that all medical devices placed on the market in the EU must meet the relevant essential requirements laid down in the Council Directive 93/42/EEC, or the Medical Devices Directive, and the Council Directive 90/385/EEC, or the Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive. The most fundamental essential requirement is that a medical device must be designed and manufactured in such a way that it will not compromise the clinical condition or safety of patients, or the safety and health of users and others. In addition, the device must achieve the performances intended by the manufacturer and be designed, manufactured, and packaged in a suitable manner. The European Commission has adopted various standards applicable to medical devices. These include standards governing common requirements, such as sterilization and safety of medical electrical equipment and product standards for certain types of medical devices. There are also harmonized standards relating to design and manufacture. While not mandatory, compliance with these standards is viewed as the easiest way to satisfy the essential requirements as a practical matter. Compliance with a standard developed to implement an essential requirement also creates a rebuttable presumption that the device satisfies that essential requirement.

To demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements laid down in Annex I to the Medical Devices Directive, medical device manufacturers must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its (risk) classification. Conformity assessment procedures require an assessment of available clinical evidence, literature data for the product, and post-market experience in respect of similar products already marketed. Except for low-risk medical devices (Class I non-sterile, non-measuring devices), where the manufacturer can self-declare the conformity of its products with the essential requirements (except for any parts which relate to sterility or metrology), a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a Notified Body. Notified Bodies are independent organizations designated by EU countries to assess the conformity of devices before being placed on the market. A Notified Body would typically audit and examine a product’s technical dossiers and the manufacturers’ quality system (which must, in particular, comply with ISO 13485:2016 related to Medical Devices Quality Management Systems). If satisfied that the relevant product conforms to the relevant essential requirements, the Notified Body issues a certificate of conformity, which the manufacturer uses as a basis for its own declaration of conformity. The manufacturer may then apply the CE Mark to the device, which allows the device to be placed on the market throughout the EU.

Notified Body certificates of conformity are valid for a fixed duration (which shall not exceed five years). Throughout the term of the certificate, the manufacturer will be subject to periodic surveillance audits to verify continued compliance with the applicable requirements. In particular, there will be a new audit by the Notified Body before it will renew the relevant certificate(s).

As a general rule, demonstration of conformity of medical devices and their manufacturers with the essential requirements must be based, among other things, on the evaluation of clinical data supporting the safety and performance of the products during normal conditions of use. Specifically, a manufacturer must demonstrate that the device achieves its intended performance during normal conditions of use, that the known and foreseeable risks, and any adverse events, are minimized and acceptable when weighed against the benefits of its intended performance, and that any claims made about the performance and safety of the device are supported by suitable evidence. All manufacturers placing medical devices into the market in the EU must comply with the EU medical device vigilance system. Under this system, incidents must be reported to the relevant authorities of the EU member states, and manufacturers are required to take Field Safety Corrective Actions, or FSCAs, to reduce a risk of death or serious deterioration in the state of health associated with the use of a medical device that is already placed on the market. An incident is defined as any malfunction or deterioration in the characteristics and/or performance of a device, as well as any inadequacy in the labeling or the instructions for use which, directly or indirectly, might lead to or might have led to the death of a patient or user or of other persons or to a serious deterioration in their state of health. An FSCA may include the recall, modification, exchange, destruction or retrofitting of the device. FSCAs must be communicated by the manufacturer or its legal representative to its customers and/or to the end users of the device through Field Safety Notices.

The advertising and promotion of medical devices is subject to some general principles set forth by EU directives. According to the Medical Devices Directive, only devices that are CE-marked may be marketed and advertised in the EU in accordance with their intended purpose. Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, while not specific to the advertising of medical devices, also apply to the advertising thereof and contain general rules, for example requiring that advertisements are evidenced, balanced and not misleading. Specific requirements are defined at national level. EU member states laws related to the advertising and promotion of medical devices, which vary between jurisdictions, may limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of products to the general public and may impose limitations on promotional activities with healthcare professionals.

Many EU member states have adopted specific anti-gift statutes that further limit commercial practices for medical devices, in particular vis-à -vis healthcare professionals and organizations. Additionally, there has been a recent trend of increased regulation of payments and transfers of value provided to healthcare professionals or entities. In addition, many EU member states have adopted national “Sunshine Acts” which impose reporting and transparency requirements (often on an annual basis), similar to the requirements in the United States, on medical device manufacturers. Certain countries also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs.

On May 25, 2017, Regulation 2017/745, or the EU Medical Devices Regulation, entered into force, which repeals and replaces the Medical Devices Directive and the Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive. Unlike directives, which must be implemented into the national laws of the EU member states, regulations are directly applicable, without the need for adoption of EU member state laws implementing them, in all EU member states and are intended to eliminate current differences in the regulation of medical devices among EU member states. The Medical Devices Regulation, among other things, is intended to establish a uniform, transparent, predictable and sustainable regulatory framework across the EU for medical devices and ensure a high level of safety and health while supporting innovation.

The Medical Devices Regulation was originally intended to become applicable three years after publication, but in April 2020 the transition period was extended by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU by an additional year – until May 26, 2021. Devices lawfully placed on the market pursuant to the Medical Devices Directive and the Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive prior to May 26, 2021 may generally continue to be made available on the market or put into service until May 26, 2025. Once applicable, the new regulations will among other things:

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Other countries, such as Switzerland, have entered into Mutual Recognition Agreements and allow the marketing of medical devices that meet EU requirements.

The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA, came into effect on January 1, 2021. The TCA does not specifically refer to medical devices. However, as a result of Brexit, the Medical Devices Regulation will not be implemented in the UK, and previous legislation that mirrored the Medical Devices Regulation in the UK law has been revoked. The regulatory regime for medical devices in the UK will continue to be based on the requirements derived from current EU legislation, and the UK may choose to retain regulatory flexibility or align with the Medical Devices Regulation going forward. CE markings will continue to be recognized in the UK, and certificates issued by EU recognized Notified Bodies will be valid in the UK, until June 30, 2023. For medical devices placed on the UK market after this period, the UK Conformity Assessment, or UKCA, marking will be mandatory. In contrast, UKCA marking and certificates issued by UK Notified Bodies will not be recognized on the EU market. The TCA does provide for cooperation and exchange of information in the area of product safety and compliance, including market surveillance, enforcement activities and measures, standardization related activities, exchanges of officials, and coordinated product recalls (or other similar actions). For medical devices that are locally manufactured but use components from other countries, the “rules of origin” criteria will need to be reviewed. Depending on which countries products will ultimately be sold in, manufacturers may start seeking alternative sources for components if this would allow them to benefit from no tariffs. The rules for placing medical devices on the Northern Ireland market will differ from those in the UK.

Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws

In the United States, we are subject to a number of federal and state healthcare regulatory laws that restrict business practices in the healthcare industry. These laws include, but are not limited to, federal and state anti-kickback, false claims, transparency and other healthcare fraud and abuse laws.

The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, receiving or providing any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, or order of any good, facility, item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including cash, improper discounts, and free or reduced-price items and services. Among other things, the Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between medical device manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers and purchasers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. The government can exercise enforcement discretion in taking action against unprotected activities. Further, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. The majority of states also have anti-kickback laws, which establish similar prohibitions, and in some cases may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers and self-pay patients.

The federal false claims, including the civil False Claims Act, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Actions under the civil False Claims Act may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. In addition, various states have enacted false claim laws analogous to the federal False Claims Act, although many of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any third-party payor and not merely a federal healthcare program.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning in 2022, such obligations will include payments and other transfers of value provided in the previous year to additional healthcare professionals, including physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants and certified nurse midwives.

Violations of fraud and abuse laws, including federal and state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may be punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including fines and civil monetary penalties, the possibility of exclusion from federal healthcare programs (including Medicare and Medicaid), disgorgement and corporate integrity agreements, which impose, among other things, rigorous operational and monitoring requirements on companies. Similar sanctions and penalties, as well as imprisonment, also can be imposed upon executive officers and employees of such companies.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States, our currently cleared products are not separately reimbursed by any third-party payors and if covered, are paid for as part of the procedure in which the product is used. Outside of the United States, there are many reimbursement programs through private payors as well as government programs. In some countries, government reimbursement is the predominant program available to patients and hospitals. Our commercial success depends in part on the extent to which governmental authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors provide coverage for and establish adequate reimbursement levels for the procedures in which our products are used. Failure by physicians, hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and other users of our products to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors for procedures in which our products are used, or adverse changes in government and private third-party payors’ coverage and reimbursement policies, may adversely impact demand for our products.

Based on our experience to date, third-party payors generally reimburse for the procedures in which our products are used if medical necessity is met and a prior approval is completed with a favorable response. Some payors are moving toward a managed care system and control their healthcare costs by establishing coverage policies that categorically restrict coverage of certain procedures, or by limiting authorization for procedures, including elective procedures using our devices. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement among payors in the United States exists and coverage and reimbursement for procedures can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors are increasingly auditing and challenging the prices charged for medical products and services with concern for upcoding, miscoding, using inappropriate modifiers, or billing for inappropriate care settings. Some third-party payors must approve coverage for new or innovative devices or procedures before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use the products or therapies. Even though a new product may have been cleared for commercial distribution by the FDA, we may find limited demand for our product unless reimbursement approval can be obtained and/or maintained from governmental and private third-party payors.

In addition to uncertainties surrounding coverage policies, there are periodic changes to reimbursement levels. Third-party payors regularly update reimbursement amounts and also from time to time revise the methodologies used to determine reimbursement amounts. This includes routine updates to payments to physicians, hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers for procedures during which our products are used. These updates could directly impact the demand for our products.

We believe the overall escalating cost of medical products and services being paid for by the government and private health insurance has led to, and will continue to lead to, increased pressures on the healthcare and medical device industry to reduce the costs of products and services. Third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs through prospective reimbursement and capitation programs, group purchasing, redesign of benefits, and exploration of more cost-effective methods of delivering healthcare. In the United States, some insured individuals enroll in managed care programs, which monitor and often require pre-approval of the services that a member will receive. Some managed care programs pay their providers on a per capita (patient) basis, which puts the providers at financial risk for the services provided to their patients by paying these providers a predetermined payment per member per month and, consequently, may limit the willingness of these providers to use our products.

In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific product lines and procedures. In the European Union, member states are facing increased pressure to limit public healthcare spending. There can be no assurance that procedures using our products will be covered for a specific indication, that our products will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be available or that the third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell our products profitably. More and more, local, product specific reimbursement law is applied as an overlay to medical device regulation, which has provided an additional layer of clearance requirement.

Healthcare Reform

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. Current and future legislative proposals to further reform healthcare or reduce healthcare costs may limit coverage of or lower reimbursement for the procedures associated with the use of our products. The cost containment measures that payors and providers are instituting and the effect of any healthcare reform initiative implemented in the future could impact our revenue from the sale of our products.

The implementation of the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) in the United States, for example, has changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers substantially, and affected medical device manufacturers significantly. The ACA, among other things, provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research, and implemented payment system reforms including a national pilot program on payment bundling to encourage hospitals, physicians and other providers to improve the coordination, quality and efficiency of certain healthcare services through bundled payment models. Additionally, the ACA expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs and created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and political challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. It is unclear how healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration or other efforts, if any, to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA will impact the law or our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to providers by 2% per fiscal year, effective on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 repealed the formula by which Medicare made annual payment adjustments to physicians and replaced the former formula with fixed annual updates and a new system of incentive payments that began in 2019 that are based on various performance measures and physicians’ participation in alternative payment models, such as accountable care organizations.

We expect additional state and federal healthcare reform measures to 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 reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressure.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, including consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws, including HIPAA, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the FTC Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, certain state and non-U.S. laws, such as the CCPA, the CPRA and the GDPR, govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

In Europe, the GDPR went into effect on May 25, 2018 and introduces strict requirements for processing the personal data of European Union data subjects. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the preceding financial year of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater.

Among other requirements, the GDPR regulates transfers of personal data subject to the GDPR to third countries that have not been found to provide adequate protection to such personal data, including the United States, and the efficacy and longevity of current transfer mechanisms between the EU and the United States remains uncertain. For example, in 2016, the EU and United States agreed to a transfer framework for data transferred from the EU to the United States, called the Privacy Shield, but the Privacy Shield was invalidated in July 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have to comply with the GDPR and also the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, or the UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, i.e., fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union in relation to certain aspects of data protection law remains unclear, and it is also unclear how United Kingdom data protection laws and regulations will develop in the medium to longer term, and how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated in the long term. Currently there is a four- to six-month grace period agreed in the EU and United Kingdom Trade and Cooperation Agreement, ending June 30, 2021 at the latest, while the parties discuss an adequacy decision. The European Commission published a draft adequacy decision on February 19, 2021. If adopted, the decision will enable data transfers from EU member states to the United Kingdom for a four-year period, subject to subsequent extensions.

Environmental Matters

Based on our current operations, environmental protection requirements do not have a significant financial and operational effect on the capital expenditures, earnings and competitive position of our Company in the current financial year and are not expected to have a significant effect in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Manufacturing Services Agreement

On August 21, 2020, the Company entered into a Manufacturing Services Agreement with GMI Corporation (“GMI”), dated as of August 21, 2020 (“MSA”), for the manufacture and supply of the Company’s IB-STIM device based upon the Company’s product specifications as set forth in the MSA.

The Company provides the necessary equipment to GMI and retains ownership. GMI bears the risk of loss of and damage to the equipment and consigned materials. Performance under the MSA is initiated by orders issued by the Company and accepted by GMI.

The initial term of the MSA was 24 months and automatically renews for terms of twelve months unless either party provides a written termination notice to the other party within 180 days prior to the end of the then-current term.

GMI was established in 1990 and manufactures our IB-Stim device in its 69,000 square foot facility that including offices, factory, environmentally controlled room, warehouse, parts processing, assembly, quality control, of which approximately 1,000 square feet is dedicated to producing our product, located in Indiana.

With controlled, repeatable, monitored production process, GMI has kit production capacity that is sufficient for all our projected needs. There is a new, dedicated, environmentally controlled build room built in 2022 for our equipment and production. All of our materials are now maintained in this room.

GMI has a quality management system that is ISO 13485:2016 certified, FDA registered, and ITAR registered.

In connection with the MSA, the Company entered into a quality agreement with GMI, dated as of August 24, 2020, for GMI to test product provided by the Company and perform quality assurance services.

Employees

As of December 31, 2024, we had 21 full-time employees.