NextCure Inc

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that is focused on advancing innovative medicines that treat cancer patients that do not respond to, or have disease progression on, current therapies, through the use of differentiated mechanisms of actions including Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs), antibodies and proteins. We focus on advancing therapies that leverage our core strengths in understanding biological pathways and biomarkers, the interactions of cells, including in the tumor microenvironment, and the role each interaction plays in a biologic response.

We are focusing on our highest-value opportunities:

i)NC410, a LAIR-2 fusion protein that, in combination with pembrolizumab, demonstrated early evidence of clinical activity in colorectal (CRC) and ovarian cancers. We expect several potential catalysts in 2024.

ii)LNCB74, an ADC that is directed to B7-H4, a clinically validated cancer target. Given our internal expertise of B7-H4 coupled with LegoChem Biosciences, Inc’s (LegoChem) ADC technology, we plan for an Investigational New Drug application (IND) in 2024.

In March 2024, we announced a prioritization and restructuring of our operations to align with our focused pipeline. We are pausing our internal manufacturing operations and reducing our workforce. In addition, we are seeking to partner our clinical programs NC525 and NC318 and our preclinical non-oncology programs NC605, for chronic bone diseases, and NC181, for Alzheimer’s disease. We project these actions will extend our cash runway into the second half of 2026.

Our Strategy

The crucial elements of our business strategy include the following:

Our Fusion Protein Product Candidate: NC410

NC410 is a fusion protein of LAIR-2, a naturally occurring soluble version of, and decoy protein for, LAIR-1 that is designed to block immune suppression mediated by LAIR-1. Early preclinical correlative biomarker work suggests that NC410 has the potential to overcome tumor resistance by remodeling the tumor’s extracellular matrix (ECM) to remove a physical barrier surrounding the tumor to enhance T cell tumor killing. We have exclusive worldwide rights to NC410.

Mechanism of action

The rationale for moving into a combination trial for NC410 is based on the mechanism of action of NC410, as seen in preclinical modeling and also during the NC410 monotherapy Phase 1 dose escalation study readouts. It has been shown that elevated collagen levels in the ECM, the tissue matrix surrounding the tumor, are associated with resistance to PD-1 and PD-L1 therapies. In non-clinical colorectal models and early-stage monotherapy clinical studies conducted by NextCure, we have demonstrated that NC410 can remodel collagen in the ECM, which enhances T cell infiltration into the tumor.

Collagen Buildup and Density Lead to Resistance ECM Remodeling Leads to Greater Anti-Tumor Function

Tumor cells proliferate and become resistant T cells kill the tumor

This results in immune activation, enhanced immune function in the TME and enhances anti-PD-1 activity in multiple preclinical tumors models. We believe that this may translate to improved responses in patients with immune checkpoint naïve solid tumors.

Our Clinical Development Plan for NC410

We are currently conducting a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial to evaluate NC410 in combination with KEYTRUDA® (pembrolizumab), Merck & Co., Inc.’s (Merck) anti-PD-1 therapeutic. We entered into a supply agreement for KEYTRUDA with Merck (known as MSD outside the United States and Canada) for the trial. Based on clinical responses and biomarker observations, we are focused on ovarian cancer and CRC patients who are immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) naïve. The combination has been shown to be well tolerated up to 200 mg of NC410 with Grade 3 or higher Treatment Related Adverse Events of 3.7%.

Ovarian Cancer

In March 2024, we announced evidence of early clinical activity and biomarker observations supporting the proposed mechanism of action for NC410 Combo in relapse/refractory ICI naïve ovarian cancer, with/without active liver metastasis, in 100 mg, and 200 mg cohorts. At data cutoff, there were 7 evaluable patients in these initial cohorts. Given that this data set is relatively early and a small number, in March 2024 we commenced enrolling an additional 18 patients among the 100 mg and 200 mg cohorts. As of February 23, 2024, the findings of the initial 7 evaluable patients are summarized based on the FDA’s Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1 guideline in the table below:

Relapsed/Refractory ICI Naïve Ovarian Cancer, 100 mg & 200 mg cohorts

From the NC410 Combo Phase 1b patient data (n=7) set as of the cutoff date:

Biomarker data on blood samples drawn from patients in both the NC410 monotherapy trial and the NC410 combo trial support our hypothesis regarding the mechanism of action (MOA) and activity in PR patients as follows:

Taken together, the data demonstrate that NC410 plays a key role in mediating activation of immune cells and migration to TME through remodeling of the ECM. We believe NC410 Combo results in anti-tumor activity and clinical responses in patients that are shown to respond poorly to or are resistant to checkpoint inhibitors.

Response rates using ICI therapy, both in mono and combo, in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) are historically low at under 10% ORR with a mPFS of approximately 2 months. Given HGSOC is the most common type of ovarian cancer, we believe an opportunity exists for a clinical path forward in ovarian cancer.

We plan to present the data from the ovarian cancer patients in the second half of 2024.

CRC

In December 2023, we announced that given preliminary anti-tumor activity, additional patients would be added to the 100 mg cohort of patients with microsatellite stable (MSS)/microsatellite instable-low (MSI-L) immune checkpoint

inhibitor (ICI) naïve CRC without active liver metastasis (LM-). There are 19 evaluable patients in this initial cohort and we completed enrollment of an additional 20 patients in January 2024. As of February 23, 2024, of the initial 19 evaluable patients, findings are summarized based on RECIST 1.1 guideline in the table below:

MSS/MSI-L ICI Naïve CRC, LM-, 100 mg cohort

From the NC410 combo Phase 1b 19 patient data set as of the cutoff date:

We plan to present the data of the CRC patients in the 100 mg cohort who are MSS/MSI-L ICI Naïve CRC at a scientific conference in the second quarter of 2024.

The CRC MSS/MSI-L population is extremely difficult to treat with most agents, including pembrolizumab, showing low single-digit response rates along with a limited mPFS. We believe if we can confirm and enhance the data observed in our initial findings of 19 patients, an opportunity exists for a clinical path forward that will improve the current standard of care.

Our ADC Product Candidate: LNCB74

LNCB74 is designed as a state-of-the-art B7-H4 targeted ADC to kill tumors. An ADC consists of a monoclonal antibody (mAb) conjugated to a cytotoxic drug via a chemical linker. B7-H4, a clinically validated target, is a cell surface protein expressed on multiple tumor types including breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers, that we believe represents a large market opportunity. LNCB74 will be positioned as a promising B7-H4 ADC with both improved safety and efficacy based on the following differentiation:

Antibody– B7-H4 mAb with an Fc modification to protect immune cells to improve safety.

Linker– Cancer-selective payload release via a glucuronidase cleavage that minimizes toxicity in non-tumor cells.

Payload– A Monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) toxin in a drug-to-antibody ratio (DAR) of 4 and has the advantage to diffuse from the target cell and into surrounding tumor cells for bystander killing.

LNCB74 is being advanced under a November 2022 Research Collaboration and Co-Development Agreement (“LegoChem Agreement”) with LegoChem in which both parties equally share the costs of developing and profits. In April 2023, the parties designated LNCB74 as the first of up to three co-development candidate. To date, we have completed i) pre-clinical experimentsin vitro andin vivo demonstrating potent tumor killing, ii) pilot toxicology studies, iii) received pre-IND feedback from the FDA, and iv) we are conducting ongoing activities associated with GLP toxicology studies, GMP manufacturing, and clinical development planning. We expect to file an IND by year-end 2024.

Mechanism of Action

B7-H4 is a cell surface protein expressed on multiple tumor types and shows limited expression in most normal tissues. B7-H4 was initially discovered in 2003 in the Mayo Clinic lab of our scientific co-founder Dr. Lieping Chen. It is a member of the same family of co-inhibitory checkpoint proteins as B7-H1, known as PD-L1, which was also discovered by Dr. Chen's laboratory. B7-H4 has been shown in published articles to negatively regulate T-cell immune response, inhibit cytokine production, suppress antigen-presenting cells, promote immune escape and play a role in tumorigenesis and tumor development. Expression of B7-H4 in tumor cells has been shown in preclinical research and published articles to be correlated with reduced overall survival, and B7-H4 has generally non-overlapping expression with PD-L1.

LNCB74 is an anti-B7-H4 ADC that binds to B7-H4 on the cell surface and is internalized, upon which the linker is cleaved to release the MMAE payload, a well characterized microtubule-disrupting agent, and a commonly used payload in FDA approved ADCs. The mechanism of action of LNCB74 is shown in Figure 1 below:

LNCB74 is comprised of a NextCure generated mAb intermediate, specific for B7-H4 protein, engineered with a sequence to facilitate site-specific conjugation of the antibody and linker arm to facilitate generation of an ADC. It is conjugated with a proprietary LegoChem developed beta-glucuronide cleavable linker technology known as “ConjuAll” that leverages a novel selective payload release of MMAE for tumor killing and also allowing for “bystander” killing of neighboring tumor cells while minimizing toxicity in non-tumor cells.

Assets We Intend To Partner

Based on our focused and prioritized pipeline, we are seeking to partner, license, or advance through other strategic approaches NC525 and NC318 and our non-oncology preclinical programs.

Clinical Oncology Programs

NC525

NC525 is a novel LAIR-1 antibody that selectively targets Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), blast cells and leukemic stem cells (LSCs). Preclinical data show that NC525 kills AML blast cells and LSCs while sparing hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs). Preclinical data also show that NC525 (i) inhibits colony formation of AML LSCsin vitro, (ii) inhibits AML growth in the MV4-11 derived xenographs (CDX) animal modelin vivo and (iii) restricts AML progression in patient-derived xenografts (PDX)in vivo. We have exclusive worldwide rights to NC525.

A Phase 1 trial was initiated in February 2023 to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of NC525 in patients with AML, high-risk myelodyplastic syndrome, and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). This open-label trial was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of NC525 and determine its pharmacologically active and/or maximum tolerated dose. We are currently in the fifth cohort of the dose escalation portion of the trial. Initial data suggest linear pharmacokinetics and an acceptable safety profile. We plan to complete the dose-finding portion of the study to arrive at a predicted biologically active dose. Based upon our decision to extend our cash runway and focus our resources on advancement of NC410 and LNCB74, we will further assess development plans for NC525 by the fourth quarter of 2024 in conjunction with our partnering efforts.

NC318

NC318 is a humanized IgG1 mAb against Siglec-15 (S15), that blocks interactions of S15 with myeloid cells and T lymphocytes within the tumor microenvironment, relieving immune inhibitory signaling. In an earlier monotherapy study from NextCure, NC318 demonstrated single-agent activity in a Phase 1/2 dose escalation trial (NCT03665285) for patients with advanced solid tumors. We have exclusive worldwide rights to NC318.

We are providing NC318 for an ongoing Phase 2 IIT with our founding institution, Yale University, to evaluate NC318 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In September 2023, we announced the presentation of Phase 2 clinical data by our collaborators at the Yale Cancer Center demonstrating clinical benefit in patients with advanced, PD-1 axis inhibitor refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with a combination regimen of NC318, a S15 mAb, and pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody. Efficacy data demonstrate that the combination of NC318 and pembrolizumab is active in advanced PD-1 axis inhibitor refractory NSCLC: 28% of patients (5/18) had durable clinical benefit (partial response or stable disease lasting greater than 6 months by RECIST and/or irRC) with 3 of these being confirmed responses. Yale is continuing to enroll patients to gain further evidence of clinical activity of NC318.

Pre-Clinical Non-Oncology Programs

In the second half of 2023, we announced two preclinical candidates that could be IND-ready in the first half of 2025 in the unmet needs areas of chronic bone diseases, including for an orphan indication for Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI), and Alzheimer’s disease, a neurodegenerative disease. We will continue to seek global partners or other strategic approaches. We have leveraged our internal capabilities to advance these programs.

NC605

NC605 is an antibody that targets Siglec-15. Preclinical data reported NC605 treatment reduced bone loss and enhanced bone quality in mice with OI. OI is a rare disorder that results in high bone turnover, abnormal bone formation, bone fragility, and recurrent fractures. NC605 could also have applications in chronic bone diseases such as osteoarthritis and non-union fractures. We are currently conducting toxicology studies.

NC181

NC181 is a humanized antibody targeting ApoE4 for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In preclinical AD animal models, NC181 has demonstrated amyloid clearance, prevention of amyloid deposition, plaque clearance, and reduced neuroinflammation. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that NC181 reduces microhemorrhages and improves cerebral vascular function; lowers risk Amyloid Related Imaging Abnormalities (ARIA).

Alignment of Our Infrastructure to the Focused Pipeline

** **In March 2024, we announced a prioritization and restructuring of our operations to align with our focused pipeline approach and extend our financial cash runway into the second half of 2026. We will focus our internal resources and retain our expertise in, clinical operations biomarker research, business development, and manufacturing tech transfer. As a result, we will pause our internal manufacturing operations because we believe ample clinical supply has been produced, including the LNCB74 mAb intermediate, to supply our prioritized programs in the near term.

** **In conjunction with the restructuring, we are reducing our workforce from 81 full-time employees to 51 employees. This reduction will primarily occur in our manufacturing operations, but also will impact areas of discovery, research, development, clinical, and general administrative.

Our Collaboration Agreements

LegoChem Agreement

In November 2022, the Company entered into the LegoChem Agreement to develop up to three ADCs. Under the terms of the LegoChem Agreement, both parties equally share the costs of developing the molecules and profits on commercialized products. The collaboration consists of up to three research programs for which a research plan will be developed. With respect to a research plan, each party shall use reasonable efforts to execute and perform the activities assigned to it. Each party shall be solely responsible for costs associated with its assigned activities as outlined in the research plan. Upon successful completion of a research plan, or as otherwise agreed, the parties may designate a research product as a co-development product. Upon designation of a co-development product, cost sharing on a 50-50 basis between the Company and LegoChem would begin. The activities associated with the research plan and co-development products will be coordinated by a joint steering committee, which is comprised of an equal number of representatives from the Company and LegoChem. If and when a co-development product becomes commercialized, the Company and LegoChem would equally share in the profits. There are no implied licenses or other rights created under the LegoChem Agreement after designation of a co-development product.

Effective April 1, 2023, the parties designated LNCB74 as the first co-development product under the LegoChem Agreement. As such, cost sharing on a 50-50 basis commenced for the first co-development product under the LegoChem Agreement.

Agreements with Yale University

License Agreement with Yale

We entered into a license agreement with Yale, or the Yale Agreement, in December 2015 pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable worldwide license to products that either incorporate certain licensed patents used in the discovery of targets or arise out of research and development of Dr. Chen’s laboratory at Yale, including S15, and subsequently amended the Yale Agreement in January 2020 and October 2021. We are obligated to pay Yale low single-digit royalties on sales of products that are either covered by the patents licensed to us under the Yale Agreement or arise out of work with Dr. Chen, including with his laboratory, as a result of research under the corporate sponsored research agreement described below, subject to minimum annual royalty payments in the low to mid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Until we are required to pay royalties under the Yale Agreement, we must pay an annual license maintenance fee to Yale in the mid to high tens of thousands of dollars. In addition, with respect to each product covered by licenses under the Yale Agreement, we are obligated to pay Yale milestone payments upon (i) the initiation of each of a Phase 1 clinical trial, Phase 2 clinical trial and Phase 3 clinical trial or a pivotal trial, (ii) first commercial sale in the United States and (iii) first commercial sale in China, Japan or a major European country, in an aggregate amount of up to $2,975,000. The term of the license agreement with Yale runs, on a country-by-country basis, until the later of the expiration of all licensed patents or 10 years from the first commercial sale in such country, unless Yale has cause to terminate earlier for our material breach of the license, bankruptcy or if we or any sublicensee bring a challenge against Yale in relation to the licensed patents. We have the right to terminate the Yale Agreement for Yale’s material breach or at any time during the term with six months’ prior written notice to Yale.

Sponsored Research Agreement with Yale

In connection with the Yale Agreement, we also entered into a corporate sponsored research agreement, or “SRA”, with Yale, pursuant to which we had agreed to provide an aggregate of up to $15 million to fund a research program aimed at discovering new targets for therapies. The SRA was subsequently amended in January 2020, October 2021 and September 2022 and expired on March 31, 2023.

Manufacturing

We have a purpose-built, dedicated, state-of-the-art cGMP manufacturing facility that utilizes single-use technology to support our pipeline and advance our product candidates into and through clinical development. The facility has a production capacity of 2,000 liters that has supported our multiple product candidates. The investment in our

manufacturing facility has been a critical element of our ability to quickly identify whether a candidate is likely to be successful and to facilitate an efficient development path. In March 2024, we paused our internal manufacturing operations as we believe ample clinical supply has been produced, including the LNCB74 mAb intermediate, to supply programs in the near term.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and the oncology subsector, are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition and strong defense of intellectual property. We believe that our programs, platforms, technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, but we also face competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others. Our competitors include larger and better funded biopharmaceutical, biotechnology and therapeutics companies, including companies focused on cancer immunotherapies. Moreover, we may also compete with smaller or earlier-stage companies, universities and other research institutions that have developed, are developing or may be developing current and future cancer therapeutics. These competitors include:

The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our products, methods and manufacturing processes, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing on our proprietary rights. We rely on a combination of patents, patent applications and trade secrets, as well as contractual protections, to establish and protect our intellectual property rights. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, filing patent applications in the United States and internationally. Our patent estate includes patents and patent applications with claims relating to our product candidates, methods of use and manufacturing processes, and claims for potential future products and developments. As of December 31, 2023, our intellectual property portfolio includes, on a worldwide basis, 20 pending foreign patent applications relating to NC318, NC410, NC525 and LNCB74, two pending U.S. patent application relating to NC318, one pending U.S. patent application relating to NC410, one pending U.S. patent application relating to LNCB74, one U.S. patent application relating to NC525 and additional pending patent applications for other discovery and research programs. Patents resulting from our patent applications for NC318, NC410 and NC525, if issued, are expected to expire beginning in 2037 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions and for LNCB74, if issued, are expected to expire beginning in 2045 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

In addition, as described above, under the Yale Agreement, we have an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable worldwide license from Yale for an intellectual property portfolio, including among other things a patent relating to methods of use for S15 that covers the use of NC318 and a patent relating to our Functional, Integrated, NextCure Discovery (FIND) platform. These and any other patents that might issue from these licensed patent applications are expected to expire no earlier than 2036 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

For all patent applications, we determine strategy for claim scope on a case-by-case basis, taking into account advice of counsel and our business model and needs. We file patents containing claims for protection of all useful applications of our proprietary technologies and any products, as well as all new applications and/or uses we discover for existing technologies and products, based on our assessment of their strategic value. We continuously reassess the number and type of patent applications, as well as the pending and issued patent claims to ensure that maximum coverage and value are obtained for our processes and compositions, given existing patent office rules and regulations. Further, claims may be modified during patent prosecution to meet our intellectual property and business needs.

We also rely upon trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position, including with respect to our FIND platform. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and other contractors. In addition, in the ordinary course of our business, we enter into agreements with other third parties for non-exclusive rights to intellectual property directed to other technologies that are ancillary to our business, including laboratory information management software and research and development tools. In addition, we have trademark registrations with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, for “NextCure” and our logo.

Government Regulation

Government Regulation and Product Approval

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, recordkeeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of biological products. Along with third-party contractors, we will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we intend to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our product candidates. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable laws and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Government policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted, that may prevent or delay further development or regulatory approval of any product candidates, product or manufacturing changes, additional disease indications or label changes. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that might arise from future legislative or administrative action.

Review and Approval for Licensing Biologics in the United States

In the United States, the FDA regulates our current product candidates as biological products, or biologics, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or “FDCA”, the Public Health Service Act and associated implementing regulations. Biologics, like other drugs, are used for the treatment, prevention or cure of disease in humans. In contrast to small molecular weight drugs, which have a well-defined structure and can be thoroughly characterized, biologics are generally derived from living material (human, animal or microorganism) are complex in structure, and thus are usually not fully characterized. Biologics include therapies for cancer and other diseases.

Biologics are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The failure to comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject a sponsor or applicant to administrative or judicial enforcement actions. These actions could include the suspension or termination of clinical trials by the FDA, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications or supplemental applications, withdrawal of an approval, Warning Letters or Untitled Letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, import detention, injunctions, fines, refusals of

government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the DOJ, or other governmental entities.

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a biologic in the United States must typically undertake the following:

From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the testing, approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations and policies are often revised or interpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative changes will be enacted or whether FDA regulations, guidance, policies or interpretations will be changed or what the effect of such changes, if any, may be.

Preclinical and Clinical Development

Before an applicant can begin testing the potential candidate in human subjects, the applicant must first conduct preclinical studies. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well asin vitro and animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to

establish a rationale for therapeutic use. Preclinical studies are subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The results of an applicant’s preclinical studies are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND.

An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved drug to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of a biologic that is not the subject of an approved BLA. In support of a request for an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial. Any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

Human clinical trials cannot begin until an IND is effective. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial within the 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

The FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on such trial following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol or part of a protocol is not allowed to proceed, while other protocols may do so. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with cGCP regulations, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with cGCP regulations in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval, including cGCP regulations, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and informed consent from subjects.

Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the trial until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives.

Some trials also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, or “DSMB”. DSMBs provide recommendations for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial and may recommend halting the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. Other grounds for suspension or termination may be made based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries.

Clinical Trials

For purposes of BLA approval, clinical trials are typically conducted in the following sequential phases:

These phases may overlap or be combined. In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials, after a product is approved, to gain more information about the product, referred to as Phase 4 trials. Such post-approval trials, when applicable, are conducted following initial approval, typically to develop additional data and information relating to the biological characteristics of the product and treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: suspected serious and unexpected adverse reactions; findings from epidemiological studies, pooled analysis of multiple studies, animal orin vitro testing, or other clinical studies, whether or not conducted under an IND, and whether or not conducted by the sponsor, that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug; and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over such rate listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

Our ongoing and planned clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with cGCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

During clinical development, the sponsor often refines the indication and endpoints on which the BLA will be based. For endpoints based on patient-reported outcomes, or “PROs”, and outcome reported outcomes, or “OROs”, the process typically is an iterative one. The FDA has issued guidance on the framework it uses to evaluate PRO instruments. Although the agency may offer advice on optimizing PRO and ORO instruments during the clinical development process, the FDA usually reserves final judgment until it reviews the BLA.

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

BLA Submission and Review

If an applicant successfully completes all required clinical testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, an applicant may submit a BLA requesting licensing to market the biologic for one or more indications in the United States. The BLA must include the results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials; detailed information on the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments, a BLA submission is subject to an application user fee, unless a waiver or exemption applies. The cost of preparing and submitting a BLA is substantial. These fees are typically increased annually.

The FDA will initially review the BLA for completeness before accepting it for filing. Under the FDA’s procedures, the agency has 60 days from its receipt of a BLA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing and substantive review. If the agency determines that the application does not meet this initial threshold standard, the FDA may refuse to file the application and request additional information, in which case the application must be resubmitted with the requested information and review of the application delayed.

With certain exceptions, BLAs must include a pediatric assessment, generally based on clinical trial data, of the safety and effectiveness of the biologic in relevant pediatric populations. Under certain circumstances, the FDA may waive or defer the requirement for a pediatric assessment, either at the sponsor’s request or by the agency’s initiative.

After the BLA is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and if the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued identity, strength, quality, safety, purity and potency. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMP and are adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. In addition, the FDA expects that all data be reliable and accurate and requires sponsors to implement meaningful and effective strategies to manage data integrity risks. Data integrity is an important component of the sponsor’s responsibility to ensure the safety, efficacy and quality of its product or products.

The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with cGCP regulations before approving a BLA. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

FDA performance goals generally provide for action on a BLA within 10 months of filing, which (as discussed above) typically occurs within 60 days of submission, but that deadline is extended in certain circumstances. Furthermore, the review process is often significantly extended by the FDA’s requests for additional information or clarification.

The FDA may refer applications for novel products or products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee. Typically, an advisory committee consists of a panel that includes clinicians and other experts who will review, evaluate and provide a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and, if so, under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions and usually has followed such recommendations.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its components will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter, or “CRL”. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the BLA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the CRL without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots and/or reviewing proposed labeling. If the deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. In issuing the CRL, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the BLA in condition for approval, including requests for additional data, information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of a BLA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied and may require additional testing or information

and/or require post-marketing studies and clinical trials. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

During the approval process, the FDA will determine whether a REMS is necessary to assure the safe use of the biologic. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. If the FDA concludes that a REMS is needed, the BLA sponsor must submit a proposed REMS and the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS that the agency has determined is acceptable.

If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product, or require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may also require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs.

The FDA may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization. For biologics, such testing may include official lot release, which requires the manufacturer to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. The manufacturer then typically must submit samples of each lot of product to the FDA, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products itself, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer.

After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are often subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval, depending on the nature of the post-approval change. The FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, reporting of certain deviations and adverse experiences, product sampling and distribution and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to FDA review and approval. Biologic manufacturers and their third-party contractors are required to register their facilities with the FDA and certain state agencies. These facilities are subject to routine and periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, post-marketing safety reporting and data integrity requirements, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements to assure quality of manufacturing and product. FDA has increasingly observed cGMP violations involving data integrity during site inspections and is a significant focus of its oversight. Requirements with respect to data integrity include, among other things, controls to ensure data are complete and secure; activities documented at the time of performance; audit trail functionality; authorized access and limitations; validated computer systems; and review of records for accuracy, completeness and compliance with established standards.

Post-approval changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP, data integrity, pharmacovigilance and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-approval studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug and biological products placed on the market. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA’s regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims relating to a product’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In the United States, healthcare professionals are generally permitted to prescribe drugs for such uses not described in the drug’s labeling, known as off-label uses, because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose rigorous restrictions on manufacturers’ communications, prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in non-promotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information.

If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the DOJ or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, or “HHS”, as well as other federal and state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil, administrative, and criminal fines, penalties, and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes products. The federal government has levied large civil, administrative, and criminal fines and penalties against companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees and permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

The distribution of prescription drug and biological products are subject to the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or “DSCSA”, which requires manufacturers and other stakeholders to comply with product identification, tracing, verification, detection and response, notification and licensing requirements. In addition, the Prescription Drug Marketing Act and its implementing regulations and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples, and the DSCSA imposes requirements to ensure accountability in distribution and to identify and remove prescription drug and biological products that may be counterfeit, stolen, contaminated, or otherwise harmful from the market.

Patent Term Restoration

After approval, owners of relevant drug or biological product patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension to restore a portion of patent term lost during product development and FDA review of a BLA under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as one-half of the product’s testing phase, which is the time between IND and BLA submission, and all of the review phase, which is the time between BLA submission and approval, up to a maximum of

five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed more than 14 years from the date of FDA approval of the product. Only one patent claiming each approved product is eligible for restoration and the patent holder must apply for restoration within 60 days of approval. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for patent term restoration.

For patents that might expire during the application phase, the patent owner may request an interim patent extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the USPTO must determine that approval of the product candidate covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely. Interim patent extensions are not available for a product candidate for which a BLA has not been submitted.

Biosimilars and Marketing Exclusivities

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or “BPCIA,” created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological product candidates shown to be highly similar to or interchangeable with an FDA licensed biological product. A biological product on which another biological product candidate’s BLA relies to establish biosimilarity is known as a reference product. Biosimilarity sufficient to reference a prior FDA-approved product requires that the biological product candidate be highly similar to the reference product not withstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components, and there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product candidate and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency. Biosimilarity must be shown through analytical trials, animal trials and at least one clinical trial, unless the FDA waives a required element. A biosimilar product candidate may be deemed interchangeable with a prior approved product if it meets the higher hurdle of demonstrating that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biologics, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation of the abbreviated approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA.

A reference biologic is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product, and no application for a biosimilar can be submitted for four years from the date of licensure of the reference product. The first interchangeable biosimilar biological product has exclusivity against a finding of interchangeability for other biologics for the lesser of (i) one year after first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable biosimilar, (ii) 18 months after the first interchangeable biosimilar is approved if there is no patent challenge, (iii) 18 months after resolution of a lawsuit over the patents of the reference biologic in favor of the first interchangeable biosimilar applicant, or (iv) 42 months after the first interchangeable biosimilar’s application has been approved if a patent lawsuit is ongoing within the 42 month period. State pharmacy laws and regulations govern whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, and may impose additional requirements such as notification of prescriber and/or patient, documentation and recordkeeping.

If a biologic is designated and approved for an orphan indication, it will be granted seven years of orphan drug exclusivity. An orphan indication is granted to biological products and drugs designated and approved to treat diseases or conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if there is no reasonable expectation that the sponsor will be able to recover the costs of developing and marketing the drug or biological product in the United States. During the seven-year exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. A biosimilar may not be licensed by FDA for the protected orphan indication until after the expiration of the seven-year orphan drug exclusivity period or the 12-year reference product exclusivity, whichever is later.

Pediatric exclusivity adds an additional six-month exclusivity period to any marketing exclusivities and patents that a biological product has obtained. In order to obtain pediatric exclusivity, a BLA sponsor must conduct pediatric studies as requested by the FDA in a Written Request. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by

six months. While pediatric exclusivity is not an actual extension on a patent term, it effectively extends the preclusive effect of the patent on FDA’s authority to approve another application that relies on the product with pediatric exclusivity.

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed into law H.R. 1865, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020. The law includes significant provisions concerning the FDA’s implementation of the BPCIA, such as clarifying that “chemically synthesized polypeptides” are no longer excluded from being regulated as biologics, while “peptides” (polymers composed of 40 or fewer amino acids) will continue to be regulated as drugs unless they otherwise meet the statutory definition of biological products. In addition, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 clarifies exclusivity and procedural issues related to certain biologics approved as drugs pursuant to new drug applications, or “NDAs”, to be the subject of an approved BLA, or transition biological products. The law also incorporates provisions intended to reduce price and increase competitiveness in the pharmaceutical industry. The law amends the FDCA to create a private right of action against NDA or BLA holders that refuse to provide sufficient quantities of samples of an approved reference product to generic and biosimilar developers. In July 2018, the FDA released its Biosimilars Action Plan to improve the efficiency of the biosimilar and interchangeable product development and approval process. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 is consistent with FDA guidance documents issued in December 2018 that were intended to advance the agency’s biosimilars policy framework. The implementation of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 and the ultimate impact of the agency’s Biosimilars Action Plan are uncertain and may evolve over time through future laws and regulations and guidance provided by regulatory and governing bodies. In addition, there has been discussion of whether Congress should reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate implementation of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

Regulation of Companion Diagnostics and Laboratory Developed Tests

A companion diagnostic is anin vitro diagnostic that can: identify the patients most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify those likely to be at an increased risk for serious side effects; or monitor responses to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Under the FDCA,in vitro companion diagnostics are generally regulated as medical devices. The FDA has generally classifiedin vitro companion diagnostics as high-risk, Class III devices, which require FDA approval of a premarket approval application, or “PMA”, but recognizes the possibility of a moderate-risk IVD companion diagnostic (i.e., Class II device), which would require clearance of a 510(k) premarket notification or grant of ade novo request. Approval or clearance of thein vitro companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population.

For thosein vitro companion diagnostics that require PMA approval, the process involves gathering and submitting clinical and preclinical data on the device for review by the FDA. It involves a rigorous premarket review, during which the applicant must provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness, as well as information regarding the device’s design, manufacturing and labeling. In addition, the FDA will typically inspect the device manufacturer’s facilities for compliance with the Quality System Regulation, which imposes testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance requirements.

The FDA has issued guidance on the approval of therapeutic products andin vitro companion diagnostic devices. According to the FDA’s guidance, for novel therapeutic products including biologics, anin vitro companion diagnostic device and its corresponding therapeutic should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product’s labeling.

In some cases, information from a diagnostic test may be useful to a prescriber, but not necessary for the safe and effective administration of the therapeutic product. In those cases, health care providers may employ information derived from a complementary diagnostic test such as a laboratory developed test, or “LDT”, when administering a therapeutic product. An LDT is a type ofin vitro diagnostic test that is designed, manufactured and used within a single laboratory. LDTs can be used to measure or detect a wide variety of analytes (substances such as proteins, chemical compounds like glucose or cholesterol, or DNA), in a sample taken from a human body.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or “CMS”, regulates LDTs and the laboratories that develop them, and enforces the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Amendments, or “CLIA”. CMS evaluates whether there is clinical utility for each specific test, and also performs post-market oversight of laboratory operational processes. CMS’s

oversight through the CLIA program is designed to confirm that a lab assesses analytical validity but does not confirm whether it had results from an analytical validity assessment that were sufficient to support the claimed intended use of the test.

Historically, the FDA has generally not enforced premarket review and other FDA requirements on LDTs because LDTs were relatively simple lab tests and generally available on a limited basis. Due to advances in technology, however, some LDTs are now much more complex, have a nationwide reach and present higher risks, such as detection of risk for breast cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, which are similar to those of other IVin vitro diagnostics that have undergone premarket review.

In 2023, FDA announced a proposed rule that would explicitly assert thatin vitrodiagnostic products (IVDs) are devices under the FDCA, including when the manufacturer of the IVD is a laboratory. Along with this amendment, the FDA proposed a policy under which the FDA would provide greater oversight of LDTs through a phaseout of its general enforcement discretion approach for most LDTs. Future language in the final rule may further alter the regulation of IVDs.

New laws, regulations or changes to existing laws, regulations and policies may result in changes to the requirements for LDTs orin vitro diagnostic devices and to the FDA’s compliance and enforcement policies.

Healthcare Regulation

Pharmaceutical Coverage and Reimbursement

Our ability to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval will depend in significant part on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, including governmental healthcare programs, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the U.S., private health insurers, managed care organizations, and other entities. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include one or more of our product candidates. Third-party payors, together with regulators and others, are increasingly challenging the prices charged for pharmaceutical products and related services, in addition to their cost-effectiveness, safety and efficacy.

No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States. Though we expect our initial product offering to be covered under Medicare Part B, and third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies, payors have their own methods and approval processes apart from Medicare determinations. Therefore, the availability and scope of coverage, as well as reimbursement rates can vary significantly from payor to payor. The marketability of any products for which we may receive regulatory approval for commercial sale depends on these payors’ coverage policies and reimbursement rates.

Moreover, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement is a time-consuming and costly process. We may be required to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of any product to each third-party payor separately with no assurance that approval will be obtained, and we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products. We cannot be certain that our product candidates will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors. This process could delay the market acceptance of any product candidates for which we may receive approval and could have a negative effect on our future revenues and operating results.

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, our business is subject to healthcare fraud and abuse regulation and enforcement by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business, particularly once third-party reimbursement becomes available for one or more of our products. The healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include but are not limited to:

violating the statute without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply, for example, to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other, including, for example, consulting/speaking arrangements, discount and rebate offers, grants, charitable contributions, and patient support offerings, among others. A conviction for violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute can result in criminal fines and/or imprisonment and requires mandatory exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. Exclusion may also be imposed if the government determines that an entity has committed acts that are prohibited by the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute protecting certain common business arrangements and activities from prosecution or regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration to those who prescribe, purchase, or recommend pharmaceutical and biological products that are not designed to fit squarely within an exception or safe harbor are evaluated based on the specific facts and circumstances and are typically subject to increased scrutiny. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from Anti-Kickback Statute liability.

civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Research institutions that we collaborate with and healthcare providers who may prescribe our products, once commercialized, are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA. The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has recently increased its enforcement efforts on compliance with HIPAA, including the security regulations (Security Rule), bringing actions against entities which have failed to implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks to electronic protected health information or to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis, among other violations. Although we are not directly subject to HIPAA other than with respect to providing certain employee benefits, we could potentially be subject to criminal penalties if we, our affiliates or our agents knowingly obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA;

increased operating costs, diversion of management time and attention and remedies that harm our business, including fines or demands or orders that we modify or cease existing business practices.

We will be required to spend substantial time and money to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations. Even then, governmental authorities may conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If governmental authorities find that our operations violate any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and we may be required to curtail or restructure our operations. Moreover, we expect that there will continue to be federal and state laws and regulations, proposed and implemented, that could impact our operations and business. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any product candidate we develop outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws. The extent to which future legislation or regulations, if any, relating to health care fraud and abuse laws or enforcement, may be enacted or what effect such legislation or regulation would have on our business remains uncertain.

Healthcare Reform

There have been and continue to be a number of healthcare-related legislative and regulatory initiatives and reforms in the United States that significantly affect the pharmaceutical industry. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the “ACA,” was passed in March 2010, and substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Among other things, the ACA: subjects biologics to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars; addresses a methodology through which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, or “MDRP,” are calculated for covered outpatient drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the MDRP and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; and establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs.

The ACA and certain of its provisions have been subject to judicial challenges as well as legislative and regulatory efforts to repeal or replace them or to alter their interpretation or implementation. For example, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the “Tax Act,” includes a provision that repealed the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year, commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” CMS rules issued in 2018 permit further collections and payments to and from certain ACA-qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA risk adjustment program. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 fully repealed the ACA’s “Cadillac Tax” on certain high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans and, effective in 2021, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share. On March 11, 2021, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which included among its provisions a sunset of the ACA’s cap on pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Under the ACA, manufacturers’ rebate liability was capped at 100% of the average manufacturer price for a covered outpatient drug. Effective January 1, 2024, manufacturers’ MDRP rebate liability will no longer be capped, potentially resulting in a manufacturer paying more in MDRP rebates than it receives on the sale of certain covered outpatient drugs. The American Rescue Plan Act also temporarily increased premium tax credit assistance for individuals eligible for subsidies under the ACA for 2021 and 2022 and removed the 400% federal poverty level limit that otherwise applies for purposes of eligibility to receive premium tax credits. In the future, there may be additional challenges and/or amendments to the ACA.

On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a legal challenge to the ACA brought by several states arguing that, without the individual mandate, the entire ACA was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit without ruling on the merits of the states’ constitutionality arguments. It is unclear how future litigation and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business.

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted pieces of federal and state legislation have been designed to, among other things: bring more transparency to drug pricing; reduce the cost of prescription drugs under government payor programs; review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs; and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Policymakers have also indicated that they will continue to seek legislative and administrative measures to control drug costs. For example, in August 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”), which implements substantial changes to the Medicare program, including drug pricing reforms and the creation of new Medicare inflation rebates. Namely, the IRA imposes inflation rebates on drug manufacturers for products reimbursed under Medicare Parts B and D if the prices of those products increase faster than inflation; implements changes to the Medicare Part D benefit that, beginning in 2025, will cap beneficiary annual out-of-pocket spending at $2,000, while imposing new discount obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers; and, beginning in 2026, establishes a “maximum fair price” for a fixed number of high expenditure pharmaceutical and biological products covered under Medicare Parts B and D following a price negotiation process with CMS. CMS has also taken steps to implement the IRA, including: on June 30, 2023, issuing guidance detailing the requirements and parameters of the first round of price negotiations, to take place during 2023 and 2024, for products subject to the “maximum fair price” provision that would become effective in 2026; on August 29, 2023, releasing the initial list of ten drugs subject to price negotiations; on November 17, 2023, releasing guidance outlining the methodology for identifying certain manufacturers eligible to participate in a phase-in period where discounts on applicable products will be lower than those required by the Medicare Part D Manufacturer Discount Program; and on December 14, 2023, releasing a list of 48 Medicare Part B products that had an adjusted coinsurance rate based on the inflationary rebate provisions of the IRA for the time period of January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024. While it remains to be seen how the drug pricing provisions imposed by the IRA will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry, several pharmaceutical manufacturers and other industry stakeholders have challenged the law, including through lawsuits brought against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CMS, and the CMS Administrator challenging the constitutionality and administrative implementation of the IRA’s drug price negotiation provisions.

There have also been administrative developments in the U.S. related to drug pricing. On February 2, 2022, the Biden administration signaled its continued commitment to the Cancer Moonshot initiative, which was initially launched in 2016. In its announcement, the administration noted that its new goals under the initiative include addressing inequities in order to ensure broader access to cutting-edge cancer therapeutics and investing in a robust pipeline for new treatments. In alignment with President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot initiative, on June 27, 2023, the Center for Medicare Innovation at

CMS announced a new model, the Enhancing Oncology Model, that is designed to make high-quality cancer care more affordable to both patients and Medicare. In addition, on October 14, 2022, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans, which instructed the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to consider whether to select for testing by the CMS Innovation Center new health care payment and delivery models that would lower drug costs and promote access to innovative drug therapies for beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. On February 14, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report in response to the October 14, 2022, Executive Order, which, among other things, selects three potential drug affordability and accessibility models to be tested by the CMS Innovation Center. Specifically, the report addresses: (1) a model that would allow Part D Sponsors to establish a “high-value drug list” setting the maximum out-of-pocket costs for certain common generic drugs at $2 per month per drug; (2) a Medicaid-focused model that would establish a partnership between CMS, manufacturers, and state Medicaid agencies that would result in multi-state outcomes-based agreements for certain cell and gene therapy drugs; and (3) a model that would adjust Medicare Part B payment amounts for Accelerated Approval Program drugs to advance the developments of novel treatments. It remains to be seen how these drug pricing initiatives will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement limitations, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs.

Moreover, in May 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, or the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2023, we had 82 full-time employees. Based on the announced restructuring of our operations, we plan to have 51 full-time employees as of March 21, 2024. This reduction will primarily occur in our manufacturing operations, but also will impact areas of discovery, research, development, clinical, and general administrative.

Our success depends upon our ability to retain and attract highly qualified management and technical personnel. We consider the intellectual capital of our employees to be an essential driver of our business and key to our future prospects. Recruiting and retaining qualified employees, consultants and advisors for our business, including scientific and technical personnel, is critical to our success. Competition for skilled personnel is intense and the turnover rate can be high in our industry and we continue to monitor our turnover rate and the overall supply of skilled labor in the market. We also monitor our compensation programs closely and provide what we consider to be a competitive mix of compensation and benefits for our employees, as well as participation in our equity programs. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement or represented by a trade or labor union.

Corporate Information and Access to SEC Reports

We were incorporated in Delaware in September 2015. Our primary executive offices are located at 9000 Virginia Manor Road, Suite 200, Beltsville, Maryland 20705 and our telephone number is (240) 399-4900. We make available, free of charge, on our website atwww.nextcure.com, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to such reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The contents of our website are not incorporated into this Annual Report.