GLYCOMIMETICS INC

Company Overview

We are a late clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on improving the lives of people living with cancer and inflammatory diseases by leveraging the inhibition of carbohydrate interactions that occur on the surface of cells. We are developing a pipeline of proprietary glycomimetics, which are small molecules that mimic the structure of carbohydrates involved in important biological processes, to inhibit disease-related functions of carbohydrates such as the roles they play in cancers and inflammation. We believe this represents an innovative approach to drug discovery to treat a wide range of diseases. We are focusing our efforts on drug candidates for diseases that we believe will qualify for Orphan Drug designation.

Our proprietary glycomimetics platform is based on our expertise in carbohydrate chemistry and our understanding of the role carbohydrates play in key biological processes. Most human proteins are modified by the addition of complex carbohydrate structures to the surface of such proteins, which affects the functions of the proteins and their interactions with other molecules. Our research and development efforts have focused on drug candidates targeting selectins, which are proteins that serve as adhesion molecules and bind to carbohydrates that are involved in the inflammatory component and progression of a wide range of diseases, including hematologic disorders, cancer and cardiovascular disease. For example, we believe that members of the selectin family play a key role in tumor metastasis and resistance to chemotherapy. Inhibiting specific carbohydrates from binding to selectins has long been viewed as a potentially attractive approach for therapeutic intervention. The ability to successfully develop drug-like carbohydrate compounds that inhibit binding with selectins, known as selectin antagonists, has historically been limited by their potency and the complexities of carbohydrate chemistry. We believe our expertise in the rational design of potent glycomimetic antagonists with drug-like properties and in carbohydrate chemistry enables us to identify highly effective selectin antagonists and other glycomimetics that may inhibit the disease-related functions of certain carbohydrates in order to develop novel drug candidates to address orphan diseases with high unmet medical need.

Overview of Our Drug Candidates

Our current drug candidates are summarized below. We have retained the worldwide development and commercialization rights to each of our drug candidates, except with respect to uproleselan and GMI-1687, for which we have exclusively licensed development and commercialization rights to Apollomics (Hong Kong) Limited, or Apollomics, in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, collectively referred to as Greater China.

Uproleselan

We are developing uproleselan, a specific E-selectin antagonist, to be used in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, a life-threatening hematologic cancer, and potentially other hematologic cancers. Uproleselan has been granted Breakthrough Therapy designation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory AML. In addition, uproleselan has received Orphan Drug designation from the FDA and the European Commission for the treatment of AML.

E-selectin plays a critical role in binding cancer cells within vascular niches in the bone marrow, which prevents the cells from entering circulation where they can be more readily killed by chemotherapy. In animal studies, uproleselan mobilized AML cancer cells out of the bone marrow, making them more sensitive to chemotherapy. In these studies, tumor burden was significantly reduced in the animals treated with a combination of chemotherapy and uproleselan as compared to animals treated with chemotherapy alone. In addition, the combination of uproleselan with chemotherapy resulted in improved survival rates for the treated animals compared to chemotherapy alone. In other animal studies, uproleselan appeared to also protect normal cells from some of the side effects of chemotherapy. Common side effects of chemotherapy include bone marrow toxicity resulting in neutropenia, which is an abnormally low number of neutrophils, the white blood cells that serve as the primary defense against infection, and mucositis, which is the inflammation and sloughing of the mucous membranes lining the digestive tract. Animals treated with uproleselan and chemotherapy had less severe neutropenia and mucositis and lower bone marrow toxicity as compared to animals treated with chemotherapy alone. We believe that treatment with uproleselan results in lower bone marrow toxicity due to its

inhibition of E-selectin, which inhibition makes stem cells in the bone marrow divide less frequently, thereby protecting them from chemotherapy agents that target rapidly dividing cells.

We completed an initial Phase 1 trial in healthy volunteers for uproleselan and in 2017 we completed enrollment in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in patients with either relapsed/refractory or de novo/secondary AML. Final efficacy and safety data from this Phase 1/2 trial were published in the journalBLOOD in September 2021, with scientists highlighting an enhanced depth of response following addition of uproleselan to salvage therapy, as indicated by thehigh remission rates observed in the trial compared to historical experience with salvage chemotherapy alone and 69% rate ofminimal residual disease, or MRD, negativity in evaluable trial participants with relapsed/refractory AML.

In 2018, we dosed the first patient in a Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate uproleselan in adults with relapsed/refractory AML. In 2021, we completed enrollment of 388 patients in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 pivotal clinical trial to evaluate uproleselan in individuals with relapsed/refractory AML, the design of which was based on guidance received from the FDA.

In September 2022, we submitted a request to the FDA to amend the protocol for the trial to conduct an interim analysis and have the findings reviewed by the trial’s Independent Data Monitoring Committee, or IDMC, as blinded pooled survival data showed patients living longer than expected based on the historical benchmarks used to design the trial. The statistical plan agreed to with the FDA was for the IDMC to review efficacy and safety data at 80% of survival events, which was reached at the end of 2022. When designing the interim analysis, we amended the protocol to create the opportunity to achieve unblinding at approximately 80% of survival events while maintaining the statistical integrity of the final analysis should the IDMC recommend the trial continue to the final overall events trigger. The interim analysis plan required a high statistical threshold to be met for the IDMC to recommend unblinding, reserving approximately 95% of the trial’s statistical power for the final analysis. In February 2023, the IDMC reviewed the interim utility analysis and recommended that the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial continue to the originally planned final overall survival events trigger.

In June 2023, the FDA cleared the addition of a protocol amendment to our pivotal Phase 3 trial to allow for a time-based analysis of the primary endpoint of overall survival to be conducted after a defined cutoff date, if the 295 survival events originally planned for an event-driven analysis have not been observed by that date. We expect patient data cutoff to occur by the end of the first quarter of 2024, and thereafter to report topline results from the trial in the second quarter of 2024. We are continuing our preparation for a potential submission of a new drug application, or NDA, with the FDA by the end of 2024 if the results of the pivotal Phase 3 trial are positive.

In May 2018, we signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, or CRADA, with the National Cancer Institute, or NCI, part of the National Institutes of Health. Under the terms of the CRADA, we are collaborating with both the NCI and the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology to conduct a randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the addition of uproleselan to a standard cytarabine/daunorubicin chemotherapy regimen (7&3) in older adults with previously untreated AML who are eligible for intensive chemotherapy. The first patient in this Phase 2/3 NCI-sponsored trial was dosed in April 2019. Enrollment of 267 patients in the Phase 2 portion was completed in December 2021. There will be a planned interim analysis that will evaluate event-free survival and whether the pre-specified threshold for continuing to Phase 3 has been met. The trial may also provide support for regulatory filings, if the results of the planned interim analysis are sufficiently positive.

In May 2023, the FDA agreed to our initial Pediatric Study Plan, or iPSP. In October 2023, the European Medicines Agency also agreed to our Pediatric Investigational Plan, or PIP. The iPSP and the PIP each include a deferral for study completion and a waiver for children less than 28 days of age. As part of the pediatric plans, an NCI-sponsored Phase 1 pediatric trial is currently being conducted by the Children’s Oncology Group Pediatric Early Phase Clinical Trials Network. This dose escalation study will evaluate the safety and preliminary activity of uproleselan plus fludarabine and high dose cytarabine in pediatric AML patients after two or more prior therapies. Enrollment in the Phase 1 portion is expected to be up to 18 patients. The first patient was enrolled in October 2023.

GMI-1687

We have rationally designed an innovative antagonist of E-selectin, GMI-1687, that could be suitable for subcutaneous administration. Initially developed as a potential life-cycle extension to uproleselan, when given by subcutaneous injection in animal models, GMI-1687 has been observed to have equivalent activity to uproleselan, but at an approximately 500-fold lower dose. This level of activity was obtained following injections under the skin and could alleviate the need for intravenous infusions. Based on these compound characteristics, we believe that GMI-1687 could be developed to broaden the clinical usefulness of an E-selectin antagonist to conditions where outpatient treatment is preferred or required. In December 2023, we completed enrollment of 40 subjects in a Phase 1a trial of GMI-1687 in healthy adult volunteers.

Galectin Antagonists (GMI-2093)

Galectin-3 is a carbohydrate-binding protein whose expression has been shown to play a central role in fibrosis and cancer. Galectin-3 has been linked to a number of biologic processes including inflammation, aberrant cell activation and proliferation (macrophages, neutrophils, and mast cells), fibrogenesis and ultimately, organ dysfunction. Experimental data have implicated galectin-3 in a variety of diseases across a number of organ systems, including liver, kidney, lung, eye and heart. Current research also indicates that galectin-3 has important roles in modulating the immune and inflammatory response to cancer that contributes to neoplastic transformation, tumor cell survival, angiogenesis and metastasis.

Applying our understanding of carbohydrate biology and chemistry, we have rationally designed several high-potency, selective, small-molecule glycomimetic antagonists of galectin-3. In our preclinical studies, our galectin-3 antagonists have augmented antitumor activity of checkpoint inhibitors and prevented fibrosis following organ damage, which we believe makes them promising therapeutic targets for further evaluation and development. In March 2022, we selected a lead galectin drug candidate, GMI-2093, for evaluation in preclinical studies. We are currently evaluating options for further development of GMI-2093 as a potential treatment for fibrosis and in oncology indications.

GMI-1359

We also designed GMI-1359, a drug candidate that simultaneously targets both E-selectin and a chemokine receptor known as CXCR4. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we terminated a Phase 1b trial of GMI-1359 in hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients whose tumors had spread to bone and deactivated the existing GMI-1359 IND in August 2022. We are not currently developing GMI-1359 and are seeking a licensing partner to continue clinical development of this drug candidate.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to be the leader in the discovery, development and commercialization of novel glycomimetic drugs to address unmet medical needs resulting from diseases in which carbohydrate biology plays a key role. Leveraging the potentially broad applicability of our proprietary glycomimetics platform, our initial focus is to internally develop and advance orphan drug candidates targeted at hematologic cancers and other diseases, and to out-license any drug candidates we may develop that are targeted at larger market opportunities. The key elements of our strategy are to:

Our Platform

Our proprietary glycomimetics platform is based on our expertise in carbohydrate chemistry and our understanding of the role carbohydrates play in key biological processes. Carbohydrate structures on cell surfaces are responsible for complex carbohydrate-protein binding interactions. Inhibiting these binding interactions affects the functions of these proteins and their interactions with other molecules. We believe our expertise enables us to design specific glycomimetic molecules that can mimic carbohydrate structures and thereby inhibit their disease-related functions.

Our initial focus is on selectin antagonists, which we believe have potential to address unmet medical needs in a number of orphan and large market opportunities. Selectins have been shown to play a key role in a wide range of diseases, including hematologic disorders, inflammatory diseases, cancers and cardiovascular diseases.

Our initial drug design efforts are focused on a naturally occurring, three-dimensional complex carbohydrate core structure known as the Lewis structure. This core structure is naturally modified in a variety of ways to form many different functional carbohydrates. These variations determine the biological functions of the carbohydrates, including functions related to conditions defined above. Accordingly, we believe that this structure provides the foundation for the design of glycomimetic drug candidates that could be used to address a variety of diseases.

Once we identify a carbohydrate structure involved in a disease pathway, we design molecules that mimic that carbohydrate structure and inhibit its disease-related functions by binding to the carbohydrate’s target receptor, thereby blocking binding by the native carbohydrate itself. For example, one of the naturally modified Lewis structures binds to selectins, which play a key role in adhesion of AML blasts to bone marrow vasculature. Uproleselan mimics that carbohydrate structure and accordingly binds to selectins, which we believe thereby inhibits adhesion of AML blasts and renders them more susceptible to killing with cytotoxic chemotherapies. In addition, our glycomimetic molecules are designed to have greater affinity to the carbohydrate’s target receptor than does the native carbohydrate. This means that the glycomimetic molecules possess stronger intermolecular forces between themselves and target receptors, and thus “outcompete” native carbohydrates in binding to relevant target receptors, thereby inhibiting their disease-related

functions. Using our glycomimetics platform, we have designed and synthesized a proprietary library of these structures targeting different biological processes.

Our glycomimetics platform includes intellectual property, know-how, expertise, proprietary biological information and biochemical assays, all of which support the rational design of potent glycomimetic compounds. Our platform capabilities include:

Our Pipeline

We have discovered our drug candidates internally through a rational drug design approach that couples our expertise in carbohydrate chemistry with our knowledge of carbohydrate biology. We are actively developing glycomimetic drug candidates based on this expertise. Our drug candidates and their target indications and development status are summarized in the chart below.

Uproleselan —Targeting the Bone Marrow Microenvironment to Treat Hematologic Cancers

We developed uproleselan, a specific E-selectin antagonist, to be used adjunctively with standard chemotherapy to treat AML and other hematologic cancers. We believe that uproleselan, in this manner, may be used as first-line treatment for elderly patients with AML or for patients with relapsed or refractory AML. Uproleselan targets interactions between cancer cells and the bone marrow microenvironment. In preclinical studies, combining uproleselan with chemotherapy made cancer cells more sensitive to chemotherapy. In other preclinical studies, uproleselan also reduced some toxic effects of chemotherapy, including neutropenia and mucositis, via effects on normal cells.

Uproleselan received Orphan Drug designation from the FDA in 2015 for treatment of patients with AML. In 2016, uproleselan received Fast Track designation from the FDA for treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML and elderly patients aged 60 years or older with AML. In 2017, uproleselan received Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA for treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML. In 2017, the European Commission, based on a favorable recommendation from the EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, granted Orphan Designation for uproleselan for treatment of patients with AML. In January 2021, the China National Medical Products Administration Center for Drug Evaluation granted Breakthrough Therapy designation to uproleselan for treatment of relapsed/refractory AML.

Acute Myeloid Leukemia

AML is a hematologic cancer that is characterized by the rapid growth of abnormal white blood cells that accumulate in bone marrow and interfere with production of normal blood cells. A relatively rare disease, AML nonetheless accounts for the largest number of annual deaths from leukemia in the United States. According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program managed by the NCI, there were an estimated 20,380 new cases of AML diagnosed in 2023 in the United States. AML caused an estimated 11,310 deaths in 2023 in the United States.

Median age at AML diagnosis is 69 years old. In a review published in theJournal of Clinical Oncology, median overall survival of patients 60 years old or older was nine months. Overall five-year relative survival rate for all AML patients from 2013 to 2019 was 31.7%. Relative survival is a statistical measure of net survival that is calculated by comparing observed survival with expected survival from a comparable set of people who do not have AML, in order to measure excess mortality associated with an AML diagnosis.

A number of published studies indicate that only some AML patients who receive chemotherapy achieve a complete response, which is defined as the disappearance of all signs of AML. Even then, most patients with a complete response eventually relapse. Patients who do not enter remission are referred to as refractory, meaning that they are resistant to the chemotherapy treatment.

We believe there is a need for new treatment options for elderly patients with AML, as well as those AML patients who relapse or develop refractory disease. Most AML patients with relapsed or refractory disease have limited established treatment options and, accordingly, may be referred for participation in clinical studies of potential new therapies. For patients who elect not to participate or are unable to participate, treatment options typically include chemotherapy regimens, hypomethylating agents and supportive care. Further, many elderly patients with AML are too frail to undergo chemotherapy as a result of other medical conditions and may only be able to tolerate pain comfort or control measures. Without treatment, however, AML is uniformly fatal.

E-selectin has been shown to play important roles in AML disease progression and cell extrinsic chemoresistance. Multiple studies have shown that E-selectin levels correlate with AML tumor infiltration and relapse. We therefore believe that our E-selectin antagonist, uproleselan, has potential to improve current treatment of patients with AML.

Uproleselan Clinical Trials

In 2014, we completed a Phase 1 trial of uproleselan in healthy volunteers. The single-site Phase 1 trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending intravenous dose trial. In the trial, we evaluated the safety, tolerability and PK of uproleselan. Twenty-eight healthy adult subjects were enrolled in cohorts to receive study drug at three dose levels. In the trial, we observed that the subjects tolerated uproleselan well, and that the PK for uproleselan was consistent with what was predicted based on preclinical data.

In 2015, we commenced a multinational Phase 1/2, open-label trial of uproleselan as an adjunct to standard chemotherapy in patients with AML. This trial in males and females with AML was conducted at a number of academic institutions in the United States, Ireland and Australia. The trial consisted of two parts. In the Phase 1 portion, escalation testing was performed to determine a recommended uproleselan dose in combination with standard chemotherapy to be used in the Phase 2 portion. In the Phase 2 portion of the trial, dose expansion was performed at the recommended dose of 10 mg/kg uproleselan in combination with standard chemotherapy. The primary objective of the trial was to evaluate the safety of uproleselan in combination with chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were to characterize PK and PD and to observe anti-leukemic activity. A total of 19 patients with relapsed or refractory AML were enrolled and dosed with a single cycle of treatment with uproleselan and chemotherapy in the Phase 1 portion of the trial. In the Phase 2 portion, one cohort of 25 patients over 60 years of age with newly diagnosed AML and a second cohort of 47 patients with relapsed or refractory AML were enrolled. Unlike in the Phase 1 portion, some of the patients in the Phase 2 portion were eligible to receive multiple cycles of uproleselan with chemotherapy.

In December 2018, we presented final efficacy and correlative results from the Phase 1/2 trial at the annual ASHmeeting. Key highlights from the Phase 1/2 clinical data include the following:

Based on these results, we are conducting a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate uproleselan in individuals with relapsed/refractory AML, with a trial design aligned with guidance received from the FDA. The primary efficacy endpoint is overall survival, and the FDA has advised us that data on overall survival will not need to be censored for transplant in the primary efficacy analysis, meaning that patients who proceed to transplant will continue to be included as part of the survival analysis.

All patients are being treated with cytarabine-based chemotherapy of either MEC (mitoxantrone, etoposide and cytarabine) or FAI (fludarabine, cytarabine and idarubicin), with approximately half of the patients randomized to receive uproleselan in addition to chemotherapy. Patients receiving uproleselan are dosed for one day prior to initiation of chemotherapy, twice a day through the chemotherapy regimen, and then for two days after the end of chemotherapy, which was the same schedule as in the Phase 2 portion of the Phase 1/2 trial. The dose regimen is fixed, rather than weight-based, which we believe simplifies administration, and we are offering up to three cycles of consolidation therapy in both arms of the trial for patients who achieve remission. We believe that multiple cycles of treatment in patients who respond may drive an even deeper response in patients treated with uproleselan. If this is the case, it could lengthen the duration of remission with potential for additional benefit on survival. Key secondary endpoints of the Phase 3 trial include the incidence of severe mucositis and remission rate, which will be assessed in a hierarchical fashion to provide supportive data.

Enrollment in this pivotal trial began in the fourth quarter of 2018, and we completed enrollment of the trial with a total of 388 patients in November 2021 at centers in the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia. As described above, we expect patient data cutoff to occur by the end of the first quarter of 2024, and thereafter to report topline results from the trial in the second quarter of 2024.

We are collaborating with both the NCI and the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology to conduct a Phase 2/3 randomized, controlled clinical trial testing addition of uproleselan to a standard cytarabine/daunorubicin chemotherapy regimen (7&3) in older adults with previously untreated AML who are fit for intensive chemotherapy. Following completion of enrollment of the Phase 2 portion of the study, which occurred in December 2021, there will be an interim analysis of EFS. The full trial is expected to enroll approximately 670 patients with a primary endpoint of overall survival, which is defined as the time from date of randomization to death from any cause. The NCI may also fund additional research, including clinical trials involving pediatric patients with AML, as well as preclinical experiments and clinical trials evaluating alternative populations and chemotherapy regimens. We intend to supply uproleselan as well as provide financial support to augment data analysis and monitoring for the Phase 2/3 program. Completion of enrollment now sets the stage for a planned evaluation of the Phase 2 portion of the trial to determine whether the prespecified threshold for continuing to Phase 3 has been met based on EFS results.

An NCI-sponsored Phase 1 pediatric trial is also currently being conducted by the Children’s Oncology Group Pediatric Early Phase Clinical Trials Network. The Phase 1/2 dose escalation study will evaluate the safety and preliminary activity of uproleselan plus fludarabine and high dose cytarabine in pediatric AML patients after two or more prior therapies. Enrollment in the Phase 1 trial is expected to be up to 18 patients. The first patient was enrolled in October 2023.

Uproleselan is also being studied in multiple investigator-initiated trials, or IITs. In July 2021, clinicians at the University of California (UC) Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center initiated dosing of the first patient in a clinical study of uproleselan combined with venetoclax and azacitidine for treatment of older or unfit patients with treatment-naïve AML. The goal of the two-part IIT is first to determine a recommended Phase 2 dose, and then to explore efficacy in a dose expansion cohort. Up to 31 patients will be enrolled. Results for 8 enrolled patients were presented at the 64th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting in December 2022. Preliminary results from this phase 1 study revealed a tolerable safety profile of uproleselan with venetoclax and azacitidine in patients with untreated AML ineligible for induction chemotherapy. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, or DLTs, observed and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events, or AEs, and serious adverse events, or SAEs, were hematologic. The combination showed promising preliminary efficacy, including a 50% rate of MRD negative CR/CRi.

In July 2021, clinicians at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center treated the first patient in a Phase 1b/2 study evaluating uproleselan, added to cladribine plus low dose cytarabine, in patients with treated secondary AML (ts-AML). Considered a distinct high-risk subset of AML with an adverse prognosis, ts-AML is defined as AML arising from a previously treated antecedent myeloid neoplasm (myelodysplastic syndrome or myeloproliferative neoplasm). Median survival of ts-AML is less than 5 months.

The Phase 1b/2 single-arm trial is enrolling patients 18 years or older, with a diagnosis of ts-AML who have not received therapy for their AML. Clinicians plan to enroll approximately 25 patients in the trial. The results for 20

enrolled patients were presented in a poster at ASH in December 2023. Preliminary results from 18 evaluable patients at median of 8.1 months follow-up found cladribine and low dose cytarabine combined with uproleselan generated few treatment-related adverse events. The combination produced an overall response rate of 39% and reduced bone marrow blasts in 72% of patients. Median overall survival was 5.3 months.

In June 2023, the first pediatric patient was treated with uproleselan in an investigator-initiated, single-arm, multi-center Phase 1/2 trial to assess safety and tolerability, as well as determine an RP2D of uproleselan plus myeloablative, busulfan-based, pre-transplant conditioning for treatment of AML. The Phase 2 trial will further assess the preliminary uproleselan efficacy at the RP2D. The trial will enroll up to 28 patients (Age ≥12 months and ≤ 30 years).

GMI-1687 Clinical Development

In 2020, we reported on expanded preclinical studies with GMI-1687 in which the subcutaneous administration of GMI-1687 was effective in restoring blood flow in occluded blood vessels in a mouse model of SCD. We believe that these data support potential development of GMI-1687 for subcutaneous use and self-administration with the potential for use in the early intervention of VOE. In May 2022, we filed an investigational new drug application, or IND, for GMI-1687 as a potential treatment for SCD and received the “safe to proceed” letter from the FDA in June 2022. In December 2023, we completed enrollment of 40 subjects in a double-blind, single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, sequential, single ascending dose Phase 1a trial of GMI-1687 in healthy adult volunteers. Eligible subjects received a single subcutaneous injection of GMI-1687 or placebo (6:2 ratio). Five dose levels were evaluated, including 3.3, 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg. The study met its primary and secondary endpoints of safety/tolerability and pharmacokinetics. There were no observed dose limiting toxicities or safety signals. Subcutaneous dosing achieved target therapeutic plasma concentration and linear pharmacokinetics with rapid renal clearance across all dosing levels. Analysis of data is ongoing with full results expected to be presented at an upcoming medical conference.

Our Collaboration with Apollomics for Uproleselan and GMI-1687

In 2020, we entered into an exclusive collaboration and license agreement with Apollomics for the development and commercialization of uproleselan and GMI-1687 for all fields and all uses in Greater China. We and Apollomics will also collaborate to advance the preclinical and clinical development of GMI-1687.

We are eligible to receive potential milestone payments totaling approximately $180.0 million based on the achievement of specified development, regulatory and commercial milestones, as well as tiered royalties ranging from the high single digits to 15% based on net sales. Apollomics will be responsible for all costs related to development, regulatory approvals and commercialization in Greater China for uproleselan and GMI-1687. We retain all rights for both compounds in the rest of the world and have agreed to supply uproleselan and GMI-1687 to Apollomics pursuant to clinical and commercial supply agreements.

We have also entered into a clinical supply agreement with Apollomics under which we will manufacture and supply uproleselan product to Apollomics at agreed upon prices. Apollomics has the option to begin manufacture after appropriate material transfer requirements are met.

In 2020, the China National Medical Products Administration, or NMPA, Center for Drug Evaluation, or CDE, granted IND approval for uproleselan (also referred to as APL-106), enabling the initiation of a Phase 1 PK and tolerability study. The IND approval also included acceptance of a Phase 3 bridging study of APL-106 in combination with chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory AML. In January 2021, APL-106 was granted Breakthrough Therapy designation from the China NMPA CDE for the treatment of relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia. In January 2024, Apollomics announced the completion of enrollment in the Phase 3 bridging study. A total of 140 adult patients across 20 sites in Greater China with primary refractory AML or relapsed AML (first or second untreated relapse) and eligible to receive induction chemotherapy were randomized to receive either uproleselan combined with chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint for the Phase 3 bridging study is overall survival. Secondary outcome measures include the rate and duration of remission and whether uproleselan can reduce the rate of oral mucositis, a chemotherapy-related side effect.

We and Apollomics have established a joint development committee to oversee activities under the collaboration and license agreement. The collaboration and license agreement will terminate on a region-by-region basis upon the expiration of the royalty term for each region, unless earlier terminated by either party. Either party may terminate the collaboration and license agreement upon prior written notice, subject to specified conditions, including uncured material breach, or upon bankruptcy or insolvency of the other party. Apollomics may terminate the collaboration and license agreement upon prior written notice for any reason.

Galectin Antagonists (GMI-2093)

We continue to optimize compounds and expect to conduct additional preclinical experiments to further characterize the effects of our galectin-3 antagonists on immune processes, fibrotic-associated disease progression and to determine if these compounds can be orally bioavailable. One such compound, GMI-2093, has been observed to be 30% bioavailable through oral administration. In March 2022, we selected GMI-2093 for evaluation in preclinical studies. We are currently evaluating options for further development of GMI-2093 as a potential treatment for fibrosis and in oncology indications.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the intellectual property that we believe is important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patent protection intended to cover the composition of matter of our drug candidates and their methods of use. We have issued patents which cover uproleselan (previously known as GMI-1271) and methods of use that are expected to expire between 2032 and 2039. In addition, we have several pending patent applications covering uproleselan and/or methods of using it, the last expiring of which, if issued, currently would be predicted to expire in 2041. We also have issued patents which cover GMI-1359 and methods of use that are expected to expire between 2036 and 2037. In addition, we have several pending patent applications covering GMI-1359 and/or methods of using it, the last expiring of which, if issued, currently would be predicted to expire in 2042. We also have two issued patents covering GMI-1687 that are expected to expire in 2037. In addition, we have several pending patent applications covering GMI-1687 and/or methods of using it, the last expiring of which, if issued, currently would be predicted to expire in 2041. We also have several pending patent applications directed to our lead galectin antagonist compounds and their methods of use, the last of which, if issued, currently would be predicted to expire in 2042. We also rely on trade secret protection for our confidential and proprietary information and careful monitoring of such information to protect aspects of our business.

Our success will depend significantly on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our patents, preserve confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of glycomimetics.

A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development of our drug candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our drug candidates, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties. If we are not able to obtain such a license, or are not able to obtain such a license on commercially reasonable terms, our business could be materially harmed.

We plan to continue to expand our intellectual property estate by filing patent applications directed to additional glycomimetic compounds and their derivatives, compositions and formulations containing them and methods of using them. Additionally, we will seek patent protection in the United States and internationally for novel compositions of matter covering the compounds and their use in a variety of therapies.

The patent positions of biotechnology companies like us are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance, including where a reissue application is filed in relation to an issued patent to correct issues or errors arising during prosecution that may render claims of the issued

patent either wholly or partially invalid or unenforceable. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our drug candidates will be protectable or remain protected by enforceable patents. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. Any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties.

Because patent applications in the United States and certain other jurisdictions are maintained in secrecy for 18 months, and since publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending patent applications. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or a foreign patent office to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. Such proceedings could result in substantial cost, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

Manufacturing

We do not have any manufacturing facilities or personnel. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacturing of our drug candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacturing if our drug candidates receive marketing approval. We anticipate continuing to manage process development, scale-up and manufacturing under contracts with third parties. For uproleselan, we expect a significant increase in manufacturing if we receive marketing approval.

All of our drug candidates are small molecules and are manufactured in reliable and reproducible synthetic processes from readily available starting materials. The chemistry does not require unusual equipment in the manufacturing process. We expect to continue to develop drug candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at contract manufacturing facilities.

In January 2024, we entered into a project agreement with Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC, part of Thermo Fisher Scientific, or Patheon, for manufacture and supply of uproleselan for commercial sale should we receive marketing approval from the FDA. Pursuant to the agreement, Patheon will manufacture commercial supplies of injectable uproleselan from active pharmaceutical ingredient we supply, and will also be responsible for supplying the other required raw materials and other supportive manufacturing services such as quality control testing for raw materials, packaging components and finished product. The initial term of the agreement is through year end 2026 with automatic 3-year renewal periods unless otherwise terminated by either party. We have provided Patheon with our forecast of required annual volumes through 2027.

Commercialization

We have not yet established a sales, marketing or drug distribution infrastructure. We generally expect to retain commercial rights in the United States for our drug candidates. We believe that it will be possible for us to access the U.S. market for those drug candidates through a focused, specialized, key account sales force. With respect to uproleselan and GMI-1687, we have granted Apollomics exclusive commercialization rights in Greater China, and we may grant similar rights to third parties for our drug candidates in other jurisdictions around the world.

Subject to receiving marketing approvals, we expect to commence commercialization activities by building or outsourcing a focused sales, marketing and key account management organization in the United States to sell our drugs. We believe that such an organization will be able to target the community of physicians who are the key specialists in treating the patient populations for which our drug candidates are being developed. Outside the United States, we expect to enter into distribution and other marketing arrangements with third parties for any of our drug candidates that obtain marketing approval.

We also plan to build a marketing and sales management organization to create and implement marketing strategies for any drugs that we market through our own sales organization and to oversee and support our sales force.

The responsibilities of the marketing organization would include developing educational initiatives with respect to approved drugs and establishing relationships with thought leaders in relevant fields of medicine.

Competition

Key competitive factors affecting success of all of our drug candidates, if approved, are likely to be their safety, efficacy, convenience, price, generic competition, and availability of coverage and reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

As the treatment landscape for AML changes, there is substantial risk that uproleselan might not provide additional benefit over other existing therapies. A key consideration in treatment of relapsed/refractory AML patients is the patient’s suitability for intensive salvage chemotherapy. The patient population being studied in our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial of uproleselan includes AML patients deemed able to tolerate salvage chemotherapy. While there is no commonly accepted single standard approach for salvage chemotherapy, existing options for treatment of relapsed/refractory AML patients who can tolerate salvage chemotherapy include cytarabine-based combinations. In addition, we are aware of several other products and product candidates that are commercially available or are in development as potential treatment options for AML patients. Some patient populations being studied for these product candidates in development overlap with the patient population being studied in our Phase 3 clinical trial of uproleselan. The existence of established treatment options and the development of competing therapies for relapsed/refractory AML patients could negatively impact our ability to successfully commercialize uproleselan.

The following therapies have been approved by the FDA for treatment of AML:

While many chemotherapies and targeted therapies, either approved or in development for hematologic malignancies, will likely be complementary to uproleselan, there are also therapies in development that could be directly competitive with uproleselan. Additionally, there are a number of CXCR4 antagonists in clinical development that targetthe bone marrow microenvironment in order to mobilize and sensitize cancer cells to chemotherapy or other therapies.

Many of the companies against which we are competing, or against which we may compete in the future, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local levels, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import and export of pharmaceutical products, such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

United States Government Regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the drug development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve pending new drug applications, or NDAs, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties.

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves:

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. 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 protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined. In Phase 1, the drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an initial indication of its effectiveness. In Phase 2, the drug typically is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. In Phase 3, the drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the safety and efficacy of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product.

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. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 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 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.

Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical and clinical studies, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. In most cases, the submission of an NDA is subject to a substantial application user fee. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has agreed to certain performance goals regarding the timing of its review of an application.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, an NDA or supplement to an NDA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

The FDA also may require submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, plan to mitigate any identified or suspected serious risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity.

The FDA typically refers questions regarding novel drugs to an external advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP.

The testing and approval process for an NDA requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and could take several years to complete. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The FDA may not grant approval of an NDA on a timely basis, or at all.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy designation, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and the FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. The FDA may review sections of the NDA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines. These six and ten month review periods are measured from the “filing” date rather than the receipt date for NDAs for new molecular entities, which typically adds approximately two months to the timeline for review and decision from the date of submission. Most products that are eligible for fast track designation are also likely to be considered appropriate to receive a priority review.

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may be eligible for accelerated approval. Such products may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Alternatively the approval may be on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Approvals may also take into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures.

A sponsor can also request designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are also eligible for accelerated approval. The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our product candidates as appropriate.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs 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, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes or other labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing annual user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a boxed warning, require that

post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market.

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

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Although physicians, in the practice of medicine, may prescribe approved drugs for unapproved indications, pharmaceutical companies generally are required to promote their drug products only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. However, physicians may, in their independent medical judgment, prescribe legally available products for off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments but the FDA does restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Drug Supply Chain Security Act and state laws that limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Federal and State Fraud and Abuse, Data Privacy and Security, and Transparency Laws and Regulations

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations restrict business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry. These laws include, but are not limited to, anti-kickback and false claims laws and regulations, data privacy and security, and transparency laws and regulations.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The

Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the statute has been violated.

The reach of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute was also broadened by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively PPACA, which, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, PPACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes penalties against any person or entity who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

Federal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibit any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for, among other things, allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Companies also have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of products for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors 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. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final HIPAA Omnibus Rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes specified requirements on certain types of individuals and entities relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities (or other business associates) that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity, and their covered subcontractors. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which are not pre-empted by HIPAA, differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

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 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests held by the physicians and their immediate family members.

We may also be subject to state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, as well as state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exemptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including administrative, criminal and civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Coverage and Reimbursement

The future commercial success of our drug candidates or any of our collaborators’ ability to commercialize any approved drug candidates successfully will depend in part on the extent to which governmental payor programs at the federal and state levels, including Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors provide coverage for and establish adequate reimbursement levels for our drug candidates. Government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations generally decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels for healthcare. In particular, in the United States, private health insurers and other third-party payors often provide reimbursement for products and services based on the level at which the government, through the Medicare or Medicaid programs, provides reimbursement for such treatments. In the United States, the European Union, or EU, and other potentially significant markets for our drug candidates, government authorities and third party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate the price of medical products and services, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which often has resulted in average selling prices lower than they would otherwise be. Further, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the United States and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the EU will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and usage, which may adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, judicial decisions and laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical coverage and reimbursement policies and pricing in general.

Third-party payors are increasingly imposing additional requirements and restrictions on coverage and limiting reimbursement levels for medical products. For example, federal and state governments reimburse covered prescription drugs at varying rates generally below average wholesale price. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drug products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our drug candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in drug development. Legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce costs under government insurance programs may result in lower reimbursement for our drugs and drug candidates or exclusion of our drugs and drug candidates from coverage. The cost containment measures that healthcare payors and providers are instituting and any healthcare reform could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of any approved drug candidates. We cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain and maintain third party coverage or adequate reimbursement for our drug candidates in whole or in part.

Impact of Healthcare Reform on our Business

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering enacting or have enacted a number of additional 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 and expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts, which include major legislative initiatives to reduce the cost of care through changes in the healthcare system, including limits on the pricing, coverage, and reimbursement of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, especially under government-funded health care programs, and increased governmental control of drug pricing.

There have been several U.S. government initiatives over the past few years to fund and incentivize certain comparative effectiveness research, including creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute under PPACA. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of any product, if any such product or the condition that it is intended to treat is the subject of a study. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates. If third-party payors do not consider our drug candidates to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our drug candidates, once approved, as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our drugs on a profitable basis. PPACA became law in March 2010 and substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among other measures that may have an impact on our business, PPACA established an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents; a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program; and a new formula that increases the rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Additionally, PPACA extends manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability, expands eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs, and expands entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program. There have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of PPACA, as well as efforts by the executive branch at various times to repeal or replace certain aspects of the PPACA.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, administrative, executive, and Congressional legislative challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA. For example, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the PPACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Further, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in PPACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the "donut hole" under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how any such challenges and healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact PPACA and our business.

In addition, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue to advance these principles. Further, the IRA, among other things (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. In response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the CMS Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of

prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework.

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, on January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s Section 804 Importation Program (SIP) proposal to import certain drugs from Canada for specific state healthcare programs. It is unclear how this program will be implemented, including which drugs will be chosen, and whether it will be subject to legal challenges in the United States or Canada. Other states have also submitted SIP proposals that are pending review by the FDA. Any such approved importation plans, when implemented, may result in lower drug prices for products covered by those programs.

As a result of PPACA, Medicare payments are increasingly tied to quality of care and value measures, and reporting of related data by providers such as physicians and hospitals. So called “value based reimbursement” measures may present challenges as well as potential opportunities for biopharmaceutical manufacturers. Medicare incentives for providers meeting certain quality measures may ultimately prove beneficial for manufacturers that are able to establish that their products may help providers to meet such measures. However, manufacturers’ ability to market their drug products based on quality or value is highly regulated and not always permissible. In addition, the potentially decreased Medicare reimbursement to those providers that fail to adequately comply with quality reporting requirements could translate to decreased resources available to purchase products and may negatively impact marketing or utilization of our drug candidates if they are approved for marketing. We cannot predict at this time what impact, if any, the longer-term shift towards value based reimbursement will have on any of our drug candidates in either the Medicare program, or in any other third party payor programs that may similarly tie payment to provider quality.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since PPACA was enacted. In August 2011, the President signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend proposals in spending reductions to Congress. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve its targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reductions to several government programs. These reductions include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which began in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will continue until 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Additional legislative proposals to reform healthcare and government insurance programs, along with the trend toward managed healthcare in the United States, could influence the purchase of medicines and reduce reimbursement and/or coverage of our product candidates, if approved.

Exclusivity and Approval of Competing Products

Hatch-Waxman Patent Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or a method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or 505(b)(2) NDA. Generally, an ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths, dosage form and route of administration as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent throughin vitroorin vivotesting or otherwise to the listed drug. ANDA applicants are not required to conduct or submit results of preclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or efficacy of their drug product, other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug, and can often

be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug. 505(b)(2) NDAs generally are submitted for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form or indication.

The ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except when the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed drug. A certification that the proposed product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicate that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of notice of the Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

Hatch-Waxman Non-Patent Exclusivity

Market and data exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications for competing products. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or noninfringement.

The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA or 505(b)(2) NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant, are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application or supplement. Three-year exclusivity may be awarded for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosages, strengths or dosage forms of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Orphan Drug Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug or biological product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an

NDA or biologics license application. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for such drug for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the EU has similar, but not identical, benefits.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan drug exclusivity periods described above. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or Orange Book listed patent protection cover the drug are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application owing to regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. If any of our drug candidates is approved, we anticipate seeking pediatric exclusivity when it is appropriate.

Foreign Regulation

In order to market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of our drug candidates. For example, in the EU, we must obtain authorization of a clinical trial application, or CTA, in each member state in which we intend to conduct a clinical trial. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a drug, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the drug in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2023, we had 35 full-time employees, all of whom are located in the United States. None of our employees is represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward high performing employees through the granting of equity-based compensation awards in order to increase shareholder value and the success of our company by motivating employees to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our company objectives. We monitor our compensation, benefits, and exit interview data and make changes as needed to enable the ongoing recruitment and selection of talented new employees, as well as to retain existing talent. Our Core Values underpin our mission on how we build our drug development pipeline, and how we establish relationships with employees, patients, healthcare providers, researchers and stakeholders.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 2003. Our principal executive offices are located at 9708 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Our telephone number is (240) 243-1201.

“GlycoMimetics,” the GlycoMimetics logo and other trademarks or service marks of GlycoMimetics, Inc. appearing in this Annual Report are the property of GlycoMimetics, Inc. This Annual Report contains additional trade names, trademarks and service marks of others, which are the property of their respective owners.

Available Information

Our internet website address is www.glycomimetics.com. In addition to the information contained in this Annual Report, information about us can be found on our website. Our website and information included in or linked to our website are not part of this Annual Report.

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Additionally the SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information. The address of the SEC’s website is www.sec.gov.