Transcode Therapeutics, Inc.

Overview

TransCode is an RNA oncology company created on the belief that cancer can be defeated through the intelligent design and effective delivery of RNA therapeutics. For decades, ribonucleic acid, or RNA, has been a topic of investigation by the scientific community as a potentially attractive therapeutic modality because it can target any gene and it lends itself to rational and straightforward drug design. RNA-based therapeutics are highly selective to their targets, potentially making available a broad array of previously undruggable targets in the human genome. We believe that a major limitation in using RNA as a therapeutic for cancer has been delivering it to tumors effectively. Our TTX platform, described in more detail below, is intended to overcome delivery issues of stability, efficiency, and immunogenicity faced by existing lipid and liposomal nanoparticle platforms while optimizing targeting of and accumulation in tumor cells and metastatic sites. The ability to deliver RNA therapeutics inside tumors and metastases gives us the potential to target genes of importance for cancer treatment that, until now, have remained undruggable using an RNA approach. We believe that demonstrating our ability to overcome the challenge of RNA delivery to genetic targets outside the liver, and specifically to tumors and metastases, would represent a major step forward in unlocking therapeutic access to genetic targets involved in a range of cancers.

TransCode has created a design engine to customize the development of RNA therapeutics. Our engine is modular, both at the levels of the core delivery vehicle, which we call TTX, and with respect to therapeutic loading. The size, charge, and surface chemistry of TTX can be tuned to optimize (i) delivery to the intended genetic target and (ii) the therapeutic load. The therapeutic load, consisting of synthetic oligonucleotides, can also be adapted to the specific approach being developed. Approaches can include RNA interference, or RNAi, such as small interfering RNAs, or siRNAs, and non-coding RNA mimics. Other approaches can include antisense oligonucleotides, or ASOs, as well as Pattern Recognition Receptors such as RIG-I. Our TTX platform can further be used for developing radioligand, small molecule, antibody, peptide, or protein-based therapeutics and other custom products targeting known and novel biomarkers and other genetic elements as they are discovered and validated.

Our lead therapeutic candidate, TTX-MC138, targets microRNA-10b, or miR-10b, a master regulator of metastatic cell viability in a range of cancers, including breast, pancreatic, ovarian, colon, glioblastomas, and several others. TransCode submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, an exploratory Investigational New Drug application, or eIND, on November 30, 2022. The eIND was to conduct a First-in-Human, or FIH, clinical trial with a radiolabeled form of TTX-MC138 called TTX-MC138-NODAGA-Cu 64. We received written authorization from the agency on December 23, 2022, to proceed with the Phase 0 clinical trial. The trial was designed to demonstrate quantitative delivery of TTX-MC138 to metastatic lesions in subjects with advanced solid tumors. On May 29, 2024, we announced preliminary data from our Phase 0 clinical trial with radiolabeled TTX-MC138 suggesting effective targeting of metastatic lesions and pharmacodynamic activity in blood, even at a microdose. The results from the patient dosed in the Phase 0 clinical trial indicate that a microdose of radiolabeled TTX-MC138 resulted in significant inhibition of the drug candidate’s molecular target, miRNA-10b, in the patient’s blood. Specifically, after injection, the amount of miR-10b in the patient’s blood at 24 hours following dosing was approximately 66% lower than levels prior to administration of radiolabeled TTX-MC138. We believe these data support our belief that clinical development of TTX-MC138 has the potential for clinical benefit in patients with metastatic cancer. In addition, the Phase 0 clinical trial also quantified the amount of drug candidate delivered to metastatic lesions, providing further indication that TTX-MC138 accumulated in metastatic tumors. The increase of radioactive lesion-to-blood ratios suggests that circulating TTX-MC138 is actively taken up by the cancerous tissue. Overall, the microdose of radiolabeled TTX-MC138 was well tolerated with no adverse events observed. We are currently finalizing the clinical study report and plan to share the results through publication in a scientific journal.

After submitting an Investigational New Drug application, or IND, for a Phase I/II clinical trial with TTX-MC138, on April 14, 2024, we received an Investigational New Drug “Study May Proceed” letter from the FDA to conduct a Phase I/II clinical trial. The clinical trial is an open-label, multicenter study in cancer patients with advanced solid tumors. The objectives of this trial are to evaluate the safety and tolerability of escalating dose levels of TTX-MC138 to determine its maximum tolerated dose, or MTD from which we anticipate selecting a recommended Phase 2 dose, or RP2D, level. On September 17, 2024, we announced the dosing of the

first subject in the Phase I/II study. On October 10, 2024, we announced completion of the first cohort of three patients in the Phase I clinical trial, and, on October 23, 2024, we announced receipt of the clinical trial Safety Review Committee’s authorization to proceed with dosing the second patient cohort. On January 14, 2025, we announced dosing of the first patient in Cohort 3 of our phase I/II study. On March 13, 2025, we announced approval from the clinical trial Safety Review Committee to open the fourth cohort and enroll additional patients in Cohort 3 to build upon the safety profile of TTX-MC138. Preliminary data indicate no significant safety or dose limiting toxicities reported in Cohorts 1, 2, or 3 and PK and PD data from patients in Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 is consistent with preclinical results and results from our Phase 0 clinical trial. Key assessments in the clinical trial characterize the safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and anti-tumor activity thus identifying a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and ensuring the mechanism of action is on target. The study also is exploring the effect of TTX-MC138 on biomarker expression, which may include miR-10b expression, and miR-10b downstream targets (RNA sequencing). Clinical assessments to further evaluate TTX-MC138 include clinical laboratory exams, CT scan assessments, and response assessments per RECIST.

Our preclinical programs include TTX-siPDL1, an siRNA-based modulator of programmed death-ligand 1, or PD-L1, and two indication-agnostic programs, TTX-RIGA, an RNA-based agonist of the retinoic acid- inducible gene I, or RIG-I, targeting activation of innate immunity in the tumor microenvironment; and TTX-siMYC, an siRNA-based MYC inhibitor.

MD Anderson Cancer Center Alliance

In late 2024, we and The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (“MD Anderson”) agreed to amend our five-year strategic collaboration agreement in favor of MD Anderson focusing solely on participation in our Phase 1/II clinical trial. This amendment relieved us from the obligation to make up to $10 million of collaboration payments. We are obligated to pay charges incurred by MD Anderson in connection with the clinical trial.

Proprietary TTX Drug Design Engine

The therapeutic potential of RNA in oncology remains an unrealized promise due to the difficulty in safely and effectively delivering oligonucleotides to tumors. TransCode believes it is now closer to solving this challenge by means of a proprietary drug design engine, our TTX platform.

TTX has been used successfully to deliver oligonucleotide, peptide, small molecule, radioligand, and protein payloads to cancer cells in preclinical animal models. In addition, TTX has been used to deliver oligonucleotide payloads to macrophages in multiple organs, including lungs, liver, lymph nodes, and tumors. The TTX design engine can be tailored in terms of size, charge, surface coating, conjugation chemistry, and payload to meet desired PK, PD, and tissue targeting specifications. The TTX drug design engine is envisioned for the treatment of cancer and pathologies related to macrophage dysfunction.

Our Lead Therapeutic Candidate

Our scientific co-founders developed TransCode’s initial therapeutic candidate at The General Hospital Corporation, d/b/a Massachusetts General Hospital, or MGH, to target microRNA-10b, a well-validated biomarker linked to metastatic cancer. In contrast, most anti-cancer therapies target primary tumors and do not address metastatic disease specifically. MicroRNA-10b has been shown to be the master regulator of metastatic disease in multiple tumor types. Effective therapeutics have not been developed targeting microRNA-10b because of challenges in delivering nucleic acids to tumors despite microRNA-10b’s strong association with cancer metastasis, as documented in over 700 peer-reviewed scientific publications deposited on PubMed that refer to miR-10b.

TTX-MC138 leverages TransCode’s TTX drug design engine to target miRNA-10b using antisense technology.

Our scientific co-founders conducted a variety of preclinical animal studies involving human metastatic breast cancer models. In these studies, TTX-MC138 was successfully delivered to existing metastatic lesions in the lymph nodes, lungs, and bones as shown by non-invasive imaging performed 24 hours after injection. In five separate studies involving over 125 mice, TTX-MC138 was injected into mice in which human metastatic breast cancer cells had been implanted. These mouse models included the rodent 4T1-luc2 orthotopic allograft, which is a very aggressive model of stage IV metastatic breast cancer, the human MDA-MB-231-luc-D3H2LN xenograft, which is a stage II/III cancer model, and the human MDA-MB-231-BrM2-831 xenograft, which is a model of breast cancer metastatic to the brain. Tumors in mice implanted with MDA-MB-231 cells typically progress from localized disease to lymph node

metastases within 21 days of implantation. Tumors in mice implanted with 4T1-luc2 cells typically progress to distant sites in the animals within 10 days of implantation.

To test TTX-MC138 in the model of lymph node metastatic breast cancer, mice had their primary tumors surgically removed four to five weeks after tumor inoculation, following confirmation of lymph node metastases via imaging. This was done to better simulate a clinical scenario, since the current standard of care involves surgical removal of the primary tumor in patients with lymph node metastatic breast cancer. Treatment with TTX-MC138 was then initiated during the week of tumor removal. Because tumors in mice replicate more rapidly than is typical in humans, we combined low-dose doxorubicin with TTX- MC138 because doxorubicin slows metastatic cell replication specific to these tumor models. Doing so allowed TTX-MC138 to inhibit the targeted RNA (miR-10b) inside the tumor cells more efficiently.

After four weeks of therapy, metastases in mice treated with TTX-MC138 regressed. By contrast, in the control groups, there was metastatic progression (Within-Subjects ANOVA: p < 0.05). Treatment was discontinued once complete metastatic regression was observed. By the end of the study at 12 weeks, there was no recurrence and 100% survival in treated subjects representing this cancer model.

In similar studies involving mice implanted with 4T1-luc2 breast tumors, we observed regression of distant metastases by week six, at which point treatment was stopped (Within-Subjects ANOVA: p < 0.05). Despite stopping treatment, the animals remained metastasis-free and by the end of the study, no recurrence of disease had been observed. There was evidence of complete regression without recurrence in 65% of treated subjects while 35% progressed due to insufficient inhibition of miR-10b in this group. We believe this was due to the high rate of tumor cell replication in this model resulting in dilution of the therapeutic. We do not expect this to be the case in humans with metastatic disease, in whom tumor cell replication is dramatically slower than in mice.

In 2023, we conducted a FIH clinical trial with TTX-MC138-NODAGA-Cu 64 (a radiolabeled version of TTX-MC138). Trial subjects were to receive a single injection of a microdose of TTX-MC138-NODAGA-Cu 64, followed by imaging by integrated positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging, or PET-MRI. The Phase 0 trial intended to quantify the amount of radiolabeled TTX-MC138 delivered to metastatic lesions and the pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of the therapeutic candidate in cancer patients. One patient was dosed in the Phase 0 trial. On May 29, 2024, we announced new preliminary data from the Phase 0 clinical trial suggesting anti-tumor activity. The new results from the patient dosed in the Phase 0 clinical trial indicate that a microdose of radiolabeled TTX-MC138 resulted in significant inhibition of the drug candidate’s molecular target, miRNA-10b, in the patient’s blood. Specifically, after injection, the amount of miR-10b in the patient’s blood at 24 hours following dosing was approximately 66% lower than levels prior to administration of radiolabeled TTX-MC138. We believe these data support our belief that clinical development of TTX-MC138 has the potential for clinical benefit in patients with metastatic cancer. In addition, the Phase 0 clinical trial also quantified the amount of drug candidate delivered to metastatic lesions, providing further eindication that TTX-MC138 accumulated in metastatic tumors. The increase of radioactive lesion-to-blood ratios suggests that circulating TTX-MC138 is actively taken up by the cancerous tissue. Overall, the microdose of radiolabeled TTX-MC138 was well tolerated with no adverse events observed. We are preparing the study’s final report and plan to publish the complete results.

In April 2024, we received an Investigational New Drug “Study May Proceed” letter from the FDA to conduct a Phase I/II clinical trial with TTX-MC138. The Phase I/II clinical trial is an open-label, multicenter study in cancer patients with advanced solid tumors. The objectives of this trial are to evaluate safety and tolerability of escalating dose levels of TTX-MC138. The objective of the dose-escalation stage of the trial is to determine the maximum tolerated dose, or MTD, of TTX-MC138 from which we anticipate selecting a recommended Phase 2 dose, or RP2D, level. On September 17, 2024, we announced the dosing of the first patient in the Phase I/II clinical trial. On October 10, 2024, we announced completion of the initial dosing of the first cohort’s three patients, and, on October 23, 2024, we announced receipt of the clinical trial’s Safety Review Committee’s authorization to proceed with dosing the second patient cohort. On January 14, 2025, we announced dosing the first patient in Cohort 3 of the clinical trial. On February 6, 2025, we announced completion of the initial dosing of Cohort 3. On March 13, 2025, we announced the Safety Review Committee’s approval to begin dosing the fourth cohort of the clinical trial. We announced the initial dosing of the first patient in Cohort 4 on March 27, 2024. Key assessments in the clinical trial characterize the safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and anti-tumor activity thus identifying a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and ensuring the mechanism of action is on target. The study is also exploring the effect of TTX-MC138 on biomarker expression, which may include miR-10b expression, and miR-10b downstream targets (RNA sequencing). Clinical assessments to further evaluate TTX-MC138 include clinical laboratory exams, CT scan assessments, and response assessments per RECIST.

We believe that demonstrating our ability to overcome the challenge of RNA delivery to genetic targets outside of the liver, and specifically to tumors and metastases, would represent a major step forward in unlocking therapeutic access to genetic targets involved in a range of cancers.

Modular Design Toolbox

We employ a design engine to enable development of therapeutic candidates that we believe can be efficiently delivered to genetic targets inside tumor cells. This approach is based on four complementary elements that together address the challenges of RNA drug development in oncology:

Genetic Code — Our approach to drug development takes advantage of our rapidly expanding knowledge about the human genome and the annotation of the genome — the knowledge about what different genes are responsible for especially in cancer. Armed with this knowledge, we can take advantage of the coded nature of the genome to design specific oligos that correspond to genetic targets of interest. Once we determine the code of the cancer target, we can develop therapeutic candidates using specific oligos that are harmonized to that target and potentially rewrite the story on cancer. This is what TransCode means — to change the code. After determining the genetic target of interest, we may be able to choose from a variety of RNA approaches best suited for that target. Those approaches will likely range from RNAi, which include siRNAs, antisense oligonucleotides, and non-coding RNA mimics; or Pattern Recognition Receptors like RIG-I.

Modular Design for Therapeutic Development — Our discovery platform consists of a modular ‘toolbox’ for developing therapeutic candidates designed to attack specific disease-causing RNA targets based on the phenomenon of genetic complementarity. These therapeutic candidates incorporate synthetic oligonucleotides, or oligos, that can be designed as antagomirs, mimics, miRNA sponges, siRNA duplexes, ribozymes, and others depending on the desired therapeutic strategy. In addition to the varied oligo design approach, we can also synthesize therapeutics with tunable chemistry properties. Combined, the modularity and tunability of these oligonucleotides and nanocarrier components may enable the potential to synthesize libraries of therapeutic agents designed for a given indication or a given patient in terms of therapeutic oligonucleotide design, size, surface coating and charge, hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity, and antigen- targeting through incorporation of targeting peptides.

Delivery — Our strategy seeks to leverage a modular carrier that can be tailored in terms of size, charge, conjugation chemistry, payload release mechanism and kinetics, in order to meet predesigned PK, PD, biodistribution, and tissue targeting. This delivery technology differentiates us from competitive delivery approaches, many of which rely on lipid particles or chemical structures, such as GalNAc. Competitive delivery approaches effectively target sites in the liver but not sites in tumors and metastases. Our carrier is optimized for targeting cancer cells and macrophages.

We believe that our competitive advantages include effectively reaching tumors and metastases, achieving robust target engagement in tumor cells, and an anticipated wide therapeutic window based on our clinical and preclinical experience.

Image Guided** —**Because our therapeutic candidates are innately detectable using non-invasive imaging, we can monitor their delivery to the tissue of interest and measure their bioavailability. The ability to monitor delivery using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or MRI, can be instrumental in assessing and controlling the amount of oligonucleotide that reaches the targeted tissues. MRI use during the design phase of the therapeutic candidate could guide drug design, delivery schedule, route, and dose and could suggest alternatives should treatment with the therapeutic candidate fail in a given patient. This is critical during drug development because it should allow us to optimize drug design to maximize therapeutic effect.

The following graphic summarizes our modular design approach:

Our Team

At TransCode, we are driven to change how cancer is treated both as a therapeutic modality and in terms of improving patient outcomes. We believe in the potential of RNA therapeutics to offer patients complete regression of their disease without recurrence rather than the current norm of giving patients additional months of survival. We are led by an experienced team of dedicated scientists and experts with decades of experience in the foundational areas of RNA and drug development, including RNA chemistry and biology, and nanotechnology. Our Interim CEO, Thomas Fitzgerald, has experience with financings, mergers, acquisitions, licensings, partnership collaborations and other corporate transactions. Dr. Zdravka Medarova, our Co-Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, is a geneticist and cancer biologist by training. She is an internationally recognized leader in the field of non-coding RNAs for cancer therapy and one of the inventors of TransCode’s technology. She developed the core TTX delivery platform and validated many of the therapeutic targets. Dr. Anna Moore, our other scientific Co-Founder, is internationally known for her groundbreaking research on targeted imaging and image-guided therapy. Mr. Fitzgerald, who also serves as our CFO, has over 30 years of accomplishments as a CFO and an investment banker for companies from emerging growth to turnarounds to Fortune 500 companies in the life sciences, technology, financial and industrial sectors. While CFO at a prior company, he also served as interim CEO. In addition, the management team includes Susan Duggan, Senior VP of Operations. Our advisory team and industry-leading consultants have many years of experience in chemistry manufacturing controls, or CMC, scaleup and commercialization of oligonucleotide and nanoparticle-based therapeutics as well as strong expertise in medical, preclinical, quality systems management, regulatory affairs, business strategy, legal affairs, and clinical development.

Our Pipeline

We plan to continue research on a variety of microRNAs and biomarkers involved in cancer cell proliferation, carcinogenesis and metastasis. Our lead candidate, TTX-MC138, entered its first phase of clinical assessment in August 2023. We may request various FDA designations or approvals including Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review and Fast Track Designation based on clinical development results, and Orphan Disease Designation as many cancer indications are classified as orphan diseases. In addition, we amended our worldwide exclusive license with MGH to include a small interfering RNA, or siRNA, therapeutic candidate against PD-L1 in pancreatic and other cancer types including melanoma, breast and non-small cell lung cancer. This technology was invented at MGH by one of our scientific co-founders. We recently evaluated the efficacy of TTX-MC138 applied as monotherapy in a murine model of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In this study, we treated mice bearing human pancreatic tumors implanted in their pancreata with TTX- MC138 once weekly for eight weeks. The candidate demonstrated a pharmacodynamic response by successfully inhibiting its target, microRNA-10b (miR-10b). Serum miR-10b was down-regulated by TTX-MC138 and was shown to be a potential surrogate biomarker of therapeutic efficacy, opening up the possibility of noninvasive monitoring of therapeutic response in human patients. Metastatic burden in these animals was inhibited by approximately 50% compared to animals treated with gemcitabine, the current standard of care.

The following table summarizes our development pipeline:

Our Strategy

Our goal is to become a leading oncology-focused biotechnology company, leveraging our proprietary drug design engine to discover, develop and commercialize transformative treatments that could result in cancer being managed as a chronic disease. Our primary near-term objective is to complete our Phase 1 clinical trial with TTX-MC138. Key components of our strategy include the following:

Background of RNA

RNA has long been viewed as an attractive therapeutic modality because it can be used to target a wide array of diseases; it involves rational and straightforward drug design, the drugs are highly selective for their target, and nominal amounts of drug are required to achieve powerful therapeutic activity. In addition, such drugs have the ability to engage targets that are otherwise ‘undruggable’ by targeted therapeutics, such as small molecules and monoclonal antibodies, thus opening up whole new avenues for treating intractable diseases. Turning this concept into a clinical reality, however, is no small feat. Therapeutic nucleic acids, such as mRNA, ASOs and siRNAs have been in clinical development for decades, and for much of this time, clinical success has been out of reach. This lack of clinical success is due to three delivery-related challenges:

Because of these challenges, RNA as a cancer treatment modality has been bypassed largely by the interest in other forms of treatment including immunotherapy. One enticing feature of RNA-targeting therapeutics is that once chemistry and delivery are optimized, designing and producing a lead compound for a new target based on the TTX design engine is relatively straightforward, and theirin vivo pharmacokinetic profiles are highly predictable. This means that the timeline from target identification to preclinical proof of concept in animal models should be measurable in months rather than years, more often the norm for drug development. This is reflected in a burgeoning industry clinical pipeline: currently more than a hundred investigational RNA-targeting drugs are under clinical development for disease indications encompassing neurodegeneration, metabolic and cardiovascular disorders and various cancers. Advancements in the field are now accelerating after years of slow progress. In 2016, nusinersen, a splice-switching ASO, was approved by the FDA and became the first oligonucleotide drug to treat spinal muscular atrophy, a rare and often fatal disease of the nervous system, and 2018 witnessed the first ever approval of an RNAi drug — patisiran — to treat polyneuropathy of hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis, another rare and devastating disease mediated by the liver. These successes validated the clinical utility of RNA-targeting therapeutics and brought forward lifesaving drugs for patients who previously had no effective treatment options.

Our scientific approach is based on three complementary elements that address these challenges: the ability to precisely deliver an oligonucleotide to an RNA target without compromising the integrity of the oligonucleotide; a platform on which to develop oligonucleotides that are designed to attack specific disease-causing RNA targets; and an imaging capability for optimal targeting which can guide therapeutic intervention.

Our scientific co-founders initially developed the lead therapeutic candidate while at MGH to address the challenge of targeting microRNA-10b, a well validated target linked to metastatic cancer, which has been shown to cause up to approximately 90% of all cancer deaths. In contrast, most anti-cancer therapies target primary tumors and do not address metastatic disease specifically. So far, no effective therapeutic has been developed to target microRNA-10b because of the delivery challenges despite microRNA-10b’s strong association with cancer metastasis. MiRNA-10b is a well validated disease target as documented in over 800 scientific publications deposited on PubMed that refer to miR-10b.

TTX Drug Design Engine

The therapeutic potential of RNA in oncology remains an unrealized promise due to the difficulty in safely and effectively delivering oligonucleotides to tumors. TransCode believes it is now closer to solving this challenge by means of a proprietary drug design engine, TTX.

TTX has been used successfully to deliver oligonucleotide, peptide, small molecule, radioligand, and protein payloads to cancer cells in preclinical animal models. In addition, TTX has been used to deliver oligonucleotide payloads to macrophages in multiple organs, including lungs, liver, lymph nodes, and tumors. The TTX design engine can be tailored in terms of size, charge, surface coating, conjugation chemistry, and payload to meet desired PK, PD, and tissue targeting specifications. The TTX drug design engine is envisioned for the treatment of cancer and pathologies related to macrophage dysfunction. We believe that another advantage of our TTX platform is the ability to use noninvasive MRI-monitoring of delivery of the therapeutic candidate to target tissues. We believe that this advantage represents an indispensable tool to assess and control delivery to targeted tissues which has the potential to enhance the clinical development program. Our most advanced program focuses on metastatic cancers, which have been shown to be responsible for up to approximately nine million deaths per year worldwide. In preclinical studies in metastatic breast cancer and pancreatic cancer models in mice, our lead therapeutic candidate demonstrated the ability to be delivered to existing tumors and metastatic lesions and demonstrated complete regression without recurrence of metastasis during the study periods.

In one preclinical study using a stage II/III breast cancer model, our lead therapeutic candidate elicited complete regression without recurrence during the 12-week study period and 100% survival in the treated animals. In another preclinical study using an aggressive stage IV cancer model, our lead therapeutic candidate elicited complete regression without recurrence during the study period in 65% of animals treated. In a third preclinical study in an aggressive pancreatic cancer model, our lead therapeutic candidate inhibited metastatic disease by approximately 50% relative to animals treated with gemcitabine. At the end of the study, only 40% of the animals treated with TTX-MC138 had evidence of metastasis compared to 80% for animals treated with gemcitabine.

The general design of our drug design engine is described inFig. 1. The drug design engine, TTX, has been optimizedfor delivery to primary and metastatic tumors. Based on the literature and our own studies, we believe that the delivery of TTX-candidates to tumors and metastases relies on a combination of hemodynamic, physicochemical and metabolic factors. Our therapeutic candidates distribute to the interstitium (spaces between cells) of tumors and metastases via the enhanced permeability and retention, or EPR, effect, followed by uptake into tumor cells. Tumor cell uptake is also driven by the high metabolic activity of cancer cells, a mechanism that has been used widely in the clinic for tumor detection and staging using noninvasive nuclear imaging. An additional advantage of our design derives from the capability for noninvasive imaging via magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, resulting from the chemical design of TTX.

The TTX delivery platform is highly differentiated from other oligonucleotide delivery systems that have been developed commercially**(Fig. 2)**.

TTX offers the following advantages:

Publications

In collaboration with scientists from MGH, Harvard Medical School and Michigan State University, we have published the manuscripts listed below. The publication by Smith et al. reviews recent progress towards translating short non-coding RNAs into the clinic. The manuscript by Le Fur et al. describes a method for radiolabeling our lead candidate, TTX-MC138, and employing microdosing PET-MRI to assess the tissue distribution of the therapeutic candidate. This manuscript serves as the basis for our FIH clinical trial. The publication by Chen et al. reviews key microRNA targets, including miR-10b in glioblastoma. The study by Moore et al. presents a case study of a feline patient with metastatic breast cancer treated with TTX-MC138.

Nanoparticle Delivery of an Oligonucleotide Payload in a Glioblastoma Multiforme Animal Model. Kim BD, Mondal SK, Kenyon E, Chen M, Mallett CL, deCarvalho AC, Medarova Z, Moore A. J Vis Exp. 2024 Sep 27;(211). doi: 10.3791/66986.

Monitoring of Nanodrug Accumulation in Murine Breast Cancer Metastases. Halim A, Mondal SK, Al-Qadi N, Kenyon E, MacRenaris K, O’Halloran TV, Medarova Z, Moore A.J Vis Exp. 2024 Aug 23;(210). doi: 10.3791/66961.

Inhibition of miR-10b treats metastatic breast cancer by targeting stem cell-like properties. Halim A, Al-Qadi N, Kenyon E, Conner KN, Mondal SK, Medarova Z, Moore A.Oncotarget. 2024 Aug 26;15:591-606. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.28641.

Co-administration of temozolomide (TMZ) and the experimental therapeutic targeting miR-10b, profoundly affects the tumorigenic phenotype of human glioblastoma cells. Chen M, Kim B, Robertson N, Mondal SK, Medarova Z, Moore A.Front Mol Biosci. 2023 Jun 15;10:1179343. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1179343. eCollection 2023.

Clinical Applications of Short Non-Coding RNA-Based Therapies in the Era of Precision Medicine. Smith ES, Whitty E, Yoo B, Moore A, Sempere LF, Medarova Z. Cancers (Basel). 2022 Mar 21;14(6):1588.

Radiolabeling and PET-MRI microdosing of the experimental cancer therapeutic, MN-anti-miR10b, demonstrates delivery to metastatic lesions in a murine model of metastatic breast cancer. Le Fur M, Ross A, Pantazopoulos P, Rotile N, Zhou I, Caravan P, Medarova Z, Yoo B. Cancer Nanotechnol. 2021;12(1):16.

Role of microRNAs in glioblastoma. Chen M, Medarova Z, Moore A. Oncotarget. 2021 Aug 17;12(17):1707-1723.

Case Report: microRNA-10b as a Therapeutic Target in Feline Metastatic Mammary Carcinoma and its Implications for Human Clinical Trials. Moore A, Savan NA, Saavedra PV, Halim A, Yuzbasiyan-Gurkan V, Wang P, Yoo B, Kiupel M, Sempere L, Medarova Z. Front. Oncol. Sec. Cancer Molecular Targets and Therapeutics doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.959630.

On October 12, 2022, we announced acceptance for publication byFrontiers in Oncology of a case study in a feline patient with spontaneous metastatic breast cancer treated with TransCode’s lead therapeutic candidate, TTX-MC138. The study was led by Dr. Anna Moore, Professor and Director of the Precision Health Program at Michigan State University and a scientific co-founder of TransCode.

To test the applicability of our therapeutic strategy in a larger animal, our scientific co-founders conducted a case study with a feline patient that had developed spontaneous mammary carcinoma, or FMC, the third most common cancer in cats and highly metastatic. FMC has high resemblance to human breast cancer compared to mammary carcinomas of other companion animals in terms of relative age at onset, incidence, risk factors, prognostic aspects, histopathology, biological behavior, metastatic pattern and response to therapy.

Importantly, cats experience the same environmental risk factors as humans and are immunocompetent, more accurately reflecting the complex interplay between genetics, the immune system, and the tumor microenvironment than in smaller animals. Finally, there is greater homology between cats and humans than between rodents and humans for specific genes.

Figure 3.* miR-10b expression in primary and metastatic tumors from nine feline patients with FMC. 3A): Representative hematoxylin & eosin (H&E) sections of primary tumors and lymph node metastases showing histopathology similar to human breast cancer. Scale bar = 200μm. 3B): miR-10b expression in primary tumors and lymph node metastases in feline patients. Molecular subtypes are indicated by the color legend. In 55.5% of the tumors, miR-10b expression in lymph node metastases was significantly higher than in primary tumors with 60% of the lymph node metastases being HER2+ (n=3 replicates, p < 0.05).*

In the study, investigation of miR-10b expression in feline tissues confirmed the diversity and heterogeneity of FMC presentation in terms of miR-10b expression and tumor receptor positivity, which was similar to that in humans (Fig. 3). This points to the necessity of obtaining evidence of miR-10b expression from blood and biopsy samples to stratify patients who can potentially benefit from this therapeutic candidate. In human cancer, miR-10b expression has been shown to be significantly increased in later stage

patients and in those with more aggressive types of cancers. We believe that to guide treatment in future clinical trials, patients may be selected based on their levels of miR-10b expression, similar to the current standard diagnostic tests with other cancer markers, such as HER2+. To translate our earlier successful studies in mice to humans, we believe that investigating the effectiveness of the therapeutic candidate in relevant spontaneous diseases in larger animals can be useful.

Previously, we showed that miR-10b plays a pivotal role in supporting metastatic cell viability and proliferation. To inhibit miR-10b, we designed and tested a miR-10b-specific therapeutic candidate, which caused lasting regression of established metastases in immunocompromised and immunocompetent murine models. This case study serves as the logical next step towards the clinical development of TTX-MC138 and may be followed by additional studies aimed at investigating the applicability of feline mammary carcinoma, a spontaneous cancer, as a translational model, bridging human clinical trials centered on noncoding RNAs as therapeutic targets.

Figure 4.* MRI of TTX-MC138 delivery to metastatic breast cancer in a feline patient. 4A) Pre-contrast and post- contrast T2* images (sagittal) of a cat injected with one dose of TTX-MC138. There was a notable loss in signal intensity over the secondary mammary lesion after injection of the therapeutic. 4B) Quantitative analysis of relaxation times (T2 pre — T2 post, ms) of the tissues, confirming accumulation of TTX-MC138. Data are represented as mean ± standard deviation, or s.d. 4C) Coronal post-contrast T2-weighted image showing signal voids identified by TTX-MC138 (arrows) corresponding to lesions in the abdominal area. 4D) Left: Fluorescence microscopy showing accumulation of TTX-MC138 in the lesion (red — Cy5.5 on the nanoparticle; blue-DAPI); Right: H&E staining of the consecutive slice. Scale bar =100μm. 4E) Animal weight during the course of the experiment.*

Figure 5.* Target engagement and accumulation of TTX-MC138 in a patient with FMC. 5a) qRT-PCR of miR-10b expression in primary tumor and lymph node metastases before dosing, and lung metastases and abdominal metastases three months after second dose; brain served as control tissue. The expression of miR- 10b was significantly reduced post-dosing relative to pre-dosing, indicating successful target engagement (n = 3, p < 0.05). Data are represented as mean ± sd. 5b) In situ hybridization demonstrating significantly increased HOXD10 expression in metastatic lesions after dosing compared to that in tissues isolated during original tumor excision. Scale bar = 100μm. 5c) Fluorescence microscopy demonstrating accumulation of TTX- MC138 in lung metastases (left) and abdominal area metastases (right) three months after second dose. Scale bar = 200μm.*

In the case study, a feline patient that previously had failed multiple rounds of standard-of-care treatment for advanced metastatic FMC and was at the end of its life expectancy, was dosed with TTX-MC138. Delivery of TTX-MC138 to the metastatic lesions was demonstrated using noninvasive MRI (Fig. 4). Dosing with TTX-MC138 resulted in durable inhibition of the miR-10b target and induction of the downstream metastasis suppressor, HOXD10, lasting as long as three months after injection (Fig. 5). The patient tolerated the injection well with no adverse effects and vital signs remained within the normal range. The animal resumed normal eating, drinking, and grooming. Complete blood count, or CBC, and blood chemistry profiles did not show significant changes from the normal ranges except for transient elevation of potassium and Na/K ratio possibly due to dehydration. Liver aspartate transaminase, or AST, and creatine kinase, or CK, levels were slightly but transiently elevated after injection. All levels returned to normal two weeks after the injection. Importantly, an initial weight gain of more than 5% was recorded (Fig. 4). Seven weeks after the first dose, the feline patient was dosed a second time and tolerated the injection well.

The case study with our first-in-class miRNA-targeted therapeutic candidate presented here demonstrated its delivery to metastatic lesions. We believe this is an important step in preclinical development and further de-risking of our approach. Initial safety studies demonstrated good tolerability and the general lack of toxicity of the therapeutic candidate, which serves as another important milestone in its translation.

Furthermore, we observed target engagement by our lead therapeutic candidate, manifested as a significant decrease in miR-10b expression after two injections seven weeks apart. It is important to note that efficacy studies were not part of this investigation, and the dose of the therapeutic used here was lower than the animal equivalent dose, or AED, calculated based on the effective dose determined in our previous rodent studies. However, even at this reduced dose and suboptimal dosing schedule, we believe we achieved significant inhibition of the miR-10b target with virtually no toxicity. The patient survived for approximately five additional months compared to its life expectancy prior to dosing. Notwithstanding the need for additional therapeutic and toxicology studies, we believe that in combination with our other preclinical findings, this case study suggests the robustness and tolerability of a novel first-in-class therapeutic approach.

Other Publications

In addition to the above publications, we published findings in BioRxiv demonstrating the feasibility of our RIG-I targeting approach relevant to our TTX-RIGA candidate. This publication can be found at: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.08.519592v1.

Our Programs

Target Identification **-**microRNA’s

MicroRNAs, or miRNAs, are important post-transcriptional regulators (control of gene expression at the RNA level) of gene expression. The recent literature abounds in examples of the key role played by miRNAs in determining cell fate. These examples are particularly compelling with regard to cancer emergence, progression, and response to therapy. Consequently, miRNAs represent candidates as targets of therapeutic intervention. To specifically inhibit cancer causing miRNAs, we design therapeutics capable of first accumulating in tumor cells which then allow for target engagement of the specific miRNA of interest.

The process for therapeutic target identification is now well established. It involves differential expression analysis in cancer cell lines and animal models of cancer. These targets are then further validated as clinically actionable targets through examination of gene expression in genomic databases, such as The Cancer Genome Atlas, or TCGA, which can give us information about level of expression of each target in large populations of cancer patients and can correlate target expression to parameters such as patient survival and other clinical measures of outcome.

Target Engagement

Preclinical Proof of Delivery* *

In our preclinical studies, we used our lead therapeutic TTX-MC138, which is designed to specifically target miRNA-10b. The therapeutic candidate which was fluorescently labeled was injected into mice implanted with a murine breast cancer cell line. In this model, orthotopically implanted (breast area) tumors progress from localized disease to lymph node, lung, and bone metastases by 10 days after tumor inoculation. Optical imaging performed 24 hours after intravenous injection of TTX-MC138 revealed uptake by the metastatic lesions in the lymph nodes, lungs, and bone. Fluorescence microscopy confirmed widespread uptake by the metastatic tumor cells in these organs supporting our hypothesis that the therapeutic candidate, as designed can target disseminated cancer to distant organs. In addition to demonstrating delivery, we have also observed efficient target engagement. We analyzed the expression of the miRNA-10b target in a mouse model treated with TTX-MC138 and observed abolition of the target.

TTX-MC138

Metastatic cancer is the form of cancer which has spread from an original tumor location to new sites in the body. Treatment of metastatic cancer is more complicated than treating early-stage cancer. Most of the treatments for metastatic cancer are focused on providing palliative care. With increases in the prevalence of disease and in life expectancy, there is also a rise in R&D expenditures in the field of oncology.

According to Maximize March Research, the metastatic cancer treatment market size was $83.85 billion in 2023. This market is expected to reach $137.31 billion in 2030, representing a compounded annual growth rate of 7.3% over that period. Rising prevalence of cancer and high unmet medical needs of patients suffering from metastatic cancer are the drivers stimulating the growth of the metastatic cancer treatment market. We are developing TTX-MC138 for the treatment of metastatic cancer. TTX-MC138 targets the validated critical driver of metastatic progression, microRNA-10b. We believe that TTX-MC138 has the potential to improve outcomes over current treatment alternatives currently available as well as other drugs currently in development, which are geared towards treating primary cancer but of limited efficacy treating disseminated malignancy. In preclinical studies of animals with metastatic lesions, TTX-MC138 was successfully delivered to those lesions, eliminated metastasis in the animals and elicited complete regression without recurrence, resulting in 100% survival of subjects treated in a stage II/III cancer model and 65% survival of subjects treated in a very aggressive stage IV cancer model.

MicroRNA-10b (miR-10b)

One of the first miRNAs to be shown as having aberrant expression in cancer was miR-10b. Since the inaugural study on miR-10b in Dr. Robert Weinberg’s lab at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, its role as a metastasis promoting factor has been extensively validated. To date, more than 700 studies have been published on miR-10b and cancer across at least 18 different cancer types. This immense set of information holds possibilities for novel methods to improve the lives of many. The therapeutic target, miRNA, is a regulatory RNA. MiRNAs are placed at the apex of the gene regulatory pyramid and play a fundamental role in defining cell fate. Therefore, we believe by targeting microRNAs, it may be possible to achieve a persistent therapeutic response in cancer patients. Our hypothesis is based on the rationale that the tumor cell phenotype is critically dependent on fundamental molecular pathways of oncogenesis and that altering these pathways can result in very specific and robust therapeutic effects. The miRNA genome is a target because it is uniquely altered in tumor cells and represents a “hub” of carcinogenesis, since a single microRNA can coordinately affect the expression of multiple genes resulting in a comprehensive therapeutic response. In addition, because of the fundamental role played by microRNAs in defining tumor cell phenotypes, evasion of this therapeutic intervention by mutation is less likely. Underscoring the potential importance of microRNAs in health and disease, the 2024 Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded for their discovery.

Metastatic cells are uniquely capable of leaving the primary tumor, surviving in circulation and colonizing a distant organ which has properties distinct from the primary tumor where the cells originated. Cells endowed with this capability evolve in response to an adaptive process driven by a cellular “survival instinct.” Specifically, as tumors proliferate, pockets arise inside them characterized by inadequate resource supply due to failure of the tumor vasculature to keep up with the rapidly increasing tumor cell burden. This generates local inhospitable areas of low pH, high inflammation, and insufficient stromal supportive network necessary to maintain the survival of the tumor cells. As a result, some of the tumor cells within these pockets evolve by activating mechanisms, such as those driven by high miR-10b expression, that allow them to survive in the absence of abundant nutrient supply and to persist without the strong attachment to the extracellular matrix. These newly emergent cells become “refugees” from the primary tumor, invisible to most diagnostic/imaging modalities and resistant to most currently available therapeutic modalities. In our search for the ideal therapeutic target, our co-founders identified microRNA-10b as critical for the survival of these cells. Our lead candidate is designed to enter these tumor cells and inhibit miR-10b. Without the high level of expression of miR-10b, these cells, stripped out of their natural microenvironment, do not have the adaptive mechanism they need in order to survive, so they simply die.

Preclinical and clinical evidence of miR-10b’s role in cancer

Against this conceptual framework, we have designed our lead therapeutic-candidate, TTX-MC138, which is designed with the potential to efficiently inhibit microRNA-10b in metastatic cancers. Studies in mouse models implanted with human metastatic breast cancer concluded that weekly treatment with TTX- MC138 in combination with low-dose chemotherapy was the likely reason for regression of established metastatic lesions in the lymph nodes, as well as distant organs such as the lungs and bone. Once disappearance of the metastatic lesions was observed in treated subjects with stage II, III and IV cancer models, treatment of the animals was stopped, and they were monitored for recurrence of tumors. The study observed no recurrence of metastatic disease within the observational period, suggesting that metastasis had been eliminated.

The choice of microRNA-10b as a target is supported by its potentially broad relevance to cancer. Recent studies have demonstrated that the influence of microRNA-10b extends beyond breast cancer to 17 other tumor types including pancreatic, lung, colorectal, gastric, bladder, ovarian, and hepatocellular cancer amongst others, suggesting that the described approach may be broadly applicable to metastatic disease. In addition, TTX-MC138’s mechanism of action is hormone receptor independent, and has been observed to treat metastatic breast cancer in rodents regardless of hormone receptor type (ER+/-, PR+/-, HER2+/-, or combinations thereof).

Our understanding of the miR-10b pathway and its effects is constantly evolving. However, the downstream effects of miR-10b as we currently understand them include promotion of migration and invasion, promotion of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), inhibition of apoptosis, promotion of proliferation, induction of angiogenesis, self-renewal and effects on immune modulation.

Known microRNA-10b targets include Homeobox D10, or HOXD10, implicated in tumor cell migration and invasion, c-JUN, a critical inducer of cell proliferation and tumor progression, and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), which results in maintained AKT activation, a Ser/Thr kinase associated with proliferation, apoptosis, and growth. This effect on the AKT pathway allows for the improved self-renewal found in cancer stem cells highly expressing miR-10b. The key pathways through which miR-10b exerts its pro-metastatic effects are summarized inFig. 6.

Figure 6.* Key signaling pathways influenced by miR-10b.*

Figure 7.* Depicts TTX-MC138 delivery to metastatic lesions, infiltrating tumor cells to engage and inhibit miR-10b, designed to lead to tumor cell death.*

Mechanism of Action of TTX-MC138

Our therapeutic concept is summarized inFig. 7. TTX-MC138 represents a proprietary therapeutic candidate that inhibits microRNA-10b. In primary tumors, inhibition of microRNA-10b by TTX-MC138 leads to arrest of tumor cell dissemination to local and distant organs. We believe a combination of TTX-MC138 with low-dose doxorubicin may lead to metastatic cell death and complete and persistent regression of already formed metastatic lesions in local and distant organs. Low-dose doxorubicin was used to slow down cell division in tumor cells. In preclinical studies that utilize aggressive metastatic tumor models, the use of low dose doxorubicin was necessary to allow TTX-MC138 to fully inhibit microRNA-10b. Because metastatic growth is slower in humans, the use of a cytostatic such as doxorubicin will likely be unnecessary.

Results

In our preclinical studies outlined inFig. 8, when TTX-MC138 was combined with a low-dose cytostatic (doxorubicin), there was complete and persistent regression of pre-existing metastatic cancer with no evidence of recurrence and no systemic toxicity. In preclinical studies that utilized aggressive metastatic tumor models, doxorubicin was used to allow TTX-MC138 to fully inhibit microRNA-10b. Because metastatic cell growth is slower in humans, we do not believe that a cytostatic such as doxorubicin will be necessary.

Specifically, in a model of stage II/III breast cancer in mice with lymph node metastases, just four weekly treatments eliminated metastatic burden. By contrast, in the control groups, there was metastatic progression (Within-Subjects ANOVA: p < 0.05). Once metastases were eliminated, therapy was stopped. Thereafter, the animals were observed by bioluminescence optical imaging to detect recurrence. No recurrence of metastatic disease was observed by the end of the study at 12 weeks after tumor implantation. This translated into 100% survival.

Figure 8.* Preclinical activity of TTX-MC138 in models of metastatic breast cancer.*

In a model of stage IV breast cancer in mice, we obtained 65% survival. Specifically, in mice implanted with 4T1-luc2 breast tumors, we observed regression of distant metastases by week six, at which point treatment was stopped (Within-Subjects ANOVA: p < 0.05).

We found no elevation in serum biochemistry markers following treatment suggesting the absence of acute toxicity associated with the therapeutic candidate. In addition, histopathology of major organs resulted in no observed gross tissue abnormalities suggesting that there was no toxicity as a result of treatment.

Positive Preclinical Results with TTX-MC138 in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

We recently evaluated the efficacy of our lead therapeutic candidate, TTX-MC138, applied as monotherapy in a murine model of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In this study, we treated mice bearing human pancreatic tumors implanted in their pancreata with TTX-MC138 once weekly for eight weeks. The candidate demonstrated a pharmacodynamic response by successfully inhibiting its target, microRNA- 10b (miR-10b). Serum miR-10b was down-regulated by TTX-MC138 and was shown to be a potential surrogate biomarker of therapeutic efficacy, opening up the possibility of noninvasive monitoring of therapeutic response in human patients. Animals treated with TTX-MC138 showed an approximate 50% reduction of metastases compared to animals treated with gemcitabine.

These new findings expand the potential therapeutic relevance of TTX-MC138 beyond breast cancer, in which activity had previously been shown in preclinical studies, to include pancreatic adenocarcinoma. However, there is no assurance that these preclinical results will be duplicated in further preclinical studies or in cancer patients suffering from pancreatic cancer.

Figure 9.* We have evaluated the efficacy of our lead therapeutic candidate, TTX-MC138, applied as monotherapy in a murine model of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In this study, we treated mice bearing orthotopic xenografts derived from human pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells with TTX-MC138 once weekly for eight weeks. Animals treated with phosphate buffered saline or gemcitabine served as controls. Metastasis was significantly inhibited in animals treated with TTX-MC138 versus controls. The number of animals with evidence of metastasis and the number of metastasis-bearing organs per animal were reduced by approximately 50% in animals treated with TTX-MC138 versus gemcitabine. Importantly, TTX-MC138 demonstrated a pharmacodynamic response by successfully inhibiting its target, microRNA-10b (miR-10b).*

Clinical Development Plan

Phase 0 — First-in-Human Clinical Study

We commenced our FIH Phase 0 clinical trial at MGH, a major cancer center, in August 2023. The primary purpose of conducting this trial was to demonstrate clinical delivery of TTX-MC138 to metastatic tumor lesions. Another objective of the Phase 0 trial was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of a radiolabeled version of our therapeutic candidate. While only one patient was treated in this trial, this patient had metastatic lesions in three locations – bone, lungs and liver – and we obtained the results we expected. Namely, the data from this patient showed that radioactivity consistent with accumulation of TTX-MC138 was detected by noninvasive imaging in the regions of the metastatic lesions previously identified by fluorodeoxyglucose /positron emission tomography. In addition, radiolabeled TTX-MC138 had pharmacokinetic behavior consistent with that expected based on non-clinical IND-enabling studies. The patient tolerated the dosing with no reported adverse reactions. Metabolite analysis indicated circulation of intact radiolabeled TTX-MC138 for more than 20 hours, equivalent to that predicted by Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics (DMPK) modelling, and that the drug candidate analyzed in the blood was identical to that of the manufactured drug candidate, demonstratingin vivo stability. Complete analysis of data from this first patient will be included in the final clinical study report for the study.

The Phase 0 clinical trial offered the potential to:

Figure 10. Evidence of accumulation of radiolabeled TTX-MC138 in clinical metastases.

Phase I/II Clinical Trial* *

In April 2024, we received an Investigational New Drug “Study May Proceed” letter from the FDA to conduct a Phase I/II clinical trial.

Trial Description

The Phase I dose escalation and expansion clinical trial, is an open-label, multicenter study in cancer patients with advanced solid tumors and is designed to assess the safety of the therapeutic candidate in humans, including observing potential side effects, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose, or MTD, of TTX-MC138 for treating subjects with metastatic cancer. It is anticipated that study subjects will have had prior surgical resection of their primary tumors.

Trial Objectives

This study is designed to be a dose escalation and expansion study in which a Bayesian Optimal Interval, or BOIN, Design will be employed to inform dose-escalation among cohorts in the dose escalation phase of the study.

Study Progress

On September 17, 2024, we announced the dosing of the first subject in the Phase I/II clinical trial.

On October 10, 2024, we announced completion of the initial dosing of the first cohort of three patients in the Phase I/II clinical trial.

On October 23, 2024, we announced the clinical trial’s Safety Review Committee’s authorization to proceed with dosing the second patient cohort.

On January 14, 2025, we announced that we had dosed the first patient in the third cohort of our phase I/II clinical trial.

On March 13, 2025, we announced the Safety Review Committee’s authorization to proceed with dosing the fourth patient cohort.

On March 27, 2025, we announced that we had dosed the first patient in the fourth cohort of our phase I/II clinical trial.

TTX-siPDL1

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States with an overall 5-year survival rate of only 8%. Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for patients with resectable disease. However, less than 20% of the diagnosed patients qualify for curative resections, 30% of patients present with regional disease, and 50% present with distal metastases with survival rates of 11% and 2%, respectively. The reasons behind such poor prognosis have been postulated to involve the advanced stage at the time of diagnosis, and resistance to standard chemotherapies. However, these therapies are heavily dependent on the patient’s overall health, and the overall survival benefit for the latest cytotoxic combination therapies is only approximately two to five months.

Considering the tremendous suffering caused by this disease and the modest progress achieved thus far with cytotoxic treatments, we believe there is a need to explore radical, transformative approaches for therapy that attack the disease from multiple angles. The last decade has seen tremendous progress in the field of cancer immunotherapy. In fact, immunotherapy represents the most promising new cancer treatment approach since the development of the first chemotherapies in the 1940s. Checkpoint inhibitors have worked against lethal cancers such as melanoma and some lung cancers — sometimes with dramatic success — and are being tested in dozens of other cancer types. However, pancreatic cancer has proven difficult to treat with conventional drugs and has been resistant to initial immunotherapy approaches. Partly, the reason for this is the tumor microenvironment that characterizes pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which is both immunosuppressive in nature and a physical barrier for antibody and T lymphocyte infiltration. Consequently, it is important to design alternative approaches that combine innovative checkpoint inhibitors that can be delivered efficiently to tumor cells and tumor resident macrophages, and strategies that enhance the permeation of the tumor by T lymphocytes.

The human immune system has T cells that help fight off diseases. T cells are like soldiers that help the body fight infections and other diseases, including cancer. However, cancer cells can escape T cell attacks by expressing a protein called PD-L1. PD-L1 works like a “stop sign” to inactivate T cells. The far left ofFig. 11 shows how cancer cells prevent T-cells from recognizing and killing them by producing PD-L1. To the right of the first graphic inFig. 11 is a graphic that shows how current checkpoint inhibitors work to block PD-L1 expression. On the far right inFig. 11 is a graphic showing how our therapeutic is designed to work using an approach to prevent the synthesis of PD-L1 altogether rather than blocking its function after the cancer cell has produced it. Because TTX-siPDL1 incorporates an siRNA against PD-L1 as its functional component, it inactivates PD-L1 at the post-transcriptional level. Namely, it triggers the degradation and/or translational repression of the PD-L1 messenger RNA (mRNA), preventing the cell from expressing the PD-L1 antigen.

Figure 11.* Mechanism of action of PD-L1 inhibitors. Cancer cells can escape immune attack by expressing a protein called PD-L1 which works like a “stop sign” to inactivate T cells. On the far left is a graphic showing how tumor cells produce PD-L1 to prevent T-cells from recognizing and killing the tumor cells. Second from the left is a graphic that shows how current checkpoint inhibitors work to block PD-L1 expression. The graphic second from the right shows how our TTX-siPDL1 is designed to work — preventing the synthesis of PD-L1 rather than blocking its function, leading to tumor cell death (far right).*

Since we are utilizing an RNAi approach, our therapeutic has the potential to be more efficient, which could allow T cells to recognize and kill tumor cells more robustly than traditional checkpoint inhibitors. At this time, we believe we are the only company targeting PD-L1 using RNAi. As our initial therapeutic candidate, we are developing an alternative strategy that relies on combining gemcitabine (Gem), the standard of care treatment for pancreatic cancer, and our novel PD-L1 inhibitor (termed TTX-siPDL1). TTX- siPDL1 leverages our proprietary drug design engine and is specifically designed to efficiently deliver our therapeutic candidate to tumor cellsin vivo, inhibiting PD-L1 expression by these cells via the RNA interference mechanism. We believe that this approach is advantageous over small molecules or antibodies because the small interfering RNA component inhibits the target antigen at the post-transcriptional level rather than at the protein level. Also, the RNA mechanism has been shown to be catalytic and has been observed inin vitro studies to require delivery of only picomolar amounts of siRNA to the tumor cell for the abolition of the target antigen. By contrast, small molecules or antibodies require the achievement of at least a 1:1 molar ratio of antigen to therapeutic molecule and could be ineffective in the event of a compensatory increase in the tumor cell’s expression of the target antigen.

In our initial preclinical study, we administered combination therapy consisting of gemcitabine and TTX- siPDL1 in a syngeneic murine pancreatic cancer model over a seven-week treatment period. Our study investigators observed significantly lower morbidity and toxicity, tumor regression and a dramatic improvement in survival. In particular, following dose optimization, a 90% reduction in tumor volume was observed after two weeks of treatment. Within the study, 100% of the control animals (i.e., those treated with an inactive version of TTX-siPDL1, named TTX-siSCR, in place of TTX-siPDL1) had succumbed to their tumors within six weeks after the beginning of treatment, while none of the experimental animals treated with a high dose of the active therapeutic candidate, TTX-siPDL1, had succumbed at week six of treatment, and 67% of these animals survived for 12 weeks.

We believe an additional key advantage of our approach derives from the fact that it offers an opportunity to develop a clinically relevant, image-guided treatment protocol that provides knowledge about therapeutic outcome, expressed both as change in tumor volume and tumor growth rate. Importantly, the combination of hemodynamic and metabolic targeting is expected to achieve highly efficient distribution of the therapeutic in the tumor microenvironment and uptake inside tumor cells, as opposed to monoclonal antibodies which are not optimally targeted to the tumor microenvironment. As a result, TTX-siPDL1 could potentially have much more potent target engagement than currently-used checkpoint inhibitors, which are based on monoclonal antibodies.

Our pancreatic cancer studies illustrated the potential of a combination treatment with gemcitabine and TTX-siPDL1. Study mice co-treated with TTX-siPDL1 and gemcitabine showed significant inhibition of tumor growth relative to controls (p < 0.05). This difference was evident two weeks after beginning treatment**(Fig. 12A)**.

The presumed advantage of the combination treatment was demonstrated in the study when assessing animal survival**(Fig. 12B)**. In the study, 67% of the mice treated with gemcitabine and TTX-siPDL1 (high dose) survived for 12 weeks while 67% of the mice treated with gemcitabine and TTX-siPDL1 (low dose) survived until week eight. All of the control mice treated with TTX-siSCR and gemcitabine succumbed by week six. Within the study, all of the mice in the group treated with gemcitabine and TTX-siSCR developed large necrotic tumors, presumably due to the high rate of tumor growth. Tumor necrosis and ulceration were not seen in the animals treated with the combination therapeutic candidate.

Figure 12.* Outcome of treatment with TTX-siPDL1 and gemcitabine, or Gem. The mice were treated with Gem (333.3 mg/kg) in solution with a low dose of either TTX-siPDL1 or siSCR (10mg/kg Fe; 520 nmoles/kg siRNA in both groups) or a high dose of TTX-siPDL1 or siSCR (10 mg/kg Fe, 937 nmoles/kg siRNA in both groups).*

Our preclinical data were used in support of our application for Orphan Drug Designation which we received in June 2022. More recently, we carried out studies in a highly aggressive syngeneic orthotopic animal model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, or PDAC, that is characterized by intense desmoplasia, similar to human PDAC. Specifically, in this model, in untreated animals, tumor volume grew 788-fold over the course of 5 weeks, with 30-40% of the tumor mass attributed to a fibrous capsule. We implanted Hy15549 cells into the pancreas of C57BL/6 mice. Once tumors measured over 2 mm in diameter, as measured by anatomic MRI, treatment was initiated and involved gemcitabine (6.66 mg/mouse) and TTX-siPDL1 at two doses: low dose (1500 nmoles siRNA/kg) or high dose (2000 nmoles siRNA/kg). Our studies demonstrated that TTX-siPDL1 was successfully delivered and effective even in the highly desmoplastic and hypovascular Hy15549 murine model of PDAC, which has been deemed nonresponsive to antibody-based immune checkpoint blockade. Anatomic MRI showed that in the animals treated with high-dose TTX-siPDL1 alone or in combination with gemcitabine, tumor growth rates were lower than in the PBS controls (Fig. 12).

After two weekly treatments with TTX-siPDL1 plus gemcitabine, tumor volumes were four times smaller than in untreated animals. Importantly, animal survival was improved dramatically in animals treated with TTX-siPDL1 plus gemcitabine compared to all other groups. Among the animals treated with TTX-siPDL1 plus gemcitabine, the hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) relative to PBS was 0.08. Interestingly, even in the absence of gemcitabine, TTX-siPDL1 as monotherapy improved survival more dramatically than gemcitabine (HR, 0.24 for TTX-siPDL1 vs. 0.42 for gemcitabine) (Fig. 13). Immunohistology on the tumor tissues post-necropsy indicated that the treatment inhibited PD-L1, increased CD8+T cell recruitment, reduced Treg abundance, and increased immune cell toxicity as measured by Granzyme B levels. These findings were accompanied by lower cell proliferation, as shown by Ki-67 staining. Finally, as an initial measurement of tissue damage due to the treatment, we analyzed major organs by histopathology and saw no differences from the vehicle-treated controls. Considering the aggressive and fibrous nature of the Hy15549 model and its resistance to traditional checkpoint inhibitors, the described RNAi-based therapeutic approach could be promising against PDAC and could make an impact on one of the most intractable cancers which has long evaded the power of modern medicine to deliver long-term survival.

Figure 13.* Combination treatment with gemcitabine and TTX-siPDL1 (depicted in Figure as MN-siPDL1). Image on left: Representative T2- weighted MR images during the course of treatment. Tumors were segmented manually using ImageJ. Graph in middle, top: Change in tumor volume during treatment Graph on right, top: Change in body weight during treatment. Graph in middle, bottom: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrating survival improvement in animals treated with high-dose TTX-siPDL1 plus gemcitabine vs. control groups. Table on right, bottom: Hazard Ratios for Overall Survival.*

TTX-RIGA

Immunotherapies represent powerful alternatives to traditional clinical treatments for cancer. Recent developments in the use of Pattern Recognition Receptors, or PRRs, specifically retinoic acid-inducible gene I-like receptors, aim to harness the innate power of the immune system for anti-cancer therapy. Retinoic acid-inducible gene I, or RIG-I, is a cytosolic nucleic acid sensing Pattern Recognition Receptor of the innate immune system. It is essential for recognizing certain RNA viruses. RIG-I is ubiquitously expressed in all cell types including tumor cells. RIG-I engagement leads to tumor cell death, and to activation of the innate and adaptive immune systems. These factors suggest it could be an attractive therapeutic approach in oncology.

Understanding how to recruit RIG-I in a tumor-selective manner is critical for its adoption and further development as a clinical treatment modality. We are developing a therapeutic strategy for the tumor-selective template-based activation of RIG-I in cancer cells, directed by the specific overexpression of oncogenic miRNAs in tumors. We are in the early stages of the preclinical development of a novel tumor-selective RIG-I agonist to effectively activate RIG-I and induce type-I Interferon signaling and tumor cell apoptosis. RIG-I is ubiquitously expressed in all cell types including tumor cells. These factors suggest it could be an attractive therapeutic approach in oncology although there is no assurance that our efforts will be successful.

Tumor cell death induced by RIG-I activation has been reported in multiple types of cancer, including pancreatic, prostate, head and neck, gastric, and breast cancer as well as glioblastoma. However, RIG-I- based therapeutic strategies face multiple challenges, such as designing highly specific and stable agonists, and developing efficient agonist delivery modes while avoiding uncontrolled release of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Our therapeutic candidate, TTX-RIGA, is in preclinical development. TTX-RIGA is designed to utilize our proprietary delivery system to deliver a RIG-I agonist to tumor cells. TTX-RIGA is intended to activate the RIG-I signaling pathway, in turn triggering an immune response that targets cancer. The results of the testing we have completed support continuation of our research with this candidate. A manuscript detailing feasibility studies with RIGA was recently published in BioRxiv. Furthermore, we have demonstrated successful synthesis of TTX-RIGA and its capability to agonize RIG-I and induce immune activation. In an animal model of melanoma, treatment with TTX-RIGA injected intravenously over six consecutive days inhibited tumor growth and, importantly, largely arrested the growth of secondary recurrent tumors implanted six days after the final treatment due to activation of a type I IFN immune response. This effect was not seen in animals injected intratumorally with a current standard-of-care RIG-I agonist (Fig. 14).

Figure 14.* C57BL/6 mice were implantedsubcutaneously with B16-F10 cells. Treatment was initiated once tumors were established. Treatment continued until day 6 after tumor implantation. On day 12 after the beginning of treatment, a secondary tumor challenge with the same cell line was performed by subcutaneous implantation into the contralateral flank.*

TTX-siMYC

TTX-siMYC is a siRNA-based inhibitor of c-MYC, a widely expressed but currently undruggable oncogene. The c-MYC proto-oncogene is one of the most frequently activated oncogenes and is estimated to be involved in 20% of all human cancers. C-MYC codes for a transcription factor that regulates the expression of multiple genes responsible for cell growth and proliferation, differentiation, programmed cell death, and metabolism.

In cancer, c-MYC is often constitutively expressed. For example, a common human translocation involving c-CYC is critical to the development of most cases of Burkitt lymphoma. In addition, c-MYC has also been implicated in carcinoma of the cervix, colon, breast, lung and stomach.

MYC is viewed as a promising target for anti-cancer drugs. However, it has proven difficult to drug to date at the protein level. This may present an opportunity for us to target the gene at the RNA level.

Accelerated Regulatory Programs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs addressing unmet medical needs or for treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval. The purpose of these programs is to expedite either the development or the review of certain new drugs to get them to patients sooner than under standard FDA development and review procedures. We anticipate seeking one or more of these qualifications, but there is no assurance that we will obtain any of them.

Orphan Drug Designation

The Orphan Drug Act was enacted by the 97 th Congress in 1983 to facilitate the development of drugs that impact smaller patient populations. Benefits available under the Orphan Drug Act include seven-year marketing exclusivity, 25% tax benefits for research & development activities performed in the U.S., a waiver of Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, Fees, and qualification to compete for research grants.

Based onin vivo studies using TTX-siPDL1 to treat human pancreatic tumors implanted in animals, we applied for and, in June 2022, received, Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. In addition, in February 2023, we received Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA for TTX-MC138, also for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. We intend to conduct additionalin vivo studies to support filings of other TTX-based drug candidates in other orphan disease indications including osteosarcoma and small cell lung cancer, or SCLC. In the Michigan State University laboratory of one of our scientific co-founders, animal testing of TTX-MC138 in glioblastoma cells has been completed. Mechanistic studies have produced efficacy signals in combination with temozolomide, or TMZ, in glioblastoma multiforme, or GBM, cell lines. A manuscript summarizing results from this study has been submitted for publication.

There is no assurance that we will obtain any additional Orphan Drug Designations.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Our intellectual property, or IP, portfolio is directed to our therapeutic and diagnostic candidates and their targeted use and development in specific patient populations and in specific indications. Comprised primarily of intellectual asset types of patents, trademarks, know-how and trade secrets, our rights-based portfolio currently consists of seven different patent families and one trademark. Our patent portfolio comprises issued patents, pending patent applications and new provisional patent applications. We have licensed rights to patents issued in the U.S. which we believe provides exclusivity for a significant portion of the potential worldwide market for TTX-MC138, our lead candidate, and are pursuing additional filings in both the U.S. and elsewhere. Patents we have licensed for a TTX-MC138-associated biomarker test have issued in both the U.S and in the European Union.

Trademarks

We own, have applied for or have rights to use one or more registered and common law trademarks, service marks and/or trade names in connection with our business in the United States and/or in certain foreign jurisdictions. On October 20, 2021, TransCode Therapeutics, Inc. applied to the United States Commissioner of Trademarks to register TRANSCODE THERAPEUTICS as a trademark under International Class 005, pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of cancer, diagnostic preparations for medical purposes, having Serial Number 97/083236.

Therapeutic Patent Rights Assigned to TransCode

Nanoparticles Comprising Target Binding Scaffold Proteins and their in vivo Delivery

Template Directed Immunomodulation for Cancer Therapy

Radiolabeled Nanoparticles and Template Directed Immunomodulation for Cancer Therapy

​Therapeutic Patent Rights (Covered under MGH License)

Therapeutic Nanoparticles and Methods of Use Thereof

Biomarker Patent Rights (Diagnostic test)

miRNA Profiling Compositions and Methods of Use

Compositions and Methods for Tunable Magnetic Nanoparticles

Compositions and Methods for Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

Agents and Methods for Treating Pancreatic Ductal Carcinoma

Radiolabeled Therapeutic Nanoparticles and Methods of Using the Same

EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT

In November 2018, we entered into a license agreement with MGH, or the MGH License, pursuant to which MGH granted us an exclusive, world-wide, royalty-bearing, sub-licensable license to certain MGH intellectual property which we collectively refer to as the Licensed Patents.

We are required to pay tiered royalties of a low to middle single-digit percentage on annual net sales of products related to the Licensed Patents. Initially, there were minimum royalties of $25,000 per year prior to the first commercial sale of a product or process covered by the Licensed Patents, and a minimum of $50,000 per year after the first commercial sale of a product or process covered by the Licensed Patent.

Upon the occurrence of certain milestones, we are also obligated to make payments of up to an additional$1.55 million in aggregate. As of the date of this annual report, no milestone events had been achieved.

Unless earlier terminated, the MGH License will expire upon the latest of (i) the date on which all issued patents and filed patent applications subject to the License have expired or been abandoned; (ii) expiration of the last to expire regulatory exclusivity covering a covered product or process; or (iii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of a product or process covered by the Licensed Patents.

In the event of a default in our performance of the MGH License that we fail to cure, MGH may terminate the MGH License with respect to the country or countries in which the default occurs. MGH may terminate the MGH License immediately upon written notice to us in the event of our bankruptcy, insolvency, dissolution or winding up, or if we fail to maintain the insurance required pursuant to the MGH License. MGH may also terminate the MGH License upon written notice if we fail to make payments due under the MGH License. We may terminate the MGH License at any time by providing ninety (90) days written notice to MGH. Any sublicenses granted by us under the MGH License shall be automatically terminated upon the termination of the MGH License, but MGH is required to make a good faith effort to enter into a direct license agreement with any sublicensee who so requests.

Amendment to License Agreement

In November 2020, we and MGH amended the MGH License. Under the amendment, the intellectual property licensed in 2018 was categorized as “Patent Family 1” and a provisional patent filing related to MGH’s nanoparticle technology was added to Patent Family 1. A second patent family, “Patent Family 2,” was created which includes MGH intellectual property targeting PD-L1.

The minimum annual license fee prior to the first commercial sale of a product or process covered by the MGH License was increased to $30,000 per year for Patent Family 1 and a minimum annual license fee of $10,000 per year was added related to Patent Family 2. All other terms of the MGH License including milestone payments, royalties and payment terms related to sublicense income we may receive remain the same as in the original MGH License.

Upon expiration of the MGH License, the licenses granted to us pursuant thereto will be considered fully paid and royalty-free.

COMPETITION

The pharmaceutical industry is intensely competitive and constantly evolving. While we believe that our experience, scientific knowledge and intellectual property provide us with certain competitive advantages, these may not be sufficient to succeed. We face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Most of our potential competitors are larger than we are, and they have substantially greater capital and human resources than we do. Many also have established market positions and expertise and capabilities in sales, marketing, distribution, clinical trials and regulatory matters. Not only must we compete with other companies that are focused on RNA therapeutics and other therapeutics that treat cancer, but also any therapeutic candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize must compete with existing

therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. In addition, we compete with other life sciences companies generally for employees, consultants and advisors, supplies and materials, and laboratory facilities and equipment.

Our competitors may develop more successful products that are similar to ours, but sooner than we can commercialize ours, which may negatively impact our results.

There are several companies operating in the “targeted therapy” space, many of which have existed longer than we have, with the advantages described above. The development of targeted therapies requires the identification of good targets — that is, targets that play a key role in cancer cell growth and survival. (It is for this reason that targeted therapies are sometimes referred to as the product of “rational” drug design.)

One approach to identify potential targets is to compare individual proteins in cancer cells with those in normal cells. Proteins that are present in cancer cells but not normal cells, or that are more abundant in cancer cells, could be potential targets, especially if they are known to be involved in cell growth or survival. An example of such a differentially expressed target is the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 protein, or HER-2. HER-2 is expressed at high levels on the surface of some cancer cells. Several targeted therapies are directed against HER-2, including trastuzumab (Herceptin), which is approved to treat certain breast and stomach cancers that overexpress HER-2.

Another approach to identify potential targets is to determine whether cancer cells produce mutant (altered) proteins that drive cancer progression. For example, the cell growth signaling protein BRAF is present in an altered form (known as BRAF V600E) in many melanomas. Vemurafenib (Zelboraf) targets this mutant form of the BRAF protein and is approved to treat patients with inoperable or metastatic melanoma that contains this altered BRAF protein.

Researchers also look for abnormalities in chromosomes that are present in cancer cells but not in normal cells. Sometimes these chromosome abnormalities result in the creation of a fusion gene (a gene that incorporates parts of two different genes) whose product, called a fusion protein, may drive cancer development. Such fusion proteins are potential targets for targeted cancer therapies. For example, imatinib mesylate (Gleevec) targets the BCR-ABL fusion protein, which is made from pieces of two genes that join together in some leukemia cells and promotes their growth.

There are a number of oncology companies with targeted therapeutics for various cancers with therapeutic candidates in various stages of preclinical and clinical development. Companies focusing on RNA therapeutics for oncology include Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Ionis, Moderna, Alnylam, BioNTech, Dicerna, and Siranomics, among others. We believe these companies lack delivery systems that are able to target genes inside tumors and metastases. We know of no other RNA companies currently in clinical development that have an exclusive focus on cancer and whose pipelines are not limited to a single RNA technology such as siRNA or mRNA vaccines. By contrast, TransCode’s pipeline spans a spectrum of RNA technologies and includes ncRNAs, RNA vaccines, CRISPR technology, and immunostimulatory RNAs solely for oncology.

Targeted therapy

Targeted cancer therapies are drugs or other substances that block the growth and spread of cancer by interfering with specific molecules (“molecular targets”) that are involved in the growth, progression, and spread of cancer. Targeted cancer therapies are sometimes called “molecularly targeted drugs,” “molecularly targeted therapies,” “precision medicines,” or similar names.

Targeted therapies differ from standard chemotherapy in several ways:

Targeted therapies are currently the focus of intense anti-cancer drug development. Spending on targeted therapies continues to grow rapidly in all regions of the world and now represents 48% of total oncology spending, up 36% from 2010. As mentioned above, we are focused on targeted therapies for cancer treatment with TTX-MC138 as an example.

Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy has become an established pillar of cancer treatment improving the prognosis of many patients with a broad variety of hematological and solid malignancies. The two main drivers behind this success are checkpoint inhibitors, or CPIs, and chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, T cells. For checkpoint blockade, current studies focus on combinational approaches, perioperative use, new tumor entities, response prediction, toxicity management and use in special patient populations. Regarding cellular immunotherapy, recent studies confirmed safety and efficacy of CAR T cells in larger cohorts of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Different strategies to translate the striking success of CAR T cells in B cell malignancies to other hematological and solid cancer types are currently under clinical investigation. Regarding the regional distribution of registered clinical immunotherapy trials, a shift from PD-1 / PD-L1 trials (mainly performed in the U.S. and in the European Union, or EU) to CAR T cell trials (majority of trials performed in the United States and China) can be noted.

The importance of immunotherapy is underscored by the fact that the Nobel prize for physiology and medicine in 2018 was awarded to James P. Allison and Tasuku Honjo for the discovery of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein, or CTLA-4, and programmed cell death protein1 / programmed cell death protein ligand 1, or PD-1 / PD-L1. Malignant tumors take advantage of the inhibitory PD-1 / PD-L1 or CTLA-4 pathways to evade the immune system. Disrupting this axis by blocking monoclonal antibodies can induce durable remissions in different cancer types and has led to numerous FDA and European Medicines Agency, or EMA, approvals, among others, for the treatment of melanoma, lung cancer, urothelial cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, or HNSCC, renal cell carcinoma, or RCC, and Hodgkin’s disease.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors are targeted therapies for cancer. Although some tyrosine kinase inhibitors are used to treat other types of cancer, lapatinib (Tykerb) is the only one that is FDA-approved for the treatment of breast cancer. Lapatinib is only used to treat HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

PARP inhibitors

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase, or PARP, inhibitors are a class of drugs under study for many types of cancer, including breast cancer. PARP is an enzyme involved in DNA repair. At this time, PARP inhibitors are only offered in clinical trials for people with metastatic breast cancer. Early findings suggest that PARP inhibitors hold the most promise for people with metastatic breast cancer who have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation.

Cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors

CDK4 and CDK6 are enzymes important in cell division. CDK4/6 inhibitors are a new class of drugs designed to interrupt the growth of cancer cells. The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance) in combination with hormone therapy is FDA-approved for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancers.

PI3 kinase inhibitors

PI3 kinase is an enzyme important in cell growth. The PIK3CA gene helps control PI3 kinase enzyme activity. Some breast cancers have a mutation in the PIK3CA gene, and this mutation can affect PI3 kinase and cause the tumor to grow. PI3 kinase inhibitors are a new class of drugs designed to interrupt PI3 kinase signals and stop the growth of cancer cells. PI3 kinase inhibitors are under study for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

CHEMISTRY, MANUFACTURING AND CONTROLS (CMC)

CMC is an extensive aspect of the IND-enabling process and is critical to setting appropriate timelines and connecting “deliverables” to clinical trials. The term “deliverables” refers to more than just the drug product itself. It also includes analytical

standards and required documentation on drug purity, dose strength, storage, handling and stability. Materials for the analytical development process produced as part of the CMC process must be delivered before CMC development work can begin, as are activities that require analytical support for which time requirements must also be considered.

The design and manufacture of therapeutic candidates such as TTX-MC138 for miRNA targeting in tumor cells has gone through extensive research and development optimization at MGH prior to our company formation. Optimization work continues in our lab and at our CMO. The oligonucleotide drug substance incorporated in the final therapeutic candidate drug product is currently manufactured by our contract manufacturer, or CMO, in Germany. We believe this CMO will be able to meet our needs for oligonucleotide manufacturing meeting current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, or good laboratory practices, or GLP, (together sometimes referred to as GxP) at least for the near term. TransCode has been utilizing the manufacturing services of this CMO since 2017.

We engaged a different European CMO to produce the final therapeutic candidate drug product.

COMMERCIALIZATION

We retain worldwide commercialization rights for our key therapeutic and diagnostic candidates. We currently have no sales, marketing or product distribution capabilities. However, if our therapeutic candidates appear closer to FDA approval, we may explore commercialization partnerships with larger pharmaceutical organizations or out-license sales and marketing of those therapeutic candidates.

We also intend to consider opportunities to license certain of our technologies to other companies with an oncology focus. Our commercial plans and strategy for each particular program may change as programs advance, markets change, we obtain more clinical data, and we assess our capital requirements.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of drugs. We, along with our vendors, contract research organizations and contract manufacturers, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our therapeutic candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of drugs and ensuring subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the United States, where we are initially focusing our drug development activities, the FDA regulates drug products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, its implementing regulations and other laws. Our therapeutic candidates are early-stage and none of our therapeutic candidates has been approved by the FDA for marketing in the United States. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements at any time with respect to product development, clinical testing, approval or any other legal requirements relating to product manufacture, processing, handling, storage, quality control, safety, marketing, advertising, promotion, packaging, labeling, export, import, distribution, or sale, we may become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions or other legal consequences.

These sanctions or consequences could include, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, issuance of clinical holds for ongoing studies, suspension or revocation of approved applications, warning or untitled letters, product withdrawals or recalls, product seizures, relabeling or repackaging, total or partial suspensions of manufacturing or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

The process required by the FDA before our therapeutic candidates are approved as drugs for therapeutic indications and for marketing in the United States generally involves the following:

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our therapeutic candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Preclinical and clinical trials for drugs

Before testing any drug in humans, the therapeutic candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well asin vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish the rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP requirements for safety/toxicology studies. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans, and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the content of the IND or clinical trial design, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks, and imposes a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND may result in the FDA not allowing clinical trials to commence or not allowing clinical trials to commence on the terms originally specified in the IND. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development of a therapeutic candidate, and the FDA must grant permission, either explicitly or implicitly by not objecting, before each clinical trial can begin.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the therapeutic candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirements that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection, inclusion and exclusion criteria and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable related to the anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries. Information about clinical trials, including clinical trials results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap.

FDA additionally allows for the conduct of exploratory IND studies, termed Phase 0 clinical trials. Exploratory IND trials are conducted under an IND early in clinical development, prior to traditional dose escalation, safety and tolerance studies that ordinarily initiate a clinical drug development program. Exploratory IND studies usually involve very limited human exposure and have no therapeutic or diagnostic intent. The goals of an exploratory IND study may include determining whether a mechanism of action defined in experimental systems can also be observed in humans, providing important information on pharmacokinetics, selecting the most promising lead product from a group of candidates designed to interact with a particular therapeutic target in humans, based on pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties, or exploring a product’s biodistribution characteristics using various imaging technologies.

In March 2022, the FDA released final guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how drug developers can utilize an adaptive trial design commonly referred to as a seamless trial design in early stages of oncology drug development (i.e., the First-in-Human clinical trial) to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to drug development and reduce developmental costs and time.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators fifteen days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal orin vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human volunteers and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected

fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

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

U.S. marketing approval for drugs

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, 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. An NDA is a request for approval to market a new drug for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of the drug’s safety and efficacy. The marketing application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be marketed in the United States.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. 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. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Further, under PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, plan to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk-minimization tools.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, which 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 Sponsor product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and other requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

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.

Even if the FDA approves a product, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, 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 and use 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. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant Orphan Drug Designation to a therapeutic candidate intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan Drug Designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. Orphan Drug Designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process, though companies developing orphan products are eligible for certain incentives, including tax credits for qualified clinical testing and waiver of application fees.

If a product that has Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to Orphan Drug Exclusivity, a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same therapeutic agent for the same indication, except in limited circumstances, such as a subsequent product’s showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the original applicant cannot produce sufficient quantities of product. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different therapeutic agents for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same therapeutic agent for a different indication than that for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan Drug Exclusivity could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for the same therapeutic agent for the same indication before we do, unless we are able to demonstrate that our product is clinically superior. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to Orphan Drug Exclusivity. Further, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Rare pediatric disease designation and priority review vouchers

Under the FD&C Act, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious of life- threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the United States a drug for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the United States of such drug. The sponsor of a therapeutic candidate for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug product, referred to as a priority review voucher, or PRV. A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its NDA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its NDA. Moreover, a sponsor who chooses not to submit a rare pediatric disease designation request may nonetheless receive a PRV upon approval of their marketing application if

they request such a voucher in their original marketing application and meet all of the eligibility criteria. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Congress has extended the PRV program through September 30, 2026, with the potential for PRVs to be granted through that date.

Expedited development and review programs for drugs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs addressing unmet medical needs or for treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval. The purpose of these programs is to expedite either the development or the review of certain new drugs to get them to patients sooner than under standard FDA development and review procedures. TransCode anticipates seeking one or more of these qualifications or designations, but there is no assurance that any will be obtained.

A new drug is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast Track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed, meaning that the agency may review portions of the marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application, as well as Priority Review, discussed below. In addition, a new drug may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation if it is intended 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. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program beginning as early as Phase 1, and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for additional FDA programs intended to expedite the review and approval process, including Priority Review designation and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for Priority Review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. Under priority review, the FDA must review an application in six months compared to ten months for a standard review. Additionally, products are eligible for accelerated approval if they can be shown to have an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or an effect on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality which is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

Accelerated approval is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post- approval studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. The FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, unless otherwise informed by the FDA, the FDA currently requires, as a condition for accelerated approval, that all advertising and promotional materials that are intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, and that after 120 days following marketing approval, all advertising and promotional materials must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination or publication.

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 the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval but may expedite the development or review process.

Pediatric information and pediatric exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, certain NDAs and certain supplements to an NDA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA,

amended the FD&C Act to require that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs.

A drug can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

U.S. post-approval requirements for drugs

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, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-market testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

In addition, drug manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our contract manufacturers. Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, product seizures, injunctions, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. There is also a continuing, annual prescription drug product program user fee.

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

FDA Regulation of In Vitro Diagnostics

In vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics and complementary diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices by FDA. In the United States, the FD&C Act, and its implementing regulations and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption or FDA exercise of enforcement discretion applies, diagnostic tests generally require marketing clearance or approval from FDA prior to commercialization. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are clearance of a premarket notification, or 510(k), and approval of a premarket approval application, or PMA.

To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, or for certain modifications to devices that have previously received 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or to a pre-amendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a predicate device, for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of a PMA. In making a determination that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the FDA compares the proposed device to the predicate device and assesses whether the subject device is comparable to the predicate device with respect to intended use, technology, design and other features which could affect safety and effectiveness. If the FDA determines that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device, the subject device may be cleared for marketing. The 510(k) premarket notification pathway generally takes from three to twelve months from the date the application is completed, but can take significantly longer.

A PMA must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, preclinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA, FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the quality system regulation, or QSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. FDA’s review of an initial PMA is required by statute to take between six to ten months, although the process typically takes longer, and may require several years to complete. If FDA evaluations of both the PMA and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA. If FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or the manufacturing facilities is not favorable, FDA will deny the approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by FDA if compliance with post- approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Companion diagnostics identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. On July 31, 2014, FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance document, for novel therapeutic products that depend on the use of a diagnostic test and where the diagnostic device could be essential for the safe and effective use of the corresponding therapeutic product, the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic, although FDA recognizes that there may be cases when contemporaneous development may not be possible. However, in cases where a drug cannot be used safely or effectively without the companion diagnostic, FDA’s guidance indicates it will generally not approve the drug

without the approval or clearance of the diagnostic device. FDA also issued draft guidance in July 2016 setting forth the principles for co-development of anin vitro companion diagnostic device with a therapeutic product. The draft guidance describes principles to guide the development and contemporaneous marketing authorization for the therapeutic product and its correspondingin vitro companion diagnostic.

The use of the companion diagnostic device will be stipulated in the labeling of the therapeutic product. This is also true for a complementary diagnostic, although it is not a prerequisite for receiving approval of the therapeutic as is generally the case with companion diagnostics.

Once cleared or approved, anin vitro diagnostic device, including a companion diagnostic or complementary diagnostic, must adhere to post-marketing requirements including the requirements of FDA’s quality system regulation, adverse event reporting, recalls and corrections along with product marketing requirements and limitations. Like drug makers,in vitro diagnostic makers are subject to unannounced FDA inspections at any time during which FDA will conduct an audit of the product(s) and the company’s facilities for compliance with its authorities.

Other regulatory matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of therapeutic candidates following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

Other healthcare laws

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below.

the government may impose civil fines and penalties for each false claim, plus treble damages, and exclude the entity from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs.

State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances. These data privacy and security laws may differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, which may complicate compliance efforts. California recently enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which creates new individual privacy rights for California consumers (as defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA will require covered companies to provide certain disclosures to consumers about its data collection, use and sharing practices, and to provide affected California residents with ways to opt-out of certain sales or transfers of personal information. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020, and the California Attorney General will commence

enforcement actions against violators beginning July 1, 2020. While there is currently an exception for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA may impact our business activities. The California Attorney General has proposed draft regulations, which have not been finalized to date, that may further impact our business activities if they are adopted. The uncertainty surrounding the implementation of CCPA exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties and sanctions. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from its business.

Insurance Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a therapeutic candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the CMS, an agency within HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs. Nonetheless, therapeutic candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, our operations and financial condition. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor

reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Current and future healthcare reform legislation

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The Affordable Care Act includes provisions of importance to our potential therapeutic candidates that:

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court and members of Congress have introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, then President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021, through August 15, 2021, for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects

and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. The implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA was signed into law. The IRA includes several provisions that have the potential to impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries to $2,000 starting in 2025; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the United States government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would limit the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have one orphan designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product receives multiple orphan designations or has multiple approved indications, it will not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. The implementation of the IRA is currently subject to ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the IRA’s Medicare drug price negotiation program The effects of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. On March 10, 2020, the then Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. Further, the then Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contained proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS implemented certain measures. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. At the federal level, then President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021, affirming the administration’s policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drug and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and, by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the Executive Order also directs HHS to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the Federal government pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry; and directs the FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. A number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation be become effective, but the Trump Administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs (if approved for marketing) or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Outside the United States, ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with government authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

In the European Union, or EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular therapeutic candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the EU provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU member states may approve a specific price for a product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions.

Recently, many countries in the EU have increased the discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.

Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act

On August 16, 2022 the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was passed, which among other things, allows for CMS to negotiate prices for certain single-source drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D, beginning with ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond.

The legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also caps Medicare beneficiaries’ annual out-of-pocket drug expenses at $2,000. The effect of Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

Compliance with other federal and state laws or requirements; changing legal requirements

If any products that we may develop are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws, among other requirements to which we may be subject.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, relabeling or repackaging, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any claim or action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on marketing, sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling or packaging; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

Other U.S. environmental, health and safety laws and regulations

We may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third-parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Government regulation of drugs outside the United States

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 or identification of an alternate regulatory pathway, manufacturing, commercial sales and distribution of our products. For instance, in the United Kingdom and the European Economic Area, or the EEA (comprising the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), medicinal products must be authorized for marketing by using either the centralized authorization procedure or national authorization procedures.

Centralized procedure — If pursuing marketing authorization of a therapeutic candidate for a therapeutic indication under the centralized procedure, following the opining of the European Medicines Agency’s, or EMA, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or, CHMP, the European Commission issues a single marketing authorization valid across the EEA. The centralized procedure is compulsory for human medicines derived from biotechnology processes or advanced therapy medicinal products (such as gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products), products that contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, viral diseases, and officially designated orphan medicines. For medicines that do not fall within these categories, an applicant has the option of submitting an application for a centralized marketing authorization to the EMA, as long as the medicine concerned contains a new active substance not yet

authorized in the EEA, is a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or if its authorization would be in the interest of public health in the EEA. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding clock stops.

In the EEA, new products for therapeutic indications that are authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EEA are similar in principle to those in the United States. In the EEA a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. During this ten-year orphan market exclusivity period, no marketing authorization application shall be accepted, and no marketing authorization shall be granted for a similar medicinal product for the same indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. The ten-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (i) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

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

The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP and the related national implementing provisions of the individual EU Member States govern the system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. Under this system, an

applicant must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial is to be conducted.

Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. The clinical trial application must be accompanied by, among other documents, an investigational medicinal product dossier (the Common Technical Document) with supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2005/28/EC, where relevant the implementing national provisions of the individual EU Member States and further detailed in applicable guidance documents.

In April 2014, the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation) was adopted. It is expected that the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 will apply following confirmation of full functionality of the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), the centralized European Union portal and database for clinical trials foreseen by the regulation, through an independent audit. The regulation becomes applicable six months after the European Commission publishes notice of this confirmation. The Clinical Trials Regulation will be directly applicable in all the EU Member States, repealing the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. Conduct of all clinical trials performed in the European Union will continue to be bound by currently applicable provisions until the new Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable. The extent to which ongoing clinical trials will be governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation will depend on when the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable and on the duration of the individual clinical trial. If a clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial. The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point, the “EU portal”; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

The collection and use of personal health data in the European Union, previously governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive, is now governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. While the Data Protection Directive did not apply to organizations based outside the EU, the GDPR has expanded its reach to include any business, regardless of its location, that provides goods or services to residents in the EU. This expansion would incorporate any clinical trial activities in EU members states. The GDPR imposes strict requirements on controllers and processors of personal data, including special protections for “sensitive information” which includes health and genetic information of data subjects residing in the EU. GDPR grants individuals the opportunity to object to the processing of their personal information, allows them to request deletion of personal information in certain circumstances, and provides the individual with an express right to seek legal remedies in the event the individual believes his or her rights have been violated. Further, the GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States or other regions that have not been deemed to offer “adequate” privacy protections. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the European Union Member States, which may deviate slightly from the GDPR, may result in fines of up to 4% of global revenues, or €20,000,000, whichever is greater. As a result of the implementation of the GDPR, we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules.

There is significant uncertainty related to the manner in which data protection authorities will seek to enforce compliance with GDPR. For example, it is not clear if the authorities will conduct random audits of companies doing business in the EU, or if the authorities will wait for complaints to be filed by individuals who claim their rights have been violated. Enforcement uncertainty and the costs associated with ensuring GDPR compliance are onerous and may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Should we utilize third-party distributors, compliance with such foreign governmental regulations would generally be the responsibility of such distributors, who may be independent contractors over whom we have limited control.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

In June 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the EU (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). Thereafter, in March 2017, the country formally notified the European Union of its intention to EU withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The United Kingdom formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. A transition period began on February 1, 2020, during which EU pharmaceutical law remains applicable to the United Kingdom. This transition period ended on December 31, 2020. This means that since January 1, 2021, the United Kingdom operates under a distinct regulatory regime. EU pharmaceutical laws now only apply to the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (as laid out in the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland). Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from European Union directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of therapeutic candidates in the United Kingdom. It remains to be seen how, if at all, Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for therapeutic candidates and products in the United Kingdom. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, the United Kingdom’s medicines and medical devices regulator, published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021, at the completion of the transition period, which will be updated as the United Kingdom’s regulatory position on medicinal products evolves over time.

EMPLOYEES AND HUMAN CAPITAL RESOURCES

As of March 20, 2025, we had seven employees, all of whom are full-time. Four employees are engaged primarily in research and development, clinical and quality systems, and three are engaged primarily in business development, corporate strategy, finance, and general management and administration. We supplement the efforts of our employees by use of consultants and advisors. None of our employees is represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. Our human capital is integral to helping us achieve our goal to change how cancer is treated both as a therapeutic modality and in terms of improving patient outcomes. Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and future employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate our employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards and cash-based performance bonus awards.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

Our website address is https://www.transcodetherapeutics.com. At this address we make available free of charge our Forms 10-K, 10-Q, and our 8-K reports, including exhibits, and amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after filed with or furnished to the SEC.