ZEVRA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

In addition to the other information set forth in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, you should carefully consider all the risk factors and uncertainties described in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the SEC on March 12, 2025, before investing in our common stock. Other than as described below, there have been no material changes to the risk factors described in that report. If any such risks materialize, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be seriously harmed. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements because of the risk factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and below, and the other factors described in in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Significant political, trade, regulatory developments, and other circumstances beyond our control could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

Trade policies, geopolitical disputes and other international conflicts can result in tariffs, sanctions and other measures that restrict international trade, and can materially adversely affect our business, particularly if these measures affect regions where manufacturing and product development activities take place or raw materials are sourced. For example, the U.S. government has recently imposed tariffs on certain foreign goods, and some foreign governments have threatened or instituted retaliatory tariffs on certain U.S. goods and have indicated a willingness to impose additional tariffs on U.S. products, which could increase the cost of goods needed to commercialize our products and continue development of our product candidates. The extent and duration of any tariffs and the resulting impact on general economic conditions and on our business are uncertain and depend on various factors, such as negotiations between the United States and other countries, the response of such countries, and exemptions or exclusions that may be granted. Countries may also adopt other measures, such as controls on imports or exports of goods, technology or data, that could adversely impact supply chains. As these tensions continue to rise, more targeted approaches on certain products, industries or companies could significantly impact our development and commercialization efforts. Further, such actions by the U.S. could result in other retaliatory actions by those countries which could impact our ability to profitably commercialize our products in those jurisdictions. As a result, our business, operations, and financial condition could be materially harmed.

We are highly dependent on the management, research and development, clinical, financial and business development expertise of our senior leadership team, as well as the other members of our scientific and clinical teams. Although we have employment agreements with each of our executive officers, these agreements do not obligate them to continue working for our company and they may terminate their employment with us at any time. Our future performance will depend, in part, the successful transitions and integration of new senior level executives into their roles and the continuity of leadership among the larger workforce. If we do not successfully manage executive transitions, it could be viewed negatively by our customers, employees, investors, and other third-party partners, and could have an adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

Changes in U.S. immigration policies could impact our ability to attract and retain international talent. As a company with employees outside the U.S., restrictions or delays in immigration processing, visa issuance, or changes to work authorization requirements could hinder our ability to hire or retain qualified personnel needed for our operations. These challenges may increase our recruitment costs or delay key projects that require specialized expertise.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and clinical personnel and, if we progress the development of our product candidate pipeline toward scaling up for commercialization, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel, will also be critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize our prodrug product candidates. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

We recognized an impairment charge related to intangible assets. If our remaining assets become impaired in the future, we would incur additional impairment charges, which would negatively affect our operating results.

We recognized impairment charges of $58.7 million related to definite-lived intangible assets during the quarter ended June 30, 2025. If our remaining assets become impaired in the future, we would incur additional impairment charges, which would negatively affect our results of operations. There is significant judgment required in the analysis of a potential impairment of identified intangible assets and other long-lived assets. Impairment may result from, among other things, significant changes in the manner of use of the acquired assets, negative industry or economic trends and/or significant underperformance relative to historic or projected operating results. For additional information, see Note L of our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Current and future healthcare reform legislation or regulation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates and increase the cost to commercialize our approved products, and may also create similar difficulty for any of our product candidates that may be approved in the future, which may have a negative impact on our business and results of operations.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect the ability to profitably sell our approved products and our ability to profitably sell any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, in 2010, the ACA was signed into law. The ACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly affects the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.

Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our business, including our ability to commercialize and the prices we may obtain for our product candidates that are approved for sale are the following:

•an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs;

•expansion of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers and enhanced penalties for non-compliance;

•extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;

•expansion of the list of entity types eligible for participation in the Public Health Service 340B drug pricing program, or the 340B program, to include certain free-standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers, and sole community hospitals, but exempting “orphan drugs,” such as MIPLYFFA, from the 340B ceiling price requirements for these covered entities; and

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA remains in effect in its current form.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect in April 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect through 2032. 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 and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. In addition, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, beginning January 1, 2024. The rebate was previously capped at 100% of a drug's average manufacturer price.

On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023), and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new manufacturer discounting program (which began in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. CMS has published the negotiated prices for the initial ten drugs, which will first be effective in 2026, and has published the list of the subsequent 15 drugs that will be subject to negotiation, although the drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. The impact of the IRA on us and the pharmaceutical industry cannot yet be fully determined, but is likely to be significant..

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was enacted in July 2025, imposes significant reductions in the funding of the Medicaid program. Such reductions are expected to decrease the number of persons enrolled in Medicaid and reduce the services covered by Medicaid, which could adversely affect our sales of MIPLYFFA®, OLPRUVA® or any other product candidate that we may commercialize.

The Trump administration has also issued executive orders that address the pricing of pharmaceuticals in the U.S. and propose a so-called most favored nation pricing policy, which would tie the price of drugs in the U.S. to the lowest price in a group of other countries. While it is unclear whether and how these proposals will be implemented, the Trump policies are likely to have a negative impact on the pharmaceutical industry. Even proposals or executive actions that are ultimately deemed unlawful could negatively impact the U.S. pharmaceutical sector and our business, for example by causing uncertainty and delaying development and commercialization efforts.

Further, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure, drug price increase reporting and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Some states have enacted legislation creating so-called prescription drug affordability boards, which ultimately may attempt to impose price limits on certain drugs in these states, while some states are also seeking to implement general, across the board price caps for pharmaceuticals, or are seeking to regulate drug distribution. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could negatively impact customers for our product candidates, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations.

In the EU, on December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”) amending Directive 2011/24/EU was adopted. The Regulation entered into force in January 2022 and has been applicable since January 2025, with phased implementation based on the type of product, i.e. oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products as of 2025, orphan medicinal products as of 2028, and all other medicinal products by 2030. The Regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and provide the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It will permit EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the highest potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to recognize promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology, and for making decisions on pricing and reimbursement.

We expect that the healthcare reform measures that have been adopted and may be adopted in the future may, among other things, result in more rigorous coverage criteria as well as additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain or maintain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates.

Legislative and regulatory proposals and enacted statutes have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for drugs. For instance, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act imposes obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, among others, related to product tracking and tracing. Among the requirements of this new legislation, manufacturers are required to provide specified information regarding the drug products they produce to individuals and entities to which product ownership is transferred, label drug products with a product identifier and keep specified records regarding the drug products. The transfer of information to subsequent product owners by manufacturers will eventually be required to be done electronically. Manufacturers are also required to verify that purchasers of products are appropriately licensed. Further, under this legislation, manufacturers have drug product investigation, quarantine, disposition and FDA and trading-partner notification responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products, as well as products that are the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit for distribution, such that they would be reasonably likely to result in serious health consequences or death.

In the EU, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council, and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The revisions may, however, have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business in the long term.

We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA's or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program or other governmental pricing programs in which we participate, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program administered by the states for low income and disabled beneficiaries. We participate in and have certain price reporting obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, or the MDRP, as a condition of having covered outpatient drugs payable under Medicaid and, if applicable, under Medicare Part B. The MDRP requires us to pay a rebate to state Medicaid programs every quarter for each unit of our covered outpatient drugs dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program. The rebate is based on pricing data that we must report on a monthly and quarterly basis to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, the federal agency that administers the MDRP and other governmental healthcare programs. These data include the average manufacturer price (AMP) for each drug and, in the case of innovator products, the best price, which in general represents the lowest price available from the manufacturer to certain entities in the U.S. in any pricing structure, calculated to include all sales and associated rebates, discounts and other price concessions. The Medicaid rebate consists of two components, the basic rebate and the additional rebate, which is triggered if the AMP for a drug increases faster than inflation. If we become aware that our MDRP government price reporting submission for a prior quarter was incorrect or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we must resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. If we fail to provide information timely or are found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties and other sanctions, including termination from the MDRP. In the event that CMS terminates our rebate agreement pursuant to which we participate in the MDRP, no federal payments would be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs. Our failure to comply with our MDRP price reporting and rebate payment obligations could negatively impact our financial results.

The IRA imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D that are triggered by price increases that outpace inflation (starting in 2023), as described under the risk factor“Current and future healthcare reform legislation or regulation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates and increase the cost to commercialize our approved products, and may also create similar difficulty for any of our product candidates that may be approved in the future, which may have a negative impact on our business and results of operations,” above. The Medicare Part D rebate will be calculated on the basis of the AMP figures we report pursuant to the MDRP.

Federal law requires that any company that participates in the MDRP also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and, if applicable, Medicare Part B. We participate in the 340B program, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, or HRSA, and requires us to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for our covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low‑income patients. The ACA expanded the list of covered entities to include certain free‑standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers and sole community hospitals, but exempts “orphan drugs,” such as OLPRUVA , from the ceiling price requirements for these covered entities. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula based on the AMP and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the MDRP, and, in general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. We must report 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis, and HRSA publishes those prices to 340B covered entities. In addition, HRSA has finalized regulations regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities for 340B‑eligible drugs. HRSA has also finalized a revised regulation implementing an administrative dispute resolution process through which 340B covered entities may pursue claims against participating manufacturers for overcharges, and through which manufacturers may pursue claims against 340B covered entities for engaging in unlawful diversion or duplicate discounting of 340B drugs. Our failure to comply with 340B program requirements could negatively impact our financial results. Any additional future changes to the definition of average manufacturer or and the Medicaid rebate amount under legislation or regulation could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and also negatively impact our financial results.

In order for OLPRUVA or any product candidates, if approved, to be paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, we also participate in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or VA, Federal Supply Schedule, or FSS, pricing program. As part of this program, we are required to make our products available for procurement on an FSS contract under which we must comply with standard government terms and conditions and charge a price that is no higher than the statutory Federal Ceiling Price, or FCP, to four federal agencies (VA, U.S. Department of Defense, or DOD, Public Health Service, and U.S. Coast Guard). The FCP is based on the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price, or Non-FAMP, which we must calculate and report to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. Pursuant to applicable law, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to significant civil monetary penalties for each item of false information. The FSS pricing and contracting obligations also contain extensive disclosure and certification requirements.

We also participate in the Tricare Retail Pharmacy program, under which we are required to pay quarterly rebates on utilization of innovator products that are dispensed through the Tricare Retail Pharmacy network to Tricare beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and FCP. We are required to list our innovator products on a Tricare Agreement in order for them to be eligible for DOD formulary inclusion. If we overcharge the government in connection with our FSS contract or Tricare Agreement, whether due to a misstated FCP or otherwise, we are required to refund the difference to the government. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify contract overcharges could result in allegations against us under the False Claims Act and other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and responding to a government investigation or enforcement action, would be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Pricing and rebate calculations vary among products and programs. The calculations are complex and are often subject to interpretation by us, governmental or regulatory agencies, and the courts. CMS, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General, and other governmental agencies have pursued manufacturers that were alleged to have failed to report these data to the government in a timely or accurate manner. Governmental agencies may also make changes in program interpretations, requirements or conditions of participation, some of which may have implications for amounts previously estimated or paid. We cannot assure you that any submissions we are required to make under the MDRP, the 340B program, the VA/FSS program, the Tricare Retail Pharmacy Program, and other governmental drug pricing programs will not be found to be incomplete or incorrect.