Aspira Women's Health Inc.

Company Overview

Aspira Women’s Health Inc. is dedicated to the discovery, development, and commercialization of noninvasive, AI-powered tests to aid in the diagnosis of gynecologic diseases, starting with ovarian cancer.

We plan to broaden our focus to the differential diagnosis of other gynecologic diseases that typically cannot be assessed through traditional non-invasive clinical procedures. We expect to continue commercializing our existing and new technology and to distribute our tests through our decentralized technology transfer service platform, Aspira Synergy. We also intend to continue to raise public awareness regarding the higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for ovarian malignancy of Ova 1 as compared to cancer antigen 125 (“CA-125”) on its own for women with adnexal masses planned for surgery, as well as the performance of our machine learning algorithms in detecting ovarian cancer risk in different racial and ethnic populations. We plan to continue to expand access to our tests among Medicaid patients as part of our corporate mission to make the best care available to all women, and we plan to advocate for legislation and the adoption of our technology in professional society guidelines to provide broad access to our products and services.

We expect our extensive experience with gynecologists and healthcare providers, along with the historical adoption of our OvaSuite tests, to continue to drive growth as we introduce new products. We believe our ability to successfully develop novel AI-enabled assays is superior to others based on our know-how and extensive experience in designing and successfully launching FDA-approved and laboratory developed blood tests to aid in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Moreover, our history of successfully collaborating with world-class research and academic institutions allows us to innovate and provide outstanding patient care.

We own and operate Aspira Labs, Inc., a research and commercial CLIA laboratory in Texas.

Our product pipeline is focused on two areas: ovarian cancer and endometriosis.

In ovarian cancer, we have developed clinical data to support the use of our OvaWatch test multiple times for the monitoring of an adnexal mass. In the second quarter of 2024, we expanded the features of our commercially available OvaWatch test for monitoring of adnexal masses through periodic testing at physician prescribed intervals, marking the successful completion of the vision for OvaSuite. The successful expansion of the OvaWatch mass monitoring feature in the second quarter of 2024 resulted in a tenfold increase in the market for our tests when compared to the addressable market for Ova1Plus of approximately 200,000 to 400,000 based on patients identified for surgery. As a result, we believe the addressable market for our tests to have increased to between 2 and 4 million tests per year.

Our OVAinform development program continues to progress. OVAinform is a multi-marker test that combines serum proteins, clinical data (metadata), and miRNA for assessing the risk of ovarian cancer in women with an adnexal mass. We believe that by including patients with genetic and familial risk, it will increase the addressable market to 2,800,000.

In endometriosis, we are developing and intend to introduce a new non-invasive test to aid in the diagnosis of this debilitating disease that impacts millions of women worldwide. We completed the design of a protein-based non-invasive blood test to aid the detection of endometrioma, one of the most common forms of endometriosis. The algorithm was confirmed with three independent cohorts and is an important input for our ENDOinform program focused on developing a multi-marker test that combines serum proteins, clinical data (metadata) and miRNA for the identification of endometriosis.

Our endometriosis portfolio addresses an even larger addressable market. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, endometriosis affects more than 6.5 million women in the United States. We believe the proliferation of commercially available and in-development therapeutics for the treatment of endometriosis will create a significant demand for a non-invasive diagnostic.

Recent developments:

Our current capital resources are not sufficient to fund our operations for the remainder of 2025. Accordingly, we have been pursuing strategic alternatives and seeking to raise additional capital.

On March 5, 2025, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with certain existing accredited shareholders (“the “Purchasers”) for the issuance and sale in a private placement (the “March 2025 Private Placement”) of an aggregate principal amount of approximately $1,365,000 in the form of Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes (the “Convertible Notes”).

The Convertible Notes, which are convertible into units consisting of one share of common stock and 2.25 warrants (the “March 2025 Warrants”), will be senior, secured obligations of the Company. Interest will accrue and be payable on a quarterly basis in kind at 3.34%, the applicable federal rate at the time of the transaction. The Convertible Notes will mature on March 6, 2030, unless earlier converted in accordance with the terms of the Convertible Notes. In addition, the Company shall have the option to convert the Convertible Notes into units at the Conversion Price if the sum of the net proceeds from the sale of the Convertible Notes and the net proceeds from the sale of any shares of common stock and warrants by the Company subsequent to the March 2025 Private Placement equals or exceeds $4 million.

The March 2025 Warrants are exercisable for five years at $0.25 per share for the first 24 months after issuance, and $0.50 per share thereafter.

The holders of the Notes are entitled to three representatives on our board of directors.

Scientific Basis for Our Products:

Science of Biomarkers: Our focus on translational biomarkers and informatics enables us to address the market for novel diagnostic tests that simultaneously measure multiple biomarkers. A biomarker is a biomolecule or variant biomolecule (e.g., DNA, RNA or protein) that is present at measurably greater or lesser concentrations, or is present in an altered form, in a disease state versus a normal condition. Conventional protein tests measure a single protein biomarker whereas most diseases are complex. We believe cancer and other complex diseases are heterogeneous at the causative level (i.e., most diseases can be traced to multiple potential etiologies) and at the human response level (i.e., each individual afflicted with a given disease can respond to that ailment in a specific manner). Protein biomarkers (our entrenched technology), miRNA molecular biomarkers and metadata (age, body mass index, etc.) each provide independent and non-overlapping evidence for a disease state. This increases the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the test in most cases.

Consequently, measuring a single biomarker when multiple biomarkers may be altered in a complex disease is unlikely to provide meaningful information about the disease state.

We believe that our approach of monitoring and combining multiple biomarkers using a variety of analytical techniques has allowed and will continue to allow us to create diagnostic tools that provide information about the disease state with sufficient sensitivity and specificity to aid the physician considering treatment options for patients with complex diseases. Such assays are sometimes referred to as Multivariate Index Assays (“MIAs”) and often utilize advanced algorithms based on logistic regression, pattern recognition and the like. Often, MIA algorithms are non-intuitive and; therefore, require rigorous clinical validation and error modeling. Aspira and its collaborators are considered experts in these areas and, in the case of Ova1 and Overa, presented both the clinical validation and error modeling needed to gain pre-market authorization from the FDA. In the case of Ova1, the FDA granted a request forde novo classification of an ovarian adnexal mass assessment score test system, a type of in vitro diagnostic device; in the case of Overa (previously Ova1 Next Generation), FDA granted a 510(k) clearance.

Our Business and Products:

We currently commercialize the following blood test products and related services:

(1) the Ova1Plus workflow, which uses Ova1 as the primary test and Overa as a reflex for Ova1 intermediate range results. Ova1 is a qualitative serum test intended as an aid to further assess the likelihood of malignancy in women with an ovarian adnexal mass for which surgery is planned when the physician’s independent clinical and radiological evaluation does not indicate malignancy. Overa is a second-generation biomarker test intended to maintain Ova1’s high sensitivity while improving specificity. The Ova1Plus workflow leverages the strengths of Ova1’s MIA sensitivity and Overa’s (MIA2G) specificity to increase performance; and

(2) OvaWatch, which is intended to assist in the initial and periodic clinical assessment of malignancy risk in all women thought to have an indeterminate or benign adnexal mass.

Our products are distributed through our own national sales force, including field sales, inside sales and a contracted sales team, through our proprietary decentralized testing platform and cloud service, marketed as Aspira Synergy, and through marketing and distribution agreements with BioReference Health, LLC. (“BioReference”) and ARUP Laboratories. In November of 2024, we expanded our distribution agreement with BioReference to include OvaWatch. This timing aligns with our approval from New York State to sell OvaWatch and increases our ability to market the test in New York. This important addition will allow providers who currently order Ova1 through BioReference to also order Aspira’s products for any woman with a mass within their existing BioReference workflows.

Our Ova1 test received FDAde novo classification in September 2009. Ova1 comprises instruments, assays, reagents, and the OvaCalc software, which includes a proprietary algorithm that produces a risk score. Our Overa test, which includes an updated version of OvaCalc, received FDA 510(k) clearance in March 2016. Ova1, Overa and OvaWatch, our first LDT, each use the Roche Cobas 4000, 6000 and 8000 platforms for analysis of proteins. Revenue from Ova1 and OvaWatch is included in the results of operations in total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2024.

In 2021, we began entering into decentralized arrangements with large healthcare networks and physician practices for our Aspira Synergy platform, our decentralized testing platform and cloud service for decentralized global access of protein biomarker testing. Ova1, Overa, and the Ova1Plus workflow continue to be available through the Aspira Synergy platform. As of December 31, 2024, we had two active Aspira Synergy contracts.

OvaWatch has been developed and is validated for use in Aspira’s CLIA-certified lab as a non-invasive blood-based risk assessment test for use in conjunction with clinical assessment and imaging to determine ovarian cancer risk for patients with an adnexal mass whose adnexal mass has been determined by an initial clinical assessment as indeterminate or benign. OvaWatch is the only commercially available blood test available for assessment of the risk of ovarian cancer in women diagnosed with an adnexal mass considered indeterminate or benign by a physician’s preliminary clinical assessment.

We collected clinical data to support the utility of OvaWatch to aid in surgical referral and as a longitudinal monitoring test, resulting in two manuscripts that were published in peer review journals in May 2024. In addition, an abstract highlighting data evaluating the use of OvaWatch to assess ovarian cancer risk in pre- and post-menopausal women was accepted for a poster presentation at the Annual Meeting of The Menopause Society in September 2024.

Outside of the United States, we sponsored studies in the Philippines aimed at validating Overa and Ova1 in specific populations. In February 2024, we signed an exclusive license agreement with Hi-Precision Laboratories to offer OvaSuite tests in the Philippines. In November 2024, Hi-Precision Laboratories communicated the completion of all laboratory and regulatory processes required for it to offer Ova1Plus commercially to patients in the Philippines under the terms of our licensing agreement. Accordingly, it began marketing the test to physicians through its existing sales and marketing channels at that time. We intend to assist Hi-Precision in the design and execution of its commercialization and physician adoption strategy. Building on the successful launch of Ova1Plus in the Philippines, we have created a process roadmap for future global expansion efforts.

We own and operate Aspira Labs, based in Austin, Texas, a Clinical Chemistry and Endocrinology Laboratory accredited by the College of American Pathologists, which specializes in applying biomarker-based technologies to address critical needs in the management of gynecologic cancers and disease. Aspira Labs provides expert diagnostic services using a state-of-the-art biomarker-based risk assessment to aid in clinical decision making and advance personalized treatment plans. The lab currently performs our Ova1Plus workflow and OvaWatch testing, and we plan to expand the testing to other gynecologic conditions with high unmet need. Aspira Labs holds a CLIA Certificate of Accreditation and a state laboratory license in California, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a supplier number to Aspira Labs in 2015. Aspira labs also hold a current ISO 13485 certification which is the most accepted standard worldwide for medical device.

In the United States, revenue for diagnostic tests comes from several sources, including third-party payers such as insurance companies, government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, client bill accounts and patients. Novitas Solutions, a Medicare Administrative Carrier, covers and reimburses for Ova1 tests performed in certain states, including Texas. Due to our billed Ova1 tests being performed exclusively at Aspira Labs in Texas, the Local Coverage Determination (“LCD”) from Novitas Solutions provides national coverage for patients enrolled in Medicare as well as Medicare Advantage health plans. We have applied for an LCD for OvaWatch, which remains under review.

In November 2016, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (“ACOG”) issued Practice Bulletin Number 174 which included Ova1, defined as the “Multivariate Index Assay”, outlining ACOG’s clinical management guidelines for adnexal mass management. Practice Bulletin Number 174 recommends that obstetricians and gynecologists evaluating women with adnexal masses who do not meet Level A criteria of a low-risk transvaginal ultrasound should proceed with Level B clinical guidelines. Level B guidelines state that the physician may use risk assessment tools such as existing CA-125 technology or Ova1 (“Multivariate Index Assay”) as listed in the bulletin. Based on this, Ova1 achieved parity with CA-125 as an ACOG Level B clinical recommendation for the management of adnexal masses.

Practice Bulletins summarize current information on techniques and clinical management issues for the practice of obstetrics and gynecology. Practice Bulletins are evidence-based documents, and recommendations are based on the evidence. This is also the only clinical management tool used for adnexal masses. Although there are Practice Bulletins, guidelines do not exist for adnexal masses. ACOG guidelines do exist, however, for ovarian cancer management.

Product Pipeline

We aim to introduce new gynecologic diagnostic products and to expand our product offerings to additional women’s gynecologic health diseases by adding additional gynecologic bio-analytic solutions involving biomarkers, clinical risk factors and patient data to aid diagnosis and risk stratification. Future product expansions will be accelerated by the development of lab developed testing in a CLIA environment, relationships with strategic research and development partners, and access to specimens in our biobank.

Studies and Publications

On May 7, 2024, we announced the publication of two peer-reviewed manuscripts. The first manuscript, entitled “Ovarian Cancer Surgical Consideration is Markedly Improved by the Neural Network Powered-MIA3G Multivariate Index Assay” was published in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers of Medicine on May 2, 2024. The findings of this study demonstrate that use of OvaWatch to stratify risk in patients with an adnexal mass might help to reduce surgical backlogs and unnecessary surgical referrals. The second manuscript, entitled “Neural Network-derived Multivariate Index Assay Demonstrates Effective Clinical Performance in Longitudinal Monitoring of Ovarian Cancer Risk” was published in the journal Gynecologic Oncology on May 3, 2024. The findings of this study demonstrate that OvaWatch could be an effective tool for the monitoring of ovarian cancer risk over time in women with indeterminate or low risk adnexal masses. Based on common practice for adnexal mass management and consistent with the study, OvaWatch can be drawn by the provider every three to six months for active surveillance of an adnexal mass.

A publication entitledSerum miRNA improves the accuracy of a multivariate index assay for triage of an adnexal mass was published in the journal*Gynecologic Oncology,*August of 2024 from the laboratory of our collaborator Dr. Kevin Elias at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The paper describes the novel combination of microRNAs (miRNAs) and serum proteins to achieve increased performance in the assessment of malignancy risk in patients with an adnexal mass. The miRNAs, discovered by Dr Elias’ team, in combination with serum proteins from Aspira Women’s Health’s proprietary multivariate index assays Ova1 and Overa showed increased sensitivity for detection of malignancy and broader detection of diverse ovarian cancer subtypes. This publication establishes the feasibility of improved tests using multi-omic information. (Webber JW, Wollborn L, Mishra S, Vitonis AF, Cramer DW, Phan RT, Pappas TC, Stawiski K, Fendler W, Chowdhury D, Elias KM. Serum miRNA improves the accuracy of a multivariate index assay for triage of an adnexal mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2024 Aug 23;190:124-130.)

An abstract entitled “Application of a Deep Neural Network-Based Algorithm to Provide Additional Information in the Assessment of Adnexal Masses Classified as Indeterminate by Imaging” was presented as a poster at the Annual Meeting of The Menopause Society in September 2024. This presentation highlighted data evaluating the use of OvaWatch to assess ovarian cancer risk in pre- and post-menopausal women. The data demonstrated that in women with an adnexal mass and an indeterminate ultrasound imaging result, the OvaWatch result indicated low malignant potential of the mass in more than 70% of patients. The use of OvaWatch could provide additional information to reduce surgical referrals.

An EndoCheck-related abstract entitled “Association of the Endometriosis Health Profile-5 (EHP-5) with Non-Invasive Biomarkers in Patients with Suspected Endometriosis” was presented as a poster at the 27 th Annual National Association of Nurse Practitioner’s in Women’s Health Women’s Healthcare Conference in September 2024. This poster examined the association of biomarkers for ovarian endometriosis (endometrioma) with quality-of-life survey responses before and after surgical intervention. There was no association between endometrioma biomarkers and self-reported patient quality of life either prior to or after surgery, and this was consistent with other research.

An EndoCheck-related virtual poster entitled “A Proprietary Protein-Based Algorithm May Increase Sensitivity of Endometrioma Detection When Combined with Imaging” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists in November 2024. This poster summarizes a preliminary study on the performance of imaging combined with a protein biomarker-based algorithm. The combination of these diagnostic tools resulted in increased sensitivity of detection of endometrioma and could be effective in risk assessment and surgical planning for this condition.

The Diagnostic Field

The economics of healthcare demand effective and efficient allocation of resources which can be accomplished through disease prevention, early detection of disease leading to early intervention, and diagnostic tools that can triage patients to more appropriate therapy and intervention. In 2024, Fortune Business Insight, a market research and business consulting partnership, published a study which forecasts the globalin vitro diagnostic (“IVD”) market to reach $117.6 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 6.0% from 2024 to 2032. We have chosen to concentrate our business focus in the areas of gynecologic oncology and disease where we have established strong key opinion leaders, and provider and patient relationships. Demographic trends suggest that, as the population ages, the burden from gynecologic diseases will increase and the demand for quality diagnostic, prognostic and predictive tests will escalate. In addition, the areas of gynecologic oncology and disease generally lack quality diagnostic tests and, therefore, we believe patient outcomes can be significantly improved by the development of novel diagnostic tests. Furthermore, an increasing number of women are becoming aware of the importance of early detection, particularly in gynecologic diseases.

Ovarian Cancer Background

Commonly known as the “silent killer,” ovarian cancer leads to nearly 13,000 deaths each year in the United States. In 2024, The American Cancer Society (“ACS”) estimated that nearly 20,000 new ovarian cancer cases were diagnosed, with the majority of patients diagnosed in the late stages of the disease in which the cancer has spread beyond the ovary. Unfortunately, ovarian cancer patients in the late stages of the disease have a poor prognosis, which leads to high mortality rates. According to the ACS, when ovarian cancer is diagnosed at its earliest stage (stage 1), patients have up to a 93%, 5-year survival rate following surgery and/or chemotherapy. The 5-year survival rate falls to as low as 31% for ovarian cancer patients diagnosed in the late-stages of the disease.

While the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in its earliest stages greatly increases the likelihood of long-term survival from the disease, another factor that predicts clinical outcomes from ovarian cancer is the specialized training of the surgeon who operates on the ovarian cancer patient. Numerous studies have demonstrated that treatment of malignant ovarian tumors by specialists such as gynecologic oncologists coupled with specialist medical centers improves outcomes for women with these tumors. Published guidelines from the SGO and the ACOG recommends referral of women with malignant ovarian tumors to specialists. Accordingly, there is a clinical need for a diagnostic test that can provide adequate predictive value to stratify patients with a pelvic mass into those with a high-risk of invasive ovarian cancer versus those with a low-risk of ovarian cancer, which is essential for improving overall survival in patients with ovarian cancer. The goal is to catch the mass early before it becomes late-stage cancer.

Although adnexal masses are relatively common, malignant tumors are less so. Studies have indicated that the prevalence of simple ovarian cysts in women 55 years of age and older can be as high as 14%. Adnexal masses are thought to be even more common in premenopausal women. For instance, a University of Kentucky ovarian cancer screening study found that the rate of postmenopausal women with persistently abnormal ultrasound findings requiring surgery was 1.4%. According to 2020 U.S. census data, there are 42.6 million women between the ages of 50 and 70 in the U.S., suggesting that there are nearly 600,000 suspicious adnexal masses in this segment alone. When managing an adnexal mass, physicians will either take a surgical management approach or a clinical management approach. Patients that do require surgical management could potentially benefit from the use of the Ova1Plus workflow. Patients not referred for surgical intervention may benefit from the use of OvaWatch to confirm the low risk of malignancy of a mass that was determined to be indeterminate or benign by initial clinical assessment.

The ACOG Ovarian Cancer Guidelines and the SGO guidelines help physicians evaluate adnexal masses for malignancy. These guidelines take into account menopausal status, CA125 levels, and physical and imaging findings. However, these guidelines have notable shortcomings because of their reliance on diagnostics with certain weaknesses. Most notably, studies have shown that the CA125 blood test, which is cleared by the FDA for the monitoring for recurrence of ovarian cancer only, is negative in up to 31% of early-stage ovarian cancer cases. Moreover, CA125 can be elevated in numerous conditions and diseases other than ovarian cancer, including menstruation, benign ovarian masses, liver disease, endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, pregnancy and uterine fibroids.

These shortcomings limit the CA125 blood test’s utility in distinguishing benign from malignant ovarian tumors or for use in detection of early-stage ovarian cancer.

Transvaginal ultrasound is another diagnostic modality used with patients with ovarian masses. Attempts at defining specific morphological criteria that can aid in a benign versus malignant diagnosis have led to the morphology index and the risk of malignancy index, with reports of 40-70% predictive value. However, ultrasound interpretation can be variable and dependent on the experience of the operator. Accordingly, the ACOG and SGO guidelines indicate that transvaginal ultrasounds are rarely conclusive in identifying early-stage ovarian cancer and malignancy in pre-menopausal women. Efforts to improve detection of cancer by lowering the cutoff for CA125 (the “Modified ACOG/SGO Guidelines”) provide only a modest benefit, since CA125 is absent in about 20% of epithelial ovarian cancer cases and is poorly detected in early-stage ovarian cancer overall.

ACOG practice bulletin 174 (November 2016) states the following regarding our Ova1-branded product “The multivariate index assay has demonstrated higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for ovarian malignancy when compared with clinical impression and CA 125 alone.”

The ovarian cancer information page on American Cancer Society’s website indicates that:

For women who have an ovarian tumor, a test called Ova1 can measure the levels of 5 proteins in the blood. The levels of these proteins, when looked at together, are used to determine whether a woman’s tumor should be considered low-risk or high-risk. If the tumor is labeled ‘low-risk’ based on this test, the woman is not likely to have cancer. If the tumor is considered ‘high-risk,’ the woman is more likely to have a cancer and should see a specialist (a gynecologic oncologist). This test is NOT a screening test and it is NOT a test to decide if you should have surgery or not− it is meant for women who have an ovarian tumor where surgery has been decided but have not yet been referred to a gynecologic oncologist.

Aspira is committed to developing diagnostic tools for women of all ages, races and ethnicities. In 2019, two studies were released indicating superior clinical performance of Ova1 over CA125 and Ova1 over CA125, HE4 and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (“ROMA”) in African American women. In 2022, another study was released indicating superior clinical performance of Ova1 over CA125 in Filipino women.

Commercialization and Distribution

We market and distribute our products through 1) a national sales team, 2) the Aspira Synergy cloud-based technology transfer platform, and 3) various commercial partnerships.

Starting in 2014, we offered Ova1 via Aspira Labs. In March 2015, we entered into a commercial agreement with Quest Diagnostics. Pursuant to this agreement, as subsequently amended, all Ova1 U.S. testing services for Quest Diagnostics customers were transferred to Aspira’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Aspira Labs and Quest Diagnostics has continued to provide blood draw and logistics support by transporting specimens from its clients to Aspira Labs for testing in exchange for a market value fee. In 2022, the agreement was amended to include OvaWatch testing services. In October 2022, we launched a co-marketing and distribution collaboration with BioReference, as a new channel for volume growth. Under terms of the agreement, the Aspira and BioReference and sales teams collaborate to sell Ova1Plus to gynecologists and other women’s healthcare providers nationwide. In November 2024, Aspira and BioReference announced the expansion of the sale team collaboration to include OvaWatch.

Customers

In the United States, our clinical customer base includes physicians (including women’s care super-groups), physician office laboratories and national and regional laboratories. Both within and outside the United States, our customer specimens are sent directly to us, and we either bill third party payers or bill clients through client bill arrangements. We also offer access to our Ova1 and Overa assays via our decentralized technology transfer relationships established between us and authorized distributors.

Research and Development

Our research and development efforts center on the discovery and validation of biomarkers and the combinations of biomarkers with other “omics” that can be developed into diagnostic assays. We have done this predominantly through collaborations we have established with academic institutions such as the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, the University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Harvard’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham & Women’s Hospital and Medical University of Lodz. In addition, we actively seek collaborations and initiate dialog with clinical academics and other organizations, in order to generate publications, intellectual property or test development in broader areas of gynecologic oncology and other gynecologic diseases.

Our research and development efforts are detailed in the “Product Pipeline” section above.

In 2019, two studies identified a disparity in diagnosis for African American women and demonstrated that Ova1 has superior sensitivity for detection in this population over CA125 or ROMA. In 2022, another study demonstrated the superiority of Overa over CA125 in Filipino women.

In 2022 and early 2023, two OvaWatch peer-reviewed validations were published. The first, “Analytical Validation of a Deep Neural Network Algorithm for the Detection of Ovarian Cancer,” validates the OvaWatch algorithm in the detection of ovarian cancer and demonstrates the potential of OvaWatch in accurately assessing the risk of ovarian malignancy in patients with pelvic masses. Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic cancer, with most cases being diagnosed at late stage. Early detection of ovarian cancer is key to helping to reduce mortality; however, other current non-invasive risk assessment measures on the market vary in their usefulness. The other paper, “Validation of Deep Neural Network-based Algorithm Supporting Clinical Management of Adnexal Mass,” presents findings from the multi-site clinical study of our new assay, OvaWatch, describing real-world evidence supporting the use of OvaWatch for the clinical management of adnexal masses.

On May 7, 2024, we announced the publication of two peer-reviewed manuscripts, “Ovarian Cancer Surgical Consideration is Markedly Improved by the Neural Network Powered-MIA3G Multivariate Index Assay” and “Neural Network-derived Multivariate Index Assay Demonstrates Effective Clinical Performance in Longitudinal Monitoring of Ovarian Cancer Risk.” See “Studies and Publications” above for additional information.

Commercial Operations

We have a commercial infrastructure, including sales and marketing and reimbursement expertise. We also operate Aspira Labs, a CLIA certified clinical laboratory in Austin, Texas. Our sales representatives work to identify opportunities for educating general gynecologists and gynecologic oncologists on the benefits of Ova1. In February 2015, Aspira received ISO 13485:2003 certification for our quality management system from the British Standards Institution (BSI), one of the world’s leading certification bodies. We currently hold CE marks for Ova1 and Overa . We are targeting markets outside of the United States now that we have Overa cleared on the Roche cobas platform, which is available globally.

24,305 OvaSuite tests were performed in 2024 compared to 23,990 in 2023. In 2024, we continued to increase sales through our commercial team, including field sales, strategic alliances, and inside sales representatives. As awareness of our product continues to build, these representatives are focused on efforts that will have a positive impact on regional payers and create positive payer coverage decisions by driving physician demand. They work with local key opinion leaders and meeting with medical directors to discuss the clinical need, our technology solutions package and increasing patient experience and cases studies showing the positive outcomes utilizing OvaSuite.

We believe OvaWatch will continue to have a significant impact on the ordering behavior of physicians with respect to our ovarian cancer blood tests. OvaWatch was developed for use with women with adnexal masses that have been identified as either benign or indeterminate through initial clinical assessment. It is estimated that physicians see more than three times as many women with benign or indeterminate masses compared to women with masses that are planned for surgery. In addition, we believe that the OvaWatch longitudinal monitoring test could further expand the patient population and the ordering frequency of our ovarian cancer blood tests.

Revenue and Reimbursement

In the United States, revenue for diagnostic tests comes from several sources, including third-party payers such as insurance companies, government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, client bill accounts and patients. Novitas Solutions, our Medicare Administrative Contractor, covers and reimburses for Ova1 tests performed based on an LCD in its jurisdiction. Due to Ova1 tests being performed at Aspira Labs in Texas, an LCD from Novitas Solutions provides national coverage for patients enrolled in Medicare as well as Medicare Advantage health plans. Aspira Labs also bills third-party commercial and other government payers as well as client bill accounts and patients for Ova1. Through December 31, 2024, Aspira’s product and related services revenue was primarily limited to revenue generated by sales of Ova1 and OvaWatch.

In December 2013, the CMS made its final determination and authorized Medicare contractors to set prices for Multianalyte Assays with Algorithmic Analyses (“MAAA”) test CPT codes when they determine it is payable. In late 2016, Ova1 was included on the list of clinical diagnostic laboratory test procedure codes as one for which the CMS would require reporting of private payer rates as part of the implementation of Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (“PAMA”). In November 2017, we announced that the CMS released the Final 2018 Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (“CLFS”), effective January 1, 2018. Under the fee schedule, the price for Ova1 (CPT code 81503) is $897. This rate was based on the median of private payer payments submitted to CMS by companies, including Aspira Labs, as part of the market-based payment reform mandated through PAMA. The rate was scheduled to be in effect for a three-year term from January 2018 through December 2020. This rate is now extended through 2025. In 2024, CMS announced that it would continue to delay the period during which rates would be evaluated for another year. Therefore, we will not be responsible for providing reimbursement rates until January 2026. There are no assurances that reimbursement rates will not be changed.

Despite gains in positive medical policy coverage and contract agreements, insurance coverage and patient bills remain a concern to the physician and can disrupt the ordering pattern of a provider who is supportive of our products. We have instituted a “Patient Transparency Program” to assist with this process by proactively assessing insurance and educating patients on testing costs prior to testing being performed. Legislation to expand access to multi-cancer early detection technology under Medicare was reintroduced in the current legislative session. HR 2407, introduced in March 2023, and S 1085, introduced in June 2023, would create the authority for CMS to cover blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests once approved by FDA and shown to have clinical benefit.

We have a comprehensive reimbursement plan for Ova1 and OvaWatch, and have targeted third-party payers, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, State Medicaid and Managed Medicaid plans for coverage and reimbursement. In April 2023 we began billing OvaWatch with our newly awarded Proprietary Laboratory Analyses (“PLA Code”) 0375U. Since we began billing OvaWatch with the PLA Code, our reimbursement has been more in-line with historical Ova1Plus experience, resulting in the OvaWatch average unit price (“AUP”) of $362 for the year ended December 31, 2024.

Ova1 is considered medically necessary in the Lab Management Guidelines for one of the largest lab benefit management companies who works with payers to ensure adherence to clinical guidelines. We continue to make gains toward reimbursement for OvaWatch as we build clinical evidence to support coverage.

In February 2023, we signed a contract with a national commercial payer which provides patient coverage for Ova1 and OvaWatch beginning in April 2023. Further, CMS approved the crosswalk of the fee to be paid for OvaWatch to the fee paid for Ova1. Effective January 1, 2024, we have been reimbursed at a rate of $897 for all OvaWatch and Ova1 tests processed for Medicare patients meeting applicable coverage requirements.

In addition, the United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payers in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access.

Further, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included reductions to CMS payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional congressional action is taken.

The Nancy Gardner Sewell Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act and the Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act are bills that modernize the Medicare program and create a benefit category for MCED tests, which allow the CMS to initiate an evidence-based coverage process for multi-cancer tests upon approval by the FDA. The House bill (H.R. 2407) was introduced with bipartisan support on March 30, 2023 and its Senate companion (S. 2085) was introduced on June 22, 2023.

There may be additional health reform initiatives by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and third-party payers to reduce costs while expanding individual healthcare benefits. Certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the rates we will be able to charge for our current and future products or the amounts of reimbursement available for our current and future products from governmental agencies or third-party payers.

Biomarker legislation continues to gain momentum on the state level with many states enacting legislation requiring coverage in both public and private insurance plans. Additionally, more states are evaluating legislation and introduced biomarker access bills in 2024.

Competition

The diagnostics industry in which we operate is competitive and evolving. There is intense competition among healthcare, biotechnology and diagnostics companies attempting to discover candidates for potential new diagnostic products. These companies may:

We compete with companies in the United States and abroad that are engaged in the development and commercialization of novel biomarkers that may form the basis of novel diagnostic tests. These companies may develop products that are competitive with and/or perform the same or similar functions as the products offered by us or our collaborators, such as biomarker specific reagents or diagnostic test kits. Also, clinical laboratories may offer testing services that are competitive with the products sold by us or our collaborators. For example, a clinical laboratory can either use reagents purchased from manufacturers other than us or use its own internally developed reagents to make diagnostic tests. If clinical laboratories make tests in this manner for a particular disease, they could offer testing services for that disease as an alternative to products sold by us used to test for the same disease. The testing services offered by clinical laboratories may be easier to develop and market than test kits developed by us or our collaborators because the testing services are not subject to the same clinical validation requirements that are applicable to FDA-cleared or approved diagnostic test kits.

Fujirebio Diagnostics sells ROMA. ROMA combines two tumor markers and menopausal status into a numerical score using a publicly available algorithm. This test has the same intended use and precautions as Ova1. ROMA is currently marketed as having utility limited to epithelial ovarian cancers, which accounts for 80% of ovarian malignancies. Based upon the results of studies done in 2013 and 2019, we believe that Ova1 has superior sensitivity when compared to the Fujirebio Diagnostics test.

In addition, competitors such as AOA Dx, ClearNote Health, Cleo Diagnostics and Mercy BioAnalytics, and others have publicly disclosed that they have been or are currently working on ovarian cancer diagnostic assays. Exact Sciences, Grail and others are working on multi-cancer early diagnostic tests that include ovarian cancer detection. Academic institutions periodically report new findings in ovarian cancer diagnostics that may have commercial value.

A number of diagnostic and academic organizations have announced plans or published studies related to the development of a non-invasive diagnostic tool for the identification of endometriosis. If successful, the product may be competitive with our endometriosis offerings. Competitors include, but are not limited to, Afynia, DotLab, Endodiag, HERA Biotech Heranova, Proteomics International and Ziwig. We believe our experience developing multi-biomarker assays, particularly those focused on gynecologic diseases and pelvic masses, as well as our experienced women’s health field sales team and our focus on developing a clinical assay in our CLIA laboratory environment, is a significant competitive advantage.

Intellectual Property Protection

Our intellectual property includes federally registered trademarks and service marks as well as federally pending trademark and service mark applications for our product and service offerings, and a portfolio of owned, co-owned or licensed patents and patent applications. As of the date of the filing of the Form 10-K, our clinical diagnostics patent portfolio included 18 issued United States patents, 8 pending United States patent applications and numerous pending patent applications and issued patents outside the United States. These patents and patent applications are directed to diagnostic technologies.

Manufacturing

We are the manufacturer of FDA cleared products Ova1 and Overa, which are part of the Ova1Plus workflow. We also perform OvaWatch as an LDT. The component assays use purchased reagents. Because we do not directly manufacture the component assays, we are required to maintain supply agreements with manufacturers of each of the assays. As part of our quality systems, reagent lots for these assays are tested to ensure they meet specifications required for inclusion. Only reagent lots determined by us as having met these specifications are permitted for use in our testing. Our principal supplier for the component reagents is Roche Diagnostics Corporation.

Environmental Matters

Medical Waste

We are subject to licensing and regulation under federal, state and local laws relating to the handling and disposal of medical specimens and hazardous waste as well as relating to the safety and health of laboratory employees. Aspira Labs is operated in material compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations relating to disposal of all laboratory specimens. We utilize outside vendors for disposal of specimens. We cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or discharge and any resultant injury from these materials. Federal, state and local laws and regulations govern the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these materials. We could be subject to fines, penalties and damages claims in the event of an improper or unauthorized release of, or exposure of individuals to, hazardous materials. In addition, claimants may sue us for injury or contamination that results from our use, or the use by third parties, of these materials, and our liability may exceed our total assets. Compliance with environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts.

Occupational Safety

In addition to its comprehensive regulation of safety in the workplace, the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established extensive requirements relating to workplace safety for healthcare employers whose workers may be exposed to blood-borne pathogens such as HIV and the hepatitis virus. These regulations, among other things, require work practice controls, protective clothing and equipment, training, medical follow-up, vaccinations and other measures designed to minimize exposure to chemicals and transmission of blood-borne and airborne pathogens. Although we believe that we have complied in all material respects with such federal, state and local laws, failure to comply could subject us to denial of the right to conduct business, fines, criminal penalties and other enforcement actions.

Specimen Transportation

Regulations of the Department of Transportation, the International Air Transportation Agency, the Public Health Service and the Postal Service apply to the surface and air transportation of clinical laboratory specimens. Although we believe that we have complied in all material respects with such federal, state and local laws, failure to comply could subject us to denial of the right to conduct business, fines, criminal penalties and other enforcement actions.

Government Regulation

FDA Regulation of Medical Devices

In the U.S., medical devices, including IVD products (“IVDs”), are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDC Act”), and its implementing regulations, and certain other federal and state statutes and regulations. The laws and regulations govern, among other things, the design, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion, post-approval monitoring and reporting, distribution and import and export of medical devices, including IVDs. IVDs are a type of medical device and include reagents and instruments used in the diagnosis or detection of diseases or conditions. Predictive, prognostic, and screening tests can also be IVDs. Failure to comply with applicable requirements may subject a device and/or its manufacturer to a variety of administrative and judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending pre-market approval applications (“PMAs”) or other applications, issuance of warning letters or untitled letters, mandatory product recalls, import detentions, civil monetary penalties, and/or judicial sanctions, such as product seizures, injunctions, and criminal prosecution.

The FDC Act classifies medical devices into one of three categories based on the risks associated with the device and the level of control necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Class I devices are deemed to be low risk and are subject only to the general regulatory controls. Class II devices are moderate risk. They are subject to general controls and may also be subject to special controls. Class III devices are generally the highest risk devices. They are required to obtain premarket approval and comply with post-market conditions of approval in addition to general regulatory controls.

Generally, establishments that design, manufacture, re-label/re-package, process, and/or import devices are required to register their establishments with the FDA. They also must provide the FDA with a list of the devices that they design, manufacture, re-label/re-package, process, and/or import at their facilities.

The FDA enforces its requirements by market surveillance and periodic visits, both announced and unannounced, to inspect or re-inspect equipment, facilities, laboratories and processes to confirm regulatory compliance. These inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of subcontractors that are device manufacturers. Following an inspection, the FDA may issue a report, known as a Form 483, listing instances where the manufacturer has failed to comply with applicable regulations and/or procedures or, if observed violations are sufficiently serious, a warning letter. If the manufacturer does not adequately respond to a Form 483 or warning letter, the FDA make take enforcement action against the manufacturer or impose other sanctions or consequences, which may include:

The FDA also monitors advertising and promotion of regulated devices, including IVDs, to ensure that all promotion of the product is consistent with the device’s intended use reflected in the FDA-cleared and/or -approved labeling. If the device manufacturer promotes the product in violation of advertising and promotion rules established in the FDC Act and FDA’s implementing regulations, FDA may issue a so-called “Untitled Letter” requiring the manufacturer to amend and/or remove promotion of its product that is not compliant with such rules. Additionally, FDA may take any of the enforcement actions outlined above.

Pre-Market Authorization and Notification

Unless subject to an exemption, medical devices require prior FDA authorization before they may be commercially marketed. Devices can be legally sold within the U.S. only if the FDA has: (i) approved a pre-market approval application prior to marketing, generally applicable to most Class III devices; (ii) cleared the device in response to a 510(k) premarket notification submission (“510(k)”), generally applicable to Class I and II devices; or (iii) reclassified the device pursuant to thede novo classification process, available for novel low or moderate risk devices. PMA applications, 510(k) premarket notifications, andde novo classification requests require payment of substantial user fees that are increased each fiscal year.

Ova1, the first FDA-authorized blood test for the pre-operative assessment of ovarian masses, was authorized by the FDA in September 2009 under thede novo classification pathway. We received 510(k) clearance for Overa, our second-generation biomarker panel in March 2016.

510(k) Premarket Notification

Product marketing in the U.S. for most Class II and a limited number of Class I devices typically follows the 510(k) premarket notification pathway. To obtain 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device, referred to as the “predicate device.” A predicate device may be a previously 510(k) cleared device or a Class III device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 for which the FDA has not yet called for PMA applications, or a product previously placed in Class II or Class I through thede novo or other classification process. The manufacturer must show that the proposed device has the same intended use as the predicate device, and it either has the same technological characteristics, or it is shown to be equally safe and effective and does not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness as compared to the predicate device. A 510(k) may need to be supported by clinical data.

FDA has a user fee goal to apply no more than 90 calendar review days to 510(k) submissions. During the process, FDA may issue an Additional Information request, which stops the FDA’s review clock. The applicant has 180 days to respond. Therefore, the total review time could be up to 270 days, although it can take longer.

After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, requires a new 510(k) clearance or could require a PMA approval orde novo classification. The FDA requires each manufacturer to make this determination in the first instance, but the FDA can review any such decision. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s decision not to seek a new 510(k) clearance for the modified device, the agency may require the manufacturer to seek 510(k) clearance,de novoclassification, or PMA approval. The FDA also can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or recall the modified device until 510(k) clearance or PMA approval is obtained.

De NovoClassification

Devices of a new type that the FDA has not previously classified based on risk are automatically classified into Class III regardless of the level of risk they pose. To avoid requiring PMA review of novel low-to moderate-risk devices classified in Class III by operation of law, Congress enacted a provision that allows the FDA to classify a novel low-to moderate-risk device into Class I or II in the absence of a predicate device that would support 510(k) clearance. The FDA evaluates the safety and effectiveness of devices submitted for review under thede novo pathway, and devices determined to be Class II through this pathway can serve as predicate devices for future 510(k) applicants. Thede novo pathway generally requires clinical data. As part of thede novo process FDA will establish special controls to help ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device.

FDA has a user fee goal to review ade novo request in 150 calendar review days. During the process, FDA may issue an Additional Information request, which stops the FDA’s review clock. The applicant has 180 days to respond. Therefore, the total review time could be as long as 330 days, although it can take longer.

PMA Approval

A Class III product not eligible for either 510(k) clearance orde novo classification must follow the PMA approval pathway.

Results from clinical trials are required for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. After completion of the required clinical testing, a PMA including the results of all non-clinical, clinical, and other testing and information relating to the product’s marketing history, design, labeling, manufacture, and controls, is prepared and submitted to the FDA.

The PMA approval process is generally more expensive, rigorous, lengthy, and uncertain than the 510(k) premarket notification process andde novo classification process and requires proof of the safety and effectiveness of the device to the FDA’s satisfaction. As part of the PMA review, the FDA will typically inspect the manufacturer’s facilities for compliance with Quality System Regulation (“QSR”), requirements, which impose elaborate testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. FDA has a user fee goal to review a PMA in 180 calendar review days, if the submission does not require advisory committee input, or 320 review days if the submission does require advisory committee input. During the process, FDA may issue a major deficiency letter, which stops the FDA’s review clock. The applicant has up to 180 days to respond. Therefore, the total review time could be up to 360 days, if the submission does not require advisory committee input, or 500 days if the submission does require advisory committee input, although it could take longer.

If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA application is favorable, the FDA will issue a PMA for the approved indications, which can be more limited than those originally sought by the manufacturer. The PMA can include post-approval conditions that the FDA believes necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device including, among other things, post-approval studies and restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval can result in material adverse enforcement action, including the loss or withdrawal of the approval and/or placement of restrictions on the sale of the device until the conditions are satisfied.

Even after approval of a PMA, a new PMA or PMA supplement may be required in the event of a modification to the device, its labeling or its manufacturing process. Supplements to a PMA often require the submission of the same type of information required for an original PMA, except that the supplement is generally limited to that information needed to support the proposed change from the product covered by the original PMA.

Clinical Trials

Generally, data from at least one clinical trial is required to support a PMA application. Evidence from clinical studies also typically is included in a request forde novoclassification and, less frequently, in a 510(k) premarket notification. Clinical trials may also be conducted or continued to satisfy post-approval requirements for devices with PMAs. For significant risk investigational device studies, the FDA regulations require that human clinical investigations conducted in the U.S. be approved under an investigational device exemption (“IDE”), which must become effective before clinical testing may commence. A nonsignificant risk investigational device study does not require FDA approval of an IDE, although it does need to comply with some elements of the IDE regulations. Some studies of IVDs are entirely exempt from the IDE requirements. In some cases, one or more smaller IDE studies may precede a pivotal clinical trial intended to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the investigational device. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IDE is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA disapproves the IDE within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IDE may not begin. Clinical trials of IVDs that meet certain regulatory criteria are exempt from the IDE regulations.

An IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory test results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE application must also include a description of product manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. The FDA typically grants IDE approval for a specified number of patients to be treated at specified study centers. During the study, the sponsor must comply with the FDA’s IDE requirements for investigator selection, trial monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. The investigators must obtain patient informed consent, follow the investigational plan and study protocol, control the disposition of investigational devices, and comply with reporting and record keeping requirements. Prior to granting PMA approval, the FDA typically inspects the records relating to the conduct of the study and the clinical data supporting the PMA application for compliance with IDE requirements.

Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with good clinical practice (“GCP”), an international standard intended to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, investigators, and monitors; and (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Clinical trials are typically conducted at geographically diverse clinical trial sites and are designed to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the device and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the device when considering whether a device satisfies the statutory standard for commercialization. Clinical trials, for both significant and nonsignificant risk device studies, as well as exempt IVD studies, must be approved by an institutional review board (“IRB”), an appropriately constituted group that has been formally designated to review and monitor biomedical research involving human subjects and which has the authority to approve, require modifications in, or disapprove research to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human research subject. Informed consent of patients participating in the study generally must be obtained before they may participate in the study.

The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with the FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. An IRB may also require the clinical trial it has approved to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions or sanctions.

Although the QSR does not fully apply to investigational devices, the requirement for controls on design and development does apply to devices subject to FDA’s IDE regulations. The sponsor also must manufacture the investigational device in conformity with the quality controls described in the IDE application and any conditions of IDE approval that the FDA may impose with respect to manufacturing.

Post-Market Requirements

After a device is placed on the market, numerous general regulatory controls apply. These include: the QSR (which requires manufacturers to have a quality policy and procedures to ensure that devices are manufactured and records maintained in a prescribed manner with respect to manufacturing, testing, complaint handling, and record keeping), labeling regulations, the medical device reporting regulations (which require that manufacturers report to the FDA if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if it were to recur), and reports of corrections and removals regulations (which require manufacturers to report recalls or removals and field corrections to the FDA if initiated to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDC Act if that violation may present a risk to health). Failure to properly identify reportable events or to file timely reports, as well as failure to comply with other regulatory requirements, can subject a manufacturer to warning letters, recalls, or other sanctions and penalties.

As a manufacturer of IVDs, we are subject to regulatory oversight by the FDA under provisions of the FDC Act and regulations thereunder. We are required to register and list our IVD products with the FDA and to comply with the applicable provisions of the QSR. We are required to submit a medical device report whenever we receive information that reasonably suggests that one of our devices may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or where a malfunction has occurred that would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur. As of the date of the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have had zero complaints that required us to submit a medical device report to FDA. Additionally, we are subject to inspection by the FDA. Further, we are required to comply with FDA requirements for labeling and promotion.

Marketing and promotional activities for devices, and advertising of some restricted medical devices, are also subject to FDA oversight and must comply with the statutory standards of the FDC Act, and the FDA’s regulatory requirements. The FDA’s oversight of marketing and promotional activities encompasses, but is not limited to, direct-to-consumer advertising, healthcare provider-directed advertising and promotion, sales representative communications to healthcare professionals and promotional activities involving electronic media. The FDA also regulates industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities that make representations regarding product safety or efficacy in a promotional context.

Manufacturers of medical devices are permitted to promote products solely for the uses and indications that are consistent with those set forth in the approved or cleared product labeling. A number of enforcement actions have been taken against manufacturers that promote products for “off-label” uses (i.e., uses that are not described in the approved or cleared labeling), including actions alleging that claims submitted to government healthcare programs for reimbursement of products that were promoted for “off-label” uses are in violation of the Federal False Claims Act or other federal and state statutes and that the submission of those claims was caused by off-label promotion. The failure to comply with prohibitions on “off-label” promotion can result in significant monetary penalties, suspension of sales of certain products, product recalls, civil or criminal sanctions, exclusion from participating in federal healthcare programs, or other enforcement actions. Such wrongful conduct could also result in a corporate integrity agreement with the U.S. government that imposes significant administrative obligations and costs.

Violations of the FDC Act relating to the inappropriate promotion of approved products may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse and other laws, as well as state consumer protection laws, which could, in turn, lead to additional enforcement actions, including, but not limited to, injunctions, civil monetary penalties, and/or criminal penalties.

For a PMA or Class II 510(k) orde novo device, the FDA also may impose post-market conditions of approval, such as testing, surveillance, or other measures to monitor the effects of an approved or cleared product. The FDA may place conditions on a PMA-approved device that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality-control, manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to the QSR after approval and clearance, and manufacturers are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with the QSR. The FDA may withdraw product approvals or recommend or require product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory requirements.

Clinical studies to support FDA marketing authorization of new IVD products or new indications for already-authorized IVD products must be conducted in accordance with the applicable FDA regulations.

We also may be required to conduct post-market surveillance of medical devices as a condition of granting marketing authorization. With respect to Ova1, the FDA required us to perform post-market surveillance to gather additional data regarding test performance. This study has been completed.

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988

Clinical laboratories operating in or testing specimens from the U.S. are subject to CLIA, and related federal and state regulations, which provide for regulation of laboratory testing. Any customers using IVDs for clinical use in the United States will be regulated under CLIA, which establishes quality standards for all laboratory testing to ensure the accuracy, reliability and timeliness of patient test results regardless of where the test was performed. In particular, these regulations mandate that clinical laboratories must be certified by the federal government or a federally approved accreditation agency or must be located in a state that has been deemed exempt from CLIA requirements because the state has in effect laws that provide for requirements equal to or more stringent than CLIA requirements. Moreover, these laboratories must meet quality assurance, quality control and personnel standards, and they must undergo proficiency testing and inspections. The CLIA standards applicable to clinical laboratories are based on the complexity of the method of testing performed by the laboratory, as deemed by FDA, which range from “waived” to “moderate complexity” to “high complexity.”

Our clinical laboratory activities are subject to CLIA and related state clinical laboratory laws. In June 2014, we launched a clinical laboratory, Aspira Labs. Aspira Labs holds a CLIA Certificate of Accreditation and a state laboratory license or permit in California, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. We are subject to periodic surveys and inspections to maintain our CLIA certification, and such certification is also required to obtain payment from Medicare, Medicaid and certain other third-party payers.

Laboratory Developed Tests

The FDA considers LDTs to be tests that are designed, developed, validated and used within a single laboratory. LDTs are performed using a variety of laboratory instruments and reagents and may also incorporate FDA-authorized IVDs that the laboratory modifies in some way and validates for its new use. The FDA has historically taken the position that it has the authority to regulate LDTs as medical devices under the FDC Act, but it has generally exercised enforcement discretion with regard to LDTs. This means that even though the FDA believes it can impose regulatory requirements on LDTs, such as requirements to obtain premarket approval or clearance of LDTs, it has generally chosen not to enforce those requirements.

On May 6, 2024, the FDA published a final rule amending the definition of an IVD device to include IVDs manufactured by a clinical laboratory, effectively codifying its position that LDTs are IVDs and, therefore, that LDTs fall under FDA’s regulatory authority. The final rule also announced the FDA’s intention to phase out its general enforcement discretion policy. Unless the rule is overturned by a court or superseded by Congressional action, the medical device requirements for most LDTs will be phased in beginning on May 6, 2025.

The new rule implements a phased approach to ending FDA’s policy of enforcement discretion for LDTs. The phased approach establishes timelines for LDT sponsors to comply with different categories of FDA device regulations, and the clock started on the final rule’s publication date – May 6, 2024, the date to which all five phases were anchored. The phases are as follows: (1) LDTs are subject to MDR, as well as adverse event reporting, one year after the final rule’s publication date (i.e., May 6, 2025); (2) LDTs are subject to registration/listing, labeling, and investigational use requirements two years after the final rule’s publication date (i.e., May 6, 2026); (3) LDTs are subject to Quality System regulations three years after the final rule’s publication date (i.e., May 6, 2027); (4) high-risk LDTs are subject to premarket review (i.e., 510(k) clearance,de novo classification, or PMA, as applicable) three-and-a-half years after the final rule’s publication date (i.e., November 6, 2027), unless a premarket submission has been received by the beginning of this stage in which case FDA intends to continue to exercise enforcement discretion for the pendency of its review; and (5) mid- and low-risk LDTs are subject to premarket review (i.e., 510(k) clearance,de novo classification, or PMA, as applicable) four years after the final rule’s publication date (i.e., May 6, 2028), unless a premarket submission has been received by the beginning of this stage in which case FDA intends to continue to exercise enforcement discretion for the pendency of its review.

Certain categories of LDTs will be subject to enforcement discretion with respect to some or all of these requirements. In total, the new rule identifies eight types of LDTs for which it will continue to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to some or all regulatory requirements. For example, the FDA will apply enforcement discretion to currently marketed LDTs that were first offered prior to May 6, 2024, with respect to most quality system requirements and the requirement for premarket authorization if they are not modified or modified in only limited ways. The FDA will similarly exercise enforcement discretion with respect to premarket authorization for LDTs approved by the New York State Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program. However, laboratories performing these tests are subject to all other requirements outlined in FDA’s phase-out policy, including, but not limited to, the requirement to submit the labeling for the LDT to FDA for review. As outlined in the new rule, the FDA will also exercise enforcement discretion with respect to some or all regulatory requirements for certain LDTs designed for rare, unmet, or specific needs, LDTs manufactured and performed within the VHA or DOD, so-called “1967-Type LDTs,” and forensic use LDTs.

Legislative proposals addressing the FDA’s oversight of LDTs have been previously introduced. In March 2020, the VALID Act of 2020 was introduced in the Senate, which proposes a risk-based regulatory framework for IVDs and LDTs and would require premarket approval for some in vitro clinical tests. The VALID Act was reintroduced in July 2021 and again in March 2023; the prospects for enactment are uncertain. In March 2020, the Verified Innovative Testing in American Laboratories (“VITAL”) Act of 2020 was introduced in the Senate, which would expressly shift the regulation of LDTs from FDA to CMS. The VITAL Act was reintroduced in May 2021. Neither statute has been enacted.

The FDA’s new rule, which establishes the phase-out policy for enforcement discretion with respect to LDTs, has been challenged in two separate lawsuits – one brought in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the other brought in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. As of the date of this filing, both cases are still pending.

The FDA has become increasingly active in addressing the regulation of software used to support clinical decision making. In 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”), among other things, amended the medical device definition in the FDC Act to exclude certain software from FDA regulation, including clinical decision support (“CDS software”), that meets certain criteria. CDS software is exempt from the medical device definition if it: (a) displays, analyzes or prints medical information about a patient or other medical information; (b) is intended for the purpose of supporting or providing recommendations about a patient’s care to a healthcare professional (“HCP”) user; and (c) provides sufficient information about the basis for the recommendations to the HCP user, so that the HCP user does not rely primarily on any of the recommendations to make a clinical decision about an individual patient; unless (d) the software function acquires, processes, or analyzes a medical image, a signal from an in vitro diagnostic device, or a pattern or signal from a signal acquisition system.

On September 28, 2022, the FDA issued a final guidance document interpreting the Cures Act as it pertains to CDS software. Among other views expressed, the final guidance stated that software functions that assess or interpret the clinical implications or clinical relevance of a signal or pattern, such as those that process or analyze an electrochemical or photometric response generated by an assay and instrument to generate a clinical test result, are not exempt from medical device regulation. The final guidance also stated that software functions that generate risk probabilities or risk scores are not exempt because they necessarily provide a specific diagnostic, preventive, or treatment output.

Our clinical laboratory activities are subject to CLIA and related state laws. In June 2014, we launched a clinical laboratory, Aspira Labs. Aspira Labs holds a CLIA Certificate of Accreditation and a state laboratory license or permit in all states from which we accept specimens that require a state-level laboratory license or permit, including California, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In July 2021, we were granted a CLIA Certificate of Accreditation for our laboratory at our Connecticut office. We are subject to periodic surveys and inspections to maintain our CLIA certification, and such certification is also required to obtain payment from Medicare, Medicaid and certain other third-party payers.

Foreign Government Regulation of Our Products

Medical device laws and regulations are in effect in many of the countries in which we may do business outside the United States. These range from comprehensive device approval requirements for some or all of our potential future medical device products, to requests for product data or certifications. The number and scope of these requirements are increasing. In addition, products which have not yet been cleared or approved for domestic commercial distribution may be subject to the FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1996. Each country also maintains its own regulatory review process, tariff regulations, duties and tax requirements, product standards, and labeling requirements. In February 2015, Aspira also received ISO 13485:2003 certification for our quality management system from the British Standards Institution (BSI), one of the world’s leading certification bodies. In March 2015, Ova1 was CE marked, a requirement for marketing the test in the European Union. In October 2015, we announced registration of the CE mark for and clearance to market Overa in the European Union.

Privacy and Security of Health Information

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and final omnibus rules, were issued by HHS to protect the privacy and security of protected health information used or disclosed by health care providers, such as us. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in health care transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. Penalties for violations of HIPAA regulations include civil and criminal penalties. In addition to federal privacy regulations, a number of state and international laws govern confidentiality of health information.

Health Care Fraud and Abuse

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it a felony for a provider or supplier, including a laboratory, to knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit or receive remuneration, directly or indirectly, in order to induce business that is reimbursable under any federal health care program, including Medicare and Medicaid. A violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may result in imprisonment for up to five years and/or criminal fines of up to $250,000 for an individual. Companies may be criminally fined up to $500,000 and may also be subject to civil assessments and exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs.

Actions that violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may also be subject to liability under the Federal False Claims Act, which prohibits knowingly presenting or causing to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. Government. Although the federal Anti-Kickback Statute applies only to federal health care programs, a number of states have enacted statutes substantially similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute pursuant to which similar types of prohibitions are made applicable to all other health plans and third-party payors.

The Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (EKRA) makes it a federal crime to knowingly and willfully solicit or receive any remuneration, directly or indirectly, in return for referring a patient or patronage any laboratory. EKRA also prohibits paying or offering any remuneration directly or indirectly: (A) to induce a referral of an individual to a laboratory; or (B) in exchange for an individual using the services of a laboratory. Although EKRA’s language is similar to the language of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, EKRA is broader than the AKS in that it applies to all health care benefit programs, including private payors, while the AKS applies only to items and services paid for by federal health care programs.

Federal and state law enforcement authorities scrutinize arrangements between laboratories and potential referral sources to ensure that the arrangements are not designed as a mechanism to induce patient care referrals. The law enforcement authorities and the courts have also demonstrated a willingness to look behind the formalities of a transaction to determine the underlying purpose of payments between health care providers and actual or potential referral sources. Generally, courts have taken a broad interpretation of the scope of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, holding that the statute may be violated if merely one purpose of a payment arrangement is to induce referrals, even if the arrangement has other, legitimate purposes.

In December 1994, the HHS Office of Inspector General, or OIG, issued a Special Fraud Alert on arrangements for the provision of clinical laboratory services. The Fraud Alert set forth a number of practices allegedly engaged in by some clinical laboratories and health care providers that raise issues under the federal fraud and abuse laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The OIG emphasized in the Special Fraud Alert that when one purpose of such arrangements is to induce referrals of program-reimbursed laboratory testing, both the clinical laboratory and the health care provider (e.g., physician) may be liable under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and may be subject to criminal prosecution and exclusion from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Recognizing that the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is broad and may technically prohibit many innocuous or beneficial arrangements within the health care industry, Congress authorized, and HHS has issued, a series of regulatory “safe harbors.” These safe harbor regulations set forth certain provisions which, if all of their requirements are met, will assure health care providers and other parties that they may not be prosecuted under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Although full compliance with these provisions ensures against prosecution under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the failure of a transaction or arrangement to fit within a specific safe harbor does not necessarily mean that the transaction or arrangement is illegal or that prosecution under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute will be pursued. A non-safe harbored arrangement is evaluated by government enforcement agencies on a case-by-case basis.

In addition, the federal False Claims Act prohibits a person from knowingly submitting or causing to be submitted a false claim or making a false record or statement material to a false claim in order to secure payment by the federal government. Violation of the federal False Claims Act may result in fines of up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties of up to $27,894 for each separate false claim.

Moreover, a federal law directed at “self-referrals,” commonly known as the Stark Law, prohibits, with certain exceptions, laboratories from presenting or causing to be presented claims to Medicare and Medicaid for laboratory tests referred by physicians who personally, or through a family member, have an investment interest in, or a compensation arrangement with, the clinical laboratory performing the tests. A person who engages in a scheme to circumvent the Stark Law’s referral prohibition may be fined up to $100,000 for each such arrangement or scheme. In addition, any person who presents or causes to be presented a claim to the Medicare or Medicaid program in violation of the Stark Law is subject to civil monetary penalties of up to $15,000 per claim submission, an assessment of up to three times the amount claimed, and possible exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. Claims submitted in violation of the Stark Law may not be paid by Medicare or Medicaid, and any person collecting any amounts with respect to any such prohibited claim is obligated to refund such amounts. Many states, including California, also have “anti-self-referral” and other laws that are not limited to Medicare and Medicaid referrals.

Further, in addition to the privacy and security regulations described above, HIPAA created two federal crimes: health care fraud and false statements relating to health care matters. The health care fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including both government and private payors. A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion from government sponsored programs. The false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines and/or imprisonment.

Finally, federal law prohibits any entity from offering or transferring to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary any remuneration that the entity knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of Medicare or Medicaid payable items or services, including waivers of copayments and deductible amounts (or any part thereof) and transfers of items or services for free or for other than fair market value. Entities found in violation may be liable for civil monetary penalties of up to $20,000 for each wrongful act.

Employees

As of December 31, 2024, we had 66 full-time employees. We generally engage independent contractors on a part-time basis from time to time.

Corporate Information

We were originally incorporated in 1993, and we had our initial public offering in 2000. Our executive offices are located at 12117 Bee Caves Road, Building III, Suite 100, Austin, Texas 78738, and our telephone number is (512) 519-0400. We maintain a website at www.aspirawh.com where general information about us is available.

Information About Us

We file annual reports, quarterly reports, current reports, proxy statements, and other information with the SEC.

The SEC maintains an Internet website, www.sec.gov, that contains reports, proxy statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

The information contained on our websites is not incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and should not be considered a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.