Entrada Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any product revenue since our inception. If our therapeutic candidates are not successfully developed and approved, we may never generate any significant revenue from product sales. We have incurred significant net losses since inception. As of March 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $146.7 million. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. All of our therapeutic candidates will require substantial additional development time and resources before we would be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase substantially as we continue our development of, seek regulatory approval for and potentially commercialize any of our therapeutic candidates.

Current wording

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any product revenue since our inception. If our therapeutic candidates are not successfully developed and approved, we may never generate any significant revenue from product sales. We have incurred significant net losses since inception. As of June 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $189.8 million. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. All of our therapeutic candidates will require substantial additional development time and resources before we would be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase substantially as we continue our development of, seek regulatory approval for and potentially commercialize any of our therapeutic candidates.

Previous wording

We are early in our development efforts and all our development programs, including our lead therapeutic candidates ENTR-601-44, ENTR-601-45 and our partnered candidate VX-670, which are in the early clinical stage, and ENTR-601-50 and ENTR-601-51, which are in the preclinical or drug discovery stage. We have invested substantially all of our research efforts to date in developing our EEV Platform, identifying potential therapeutic candidates, conducting preclinical studies, and initiating early clinical studies. As an organization, the only clinical trial we have completed is our Phase 1 clinical trial of ENTR-601-44 in healthy volunteers in the UK, and we have not completed the clinical development of any therapeutic candidate nor have we submitted an application for regulatory approval, and we may be unable to do so for our therapeutic candidates. We have not completed CTA/IND-enabling studies for candidates other than ENTR-601-44, ENTR-601-45 and VX-670. We will need to complete these steps to support the progression of ENTR-601-44, ENTR-601-45, ENTR-601-50 and ENTR-601-51 into and/or through clinical studies in the United States. In addition, we have a development portfolio of programs that are in earlier stages of development and have not yet initiated or completed IND-enabling studies. We may never advance any additional therapeutic candidates through IND-enabling studies and receive authorization from the FDA, to proceed under an IND prior to initiating their clinical-stage development. Our ability to generate product revenue, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our therapeutic candidates, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any product, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

Current wording

We are early in our development efforts and all our development programs, including our lead therapeutic candidates ENTR-601-44, ENTR-601-45 and our partnered candidate VX-670, which are in the early clinical stage, and ENTR-601-50 and ENTR-601-51, which are in the preclinical or drug discovery stage. We have invested substantially all of our research efforts to date in developing our EEV Platform, identifying potential therapeutic candidates, conducting preclinical studies, and initiating early clinical studies. As an organization, the only clinical trial we have completed is our Phase 1 clinical trial of ENTR-601-44 in healthy volunteers in the UK, and we have not completed the clinical development of any therapeutic candidate nor have we submitted an application for regulatory approval, and we may be unable to do so for our therapeutic candidates. We have not completed CTA/IND-enabling studies for candidates other than ENTR-601-44, ENTR-601-45, ENTR-601-50 and VX-670. We will need to complete these steps to support the progression of ENTR-601-44, ENTR-601-45, ENTR-601-50 and ENTR-601-51 into and/or through clinical studies in the United States. In addition, we have a development portfolio of programs that are in earlier stages of development and have not yet initiated or completed IND-enabling studies. We may never advance any additional therapeutic candidates through IND-enabling studies and receive authorization from the FDA, to proceed under an IND prior to initiating their clinical-stage development. Our ability to generate product revenue, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our therapeutic candidates, which may never occur. We currently generate no revenue from sales of any product, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

Previous wording

Commercialization of any therapeutic candidates we may develop will require preclinical and clinical development; regulatory and marketing approval in multiple jurisdictions, including by the FDA, the EMA and the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”); manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise; a commercial organization; and significant marketing efforts. The success of therapeutic candidates we may identify and develop will depend on many factors, including:

Current wording

Commercialization of any therapeutic candidates we may develop will require preclinical and clinical development; regulatory and marketing approval in each jurisdiction targeted for commercialization, including by the FDA, the EMA and the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”); manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise; a commercial organization; and significant marketing efforts. The success of therapeutic candidates we may identify and develop will depend on many factors, including:

Previous wording

The risk of failure in developing therapeutic candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any therapeutic candidate would prove effective or safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any therapeutic candidate, we must complete preclinical development, submit an IND or foreign equivalent to permit initiation of clinical studies, and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of therapeutic candidates in humans. As an organization, we submitted an IND for ENTR-601-44 in the fourth quarter of 2022 which was subsequently placed on clinical hold until earlier this year. Although we were successful in resolving this clinical hold, there can be no assurance that our ongoing and planned trials will not be placed on clinical hold in the future. Any such hold or other delay could impact our ability to complete or initiate our ongoing or planned trials. We have limited experience as a company in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings and have not previously submitted a New Drug Application (“NDA”), Biologics License Application (“BLA”) or other comparable foreign regulatory submission for any therapeutic candidate. In addition, we have had limited interactions with the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities and cannot be certain how many clinical trials of ENTR-601-44, ENTR-601-45, ENTR-601-50, ENTR-601-51, our partnered candidate VX-670 or any other therapeutic candidates will be required or how such trials should be designed. Consequently, we and our partner may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to approval of any of our therapeutic candidates. Clinical trials may fail to demonstrate that our therapeutic candidates are safe for humans and effective for indicated uses. Even if the clinical trials are successful, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application.

Current wording

The risk of failure in developing therapeutic candidates is high. It is impossible to predict when or if any therapeutic candidate would prove effective or safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any therapeutic candidate, we must complete preclinical development, submit an IND or foreign equivalent to permit initiation of clinical studies, and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of therapeutic candidates in humans. As an organization, we submitted an IND for ENTR-601-44 in the fourth quarter of 2022 which was subsequently placed on clinical hold until February 2025. Although we were successful in resolving this clinical hold, there can be no assurance that our ongoing and planned trials will not be placed on clinical hold or voluntarily paused in the future. Any such hold or other delay could impact our ability to complete or initiate our ongoing or planned trials. We have limited experience as a company in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings and have not previously submitted a New Drug Application (“NDA”), Biologics License Application (“BLA”) or other comparable foreign regulatory submission for any therapeutic candidate. In addition, we have had limited interactions with the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities and cannot be certain how many clinical trials of ENTR-601-44, ENTR-601-45, ENTR-601-50, ENTR-601-51, our partnered candidate VX-670 or any other therapeutic candidates will be required or how such trials should be designed. Consequently, we and our partner may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to approval of any of our therapeutic candidates. Clinical trials may fail to demonstrate that our therapeutic candidates are safe for humans and effective for indicated uses. Even if the clinical trials are successful, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application.

Previous wording

Where appropriate, we plan to secure approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities through the use of accelerated approval pathways. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA, EMA or such other regulatory authorities may seek to withdraw accelerated approval.

Current wording

Where appropriate, we plan to secure approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities through the use of accelerated approval pathways. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, if the safety profile were to change based on post-marketing safety surveillance, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA, EMA or such other regulatory authorities may seek to withdraw accelerated approval.

Previous wording

We do not expect to independently conduct all aspects of our product manufacturing, research and preclinical and clinical testing. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties with respect to many of these items, including contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) for the manufacturing of any therapeutic candidates we test in preclinical or clinical development, as well as CROs for the conduct of our animal testing and research and CROs for the conduct of our planned clinical trials. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time. A need to enter into alternative arrangements could delay our product development activities, and we may not be able to enter into alternative arrangements on reasonable terms, if at all.

Current wording

We do not expect to independently conduct all aspects of our product manufacturing, research and preclinical and clinical testing. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties with respect to many of these items, including contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) for the manufacturing of any therapeutic candidates we test in preclinical or clinical development, as well as contract research organizations (“CROs”) for the conduct of our animal testing and research and CROs for the conduct of our planned clinical trials. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time. A need to enter into alternative arrangements could delay our product development activities, and we may not be able to enter into alternative arrangements on reasonable terms, if at all.

Previous wording

Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for therapeutic candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require us to suspend, place on clinical hold or terminate these trials or perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under CGMP requirements and may require a large number of patients. In the U.S., we also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, clinicaltrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Current wording

Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for therapeutic candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require us to suspend, place on clinical hold or terminate these trials or perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with drug product produced under cGMP requirements and may require a large number of patients. In the U.S., we also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, clinicaltrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Previous wording

similar law were to be enacted. Even if we are able to secure appropriate alternative suppliers in a timely manner, costs for such products or services could increase significantly. Any of these events could adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

Current wording

similar law were to be enacted. While certain tariffs have been suspended, modified or temporarily reduced, we cannot predict the results of the U.S. government’s trade negotiations or the outcome of ongoing legal challenges to specific tariff policies. Even if we are able to secure appropriate alternative suppliers in a timely manner, costs for such products or services could increase significantly. Any of these events could adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

Previous wording

The process to generate our EEV-based therapeutics is complex and, if not developed and manufactured under well-controlled conditions, can adversely impact pharmacological activity. Furthermore, we have not manufactured our

Current wording

The process to generate our EEV-based therapeutics is complex and, if not developed and manufactured under well-controlled conditions, can adversely impact pharmacological activity. Furthermore, we have not manufactured our EEV-based therapeutics at commercial scale. We may encounter difficulties in scaling up our manufacturing process, thereby potentially impacting clinical and commercial supply.

Previous wording

Currently, patients with DMD are treated with corticosteroids to manage the inflammatory component of the disease. EMFLAZA (deflazacort) is an FDA-approved corticosteroid marketed by PTC Therapeutics, Inc. (“PTC”) and AGAMREE (valmorolone) is a novel alternative FDA approved steroid marketed by Catalyst Pharmaceuticals. Duvyzat (givinostat), marketed by ITF Therapeutics, is an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor that works by targeting the pathogenic processes to reduce inflammation and loss of muscle. In addition, there are four FDA-approved exon skipping drugs: EXONDYS 51 (eteplirsen), VYONDYS 53 (golodirsen), and AMONDYS 45 (casimersen), which are phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligomers (“PMOs”) approved for the treatment of patients with DMD who are amenable to exon 51, exon 53 and exon 45 skipping, respectively, and are marketed by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sarepta”), and VILTEPSO (vitolarsen), a PMO approved for the treatment of patients with DMD who are amenable to exon 53 skipping, which is marketed by Nippon Shinyaku Co. Ltd. (“Nippon”). Companies focused on developing treatments for DMD that target dystrophin mechanisms, as does our DMD program, include Nippon, which is in a Phase 2 clinical trial for patients amenable to exon 44 skipping, PTC with ataluren, a small molecule targeting nonsense mutations, which has resubmitted for approval in the United States in 2024 after a prior rejection, Avidity Biosciences, Inc. (“Avidity”), which announced plans to file a BLA by the end of 2025 using data from its Phase 2/3 clinical trial with antibody oligonucleotide conjugates for exon 44 (AOC-1044), and has similar programs for patients amenable to exon 45, and exon 51 skipping in preclinical development, Wave Life Sciences Ltd., which has announced data for WVE-N531, a clinical candidate that is designed to target exon 53 within the dystrophin gene, Dyne Therapeutics, Inc. (“Dyne”), which is pursuing antibody fragment-oligonucleotide conjugates for exons 44, 45, 51 (clinical candidate DYNE-251 to be filed with the FDA in 2026), and 53, PepGen, Inc. with PGN-EDO51, a clinical candidate designed to address exon 51, along with discovery programs targeting exons 53, 44, and 45, and BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., which recently announced a Phase 1/2 dose escalation trial for BMN 351, an antisense oligonucleotide therapy for exon 51. In addition, several companies are developing gene therapies to treat DMD, including Sarepta (SRP-9001; delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl which is approved for patients with a confirmed mutation that are at least 4 years of age), Solid Biosciences Inc. (SGT-003), and REGENXBIO (RGX-202). Gene editing treatments that are in preclinical development are also being pursued by Vertex and Sarepta. We are also aware of several companies targeting non-dystrophin mechanisms (promotion of regeneration and/or protection of muscle) for the treatment of DMD.

Current wording

Currently, patients with DMD are treated with corticosteroids to manage the inflammatory component of the disease. EMFLAZA (deflazacort) is an FDA-approved corticosteroid marketed by PTC Therapeutics, Inc. (“PTC”) and AGAMREE (valmorolone) is a novel alternative FDA approved steroid marketed by Catalyst Pharmaceuticals. Duvyzat (givinostat), marketed by ITF Therapeutics, is an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor that works by targeting the pathogenic processes to reduce inflammation and loss of muscle. In addition, there are four FDA-approved exon skipping drugs: EXONDYS 51 (eteplirsen), VYONDYS 53 (golodirsen), and AMONDYS 45 (casimersen), which are phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligomers (“PMOs”) approved for the treatment of patients with DMD who are amenable to exon 51, exon 53 and exon 45 skipping, respectively, and are marketed by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sarepta”), and VILTEPSO (vitolarsen), a PMO approved for the treatment of patients with DMD who are amenable to exon 53 skipping, which is marketed by Nippon Shinyaku Co. Ltd. (“Nippon”). Companies focused on developing treatments for DMD that target dystrophin mechanisms, as does our DMD program, include Nippon, which is in a Phase 2 clinical trial for patients amenable to exon 44 skipping, PTC with ataluren, a small molecule targeting nonsense mutations, which has resubmitted for approval in the United States in 2024 after a prior rejection, Avidity Biosciences, Inc. (“Avidity”), which announced plans to file a BLA by the end of 2025 using data from its Phase 2/3 clinical trial with antibody oligonucleotide conjugates for exon 44 (AOC-1044), and has similar programs for patients amenable to exon 45, and exon 51 skipping in preclinical development, Wave Life Sciences Ltd., which has announced data for WVE-N531, a clinical candidate that is designed to target exon 53 within the dystrophin gene, Dyne Therapeutics, Inc. (“Dyne”), which is pursuing antibody fragment-oligonucleotide conjugates for exons 44, 45, 51 (clinical candidate DYNE-251 to be filed with the FDA in 2026) and 53, and BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., which recently announced a Phase 1/2 dose escalation trial for BMN 351, an antisense oligonucleotide therapy for exon 51. In addition, several companies are developing gene therapies to treat DMD, including Sarepta (Elevidys; delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl which was approved for patients with a confirmed mutation that are at least 4 years of age but which has been asked to submit additional data to support utilization for non-ambualtory patients covered by the accelerated approval), Solid Biosciences Inc. (SGT-003), and REGENXBIO (RGX-202). Gene editing treatments that are in preclinical development are also being pursued by Vertex and Sarepta, as well as a number of other companies. We are also aware of several companies targeting non-dystrophin mechanisms (promotion of regeneration and/or protection of muscle) for the treatment of DMD.

Previous wording

In April 2025, we announced a new strategic plan designed to focus our resources on our expanding portfolio of clinical candidates in DMD and key preclinical programs. The new strategic plan includes enhanced hiring efforts to support planned global clinical trial execution in DMD, as well as focused workforce reductions in select research areas, which are expected to reduce our workforce by approximately 20%. The estimates of the charges and cash expenditures that we expect to incur in connection with the new strategic plan and related workforce reduction, and the timing thereof, are subject to a number of assumptions, and we may incur costs that are greater than we currently expect. We may not realize, in full or in part, the anticipated benefits, savings and improvements in our operating structure from our new strategic efforts due to unforeseen difficulties, delays or unexpected costs. If we are unable to realize the expected operational efficiencies and cost savings from the new strategic plan, our results of operation and financial condition would be adversely affected. We also cannot guarantee that we will not have to undertake additional workforce reductions or related activities in the future. Such cost reduction efforts may in the future adversely affect our ability to attract and retain employees, and may adversely affect our culture and impact our ability to effectively pursue our business strategy. Furthermore, our new strategic plan may be disruptive to our operations. For example, our workforce reductions could yield unanticipated consequences, such as attrition beyond planned staff reductions, increased difficulties in our day-to-day operations and reduced employee morale. If employees who were not affected by the reduction in force seek alternate employment, this could result in us seeking contract support which may result in unplanned additional expense or harm our productivity. Our workforce reductions could also harm our ability to attract and retain qualified management, scientific, and clinical personnel who are critical to our business. Any failure to attract or retain qualified personnel could prevent us from successfully developing our product candidates in the future.

Current wording

In April 2025, we announced a new strategic plan designed to focus our resources on our expanding portfolio of clinical candidates in DMD and key preclinical programs. The new strategic plan includes enhanced hiring efforts to support planned global clinical trial execution in DMD, as well as focused workforce reductions in select research areas, which reduced our workforce by approximately 20%. The estimates of the charges and cash expenditures that we expect to incur in connection with the new strategic plan and related workforce reduction, and the timing thereof, are subject to a number of assumptions, and we may incur costs that are greater than we currently expect. We may not realize, in full or in part, the anticipated benefits, savings and improvements in our operating structure from our new strategic efforts due to unforeseen difficulties, delays or unexpected costs. If we are unable to realize the expected operational efficiencies and cost savings from the new strategic plan, our results of operation and financial condition would be adversely affected. We also cannot guarantee that we will not have to undertake additional workforce reductions or related activities in the future. Such cost reduction efforts may in the future adversely affect our ability to attract and retain employees, and may adversely affect our culture and impact our ability to effectively pursue our business strategy. Furthermore, our new strategic plan may be disruptive to our operations. For example, our workforce reductions could yield unanticipated consequences, such as attrition beyond planned staff reductions, increased difficulties in our day-to-day operations and reduced employee morale. If employees who were not affected by the reduction in force seek alternate employment, this could result in us seeking contract support which may result in unplanned additional expense or harm our productivity. Our workforce reductions could also harm our ability to attract and retain qualified management, scientific, and clinical personnel who are critical to our business. Any failure to attract or retain qualified personnel could prevent us from successfully developing our product candidates in the future.

Previous wording

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year. Subsequent legislation extended the 2% payment reduction which remains in effect through 2031. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 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. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. These laws and regulations may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Current wording

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year. Subsequent legislation extended the 2% payment reduction which remains in effect through fiscal year 2031, absent additional action from Congress. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 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. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (the “OBBBA”) also added work requirements and more frequent eligibility enrollment reverifications for Medicaid enrollees, which is expected to have the effect of reducing the number of Medicaid enrollees. These laws and regulations may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Previous wording

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that create a $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries, impose new manufacturer financial liability on all drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D pricing for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would limit the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have orphan designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product receives multiple orphan designations or has multiple approved indications, it may not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. The implementation of the IRA is currently subject to ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the IRA's Medicare drug price negotiation program. The effect of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

Current wording

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that create a $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries, impose new manufacturer financial liability on all drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D pricing for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would limit the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Previously, under the IRA, orphan drugs were exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, only if they have orphan designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product received multiple orphan designations or had multiple approved indications, it would not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. The OBBBA eliminated this restriction, which serves to exempt all orphan drugs from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, regardless of the number of orphan designations or indications. The implementation of the IRA is currently subject to ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the IRA's Medicare drug price negotiation program. The effect of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.

Previous wording

Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At a federal level, President Trump reversed some of President Biden’s executive orders including rescinding Executive Order 14087 entitled “Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans.” President Trump may issue new executive orders designed to impact drug pricing, and/or rescind or modify the previous administration’s efforts to address drug costs. A number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective. Congress and the Trump administration have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

Current wording

Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At a federal level, President Trump reversed some of President Biden’s executive orders including rescinding Executive Order 14087 entitled “Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans.” On April 15, 2025, the Trump Administration published Executive Order 14273, “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First,” which generally directs the federal government to take measures to reduce drug prices, including eliminating the so-called “pill penalty” under the Inflation Reduction Act that creates a distinction between small molecule and large molecule products for purposes of determining when a drug may be eligible for drug price negotiation. On May 12, 2025, the Trump Administration published Executive Order 14297, “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” which generally, among other things, directs the federal government to establish and communicate most-favored-nation price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations. Further, the Executive Order directs the federal government to support regulatory paths to allow direct-to-patient sales for companies that meet these targets. It also states that the Administration will take additional aggressive action (for example, examining whether marketing approvals should be modified or rescinded or opening the door for individual drug importation waivers) should manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the most-favored-nation lowest price. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to “take all necessary and appropriate action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in any act, policy, or practice that may be unreasonable or discriminatory or that may impair United States national security . . . including by suppressing the price of pharmaceutical products below fair market value in foreign countries.” Notably, a similar “Most Favored Nation” pricing rule enacted under the first Trump Administration was subject to an injunction resulting from judicial challenges to the rule, which was formally rescinded by the former Biden Administration in August 2021.

Previous wording

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many changes have been made to applicable tax laws and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. For example, under Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, expenses that are incurred for research and development in the U.S. will be capitalized and amortized, which may have an adverse effect on our cash flow. Future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations.

Current wording

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. For example, the OBBBA was signed into law on July 4, 2025 and made significant changes to U.S. federal tax law. Changes to tax laws (certain of which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. For example, under Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the IRC, in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed outside the U.S. will be capitalized and amortized, which may have an adverse effect on our cash flow. The OBBBA provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, expenses that are incurred for research and development performed in the U.S. may, at the taxpayer’s election, be immediately deducted or capitalized and amortized. In addition, the OBBBA provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021 and before January 1, 2025, certain eligible taxpayers generally may elect to retroactively deduct expenses for research and development performed in the U.S. in such taxable years by filing amended tax returns for such taxable years, and all other taxpayers that are not eligible to make such an election and that amortized expenses for research and development performed in the U.S. in such taxable years generally may elect to accelerate and deduct the remaining unamortized amounts of such research and development expenses (i) in the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024, or (ii) ratably over the two-taxable year period beginning with the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024. In recent years, many changes have been made to applicable tax laws and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. Future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations.

Previous wording

We are and expect to continue to be reliant upon third-party licensors for certain patent and other intellectual property rights that are important or necessary to the development of our therapeutic programs, eventual therapeutic candidates, and proprietary technologies. For example, we rely on a license from OSIF, an affiliate of The Ohio State University (“OSU”) to certain patent rights and know-how of OSU. Our license agreement with OSIF imposes, and we expect that any future license agreement will impose, specified diligence, milestone payments, royalty payments, commercialization, development and other obligations on us and require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise diligent or commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. These milestone payments, and other payments associated with the license, will make it less profitable for us to develop and potentially commercialize our therapeutic candidate. If this agreement is terminated, we could lose intellectual property rights that may be important to our business, potentially be liable for damages to the licensor or potentially be prevented from developing and commercializing our therapeutic candidate. Termination of the agreement or reduction or elimination of our rights under the agreement may also potentially result in us being required to negotiate a new or reinstated agreement with less favorable terms, and it is possible that we may be unable to obtain any such additional license at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be required to spend significant time and resources to redesign our therapeutic candidate or the method for manufacturing it or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. For more information on the terms of the license agreement with OSIF, see “Business — Intellectual property — License Agreement with The Ohio State University” and Note 10, Commitments and Contingencies, to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024.

Current wording

We are and expect to continue to be reliant upon third-party licensors for certain patent and other intellectual property rights that are important or necessary to the development of our therapeutic programs, eventual therapeutic candidates, and proprietary technologies. For example, we currently have a license from OSIF, an affiliate of The Ohio State University (“OSU”) to certain patent rights and know-how of OSU. Our license agreement with OSIF imposes, and we expect that any future license agreement will impose, specified diligence, milestone payments, royalty payments, commercialization, development and other obligations on us and require us to meet development timelines, or to exercise diligent or commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. These milestone payments, and other payments associated with the license, will make it less profitable for us to develop and potentially commercialize our therapeutic candidate. If this agreement is terminated, we could lose intellectual property rights that may be important to our business, potentially be liable for damages to the licensor or potentially be prevented from developing and commercializing our therapeutic candidate. Termination of the agreement or reduction or elimination of our rights under the agreement may also potentially result in us being required to negotiate a new or reinstated agreement with less favorable terms, and it is possible that we may be unable to obtain any such additional license at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be required to spend time and resources to redesign our therapeutic candidate or the method for manufacturing it or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. For more information on the terms of the license agreement with OSIF, see “Business — Intellectual property — License Agreement with The Ohio State University” and Note 10, Commitments and Contingencies, to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024.

Previous wording

Furthermore, in addition to comprehensive privacy laws, certain states have enacted laws which focus on certain specific types of information. For example, Washington’s My Health My Data Act, which became effective on March 31, 2024, regulates the collection and sharing of health information and has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data. Further, a small number of states have passed laws that regulate biometric information. The existence of these laws as well as comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance. State laws are changing rapidly and there have been discussions in the U.S. Congress of a new comprehensive federal data privacy law to which we could become subject, if enacted.

Current wording

Further, a small number of states have passed laws that regulate biometric information. The existence of these laws as well as comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance. State laws are changing rapidly and there have been discussions in the U.S. Congress of a new comprehensive federal data privacy law to which we could become subject, if enacted.

Previous wording

United States. These transfers are prohibited unless an appropriate safeguard specified by data protection laws is implemented, such as the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”), approved by the European Commission, or a derogation applies. Transfers made pursuant to the SCCs need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure the law in the recipient country provides “essentially equivalent” protections to safeguard the transferred data. If the standard is not met, businesses will be required to adopt supplementary measures. Further, the EU and United States have adopted its adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“Framework”), which entered into force on July 11, 2023. This Framework provides that the protection of personal data transferred between the EU and the United States is comparable to that offered in the EU. This provides a further avenue to ensuring transfers to the United States are carried out in line with GDPR. The UK is not subject to the European Commission’s SCCs but the UK Information Commissioner’s Office has published the UK’s own transfer mechanisms for personal data originating from the UK (the International Data Transfer Agreement and International Data Transfer Addendum (each an “IDTA”)), which have been in force since March 21, 2022. The IDTA requires the same case-by-case risk assessment of the transfer. In addition, there has been an extension to the Framework to cover UK transfers to the United States. The Framework could be challenged like its predecessor frameworks. The international transfer obligations under the EEA and UK data protection regimes will require significant effort and cost, and may result in us needing to make strategic considerations around where EEA/UK personal data is located and which service providers we can utilize for the processing of EEA/UK personal data, particularly as the enforcement around GDPR international transfer compliance obligations is currently unclear. The above transfer requirements and other future developments regarding the flow of data across borders could increase the cost and complexity of delivering our services in some markets and may lead to governmental enforcement actions, litigation, fines, and penalties or adverse publicity, which could adversely affect our business and financial position.

Current wording

The GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EEA/UK to countries not regarded by the European Commission and the UK government as providing adequate protection, or third countries, including the United States. These transfers are prohibited unless an appropriate safeguard specified by data protection laws is implemented, such as the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”), approved by the European Commission, or a derogation applies. Transfers made pursuant to the SCCs need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure the law in the recipient country provides “essentially equivalent” protections to safeguard the transferred data. If the standard is not met, businesses will be required to adopt supplementary measures. Further, the EU and United States have adopted its adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“Framework”), which entered into force on July 11, 2023. This Framework provides that the protection of personal data transferred between the EU and the United States is comparable to that offered in the EU. This provides a further avenue to ensuring transfers to the United States are carried out in line with GDPR. The UK is not subject to the European Commission’s SCCs but the UK Information Commissioner’s Office has published the UK’s own transfer mechanisms for personal data originating from the UK (the International Data Transfer Agreement and International Data Transfer Addendum (each an “IDTA”)), which have been in force since March 21, 2022. The IDTA requires the same case-by-case risk assessment of the transfer. In addition, there has been an extension to the Framework to cover UK transfers to the United States. The Framework could be challenged like its predecessor frameworks. The international transfer obligations under the EEA and UK data protection regimes will require significant effort and cost, and may result in us needing to make strategic considerations around where EEA/UK personal data is located and which service providers we can utilize for the processing of EEA/UK personal data, particularly as the enforcement around GDPR international transfer compliance obligations is currently unclear. The above transfer requirements and other future developments regarding the flow of data across borders could increase the cost and complexity of delivering our services in some markets and may lead to governmental enforcement actions, litigation, fines, and penalties or adverse publicity, which could adversely affect our business and financial position.

Previous wording

not yet been interpreted by courts or regulators, and non-compliance can lead to significant fines. Likewise, in the U.S., several states, including Colorado and California, passed laws that will take effect in 2026, to regulate various uses of artificial intelligence, including to make consequential decisions. In addition, various federal regulators have issued guidance and focused enforcement efforts on the use of AI in regulated sectors. If we develop or use AI systems that are governed by these laws or regulations, we will need to meet higher standards of data quality, transparency, and human oversight, and we would need to adhere to specific and potentially burdensome and costly ethical, accountability, and administrative requirements, with the potential for significant enforcement or litigation in the event of any perceived non-compliance.

Current wording

A growing number of legislators and regulators are adopting laws and regulations and have focused enforcement efforts on the adoption of artificial intelligence, and use of such technologies in compliance with ethical standards and societal expectations. These developments may increase our compliance burden and costs in connection with use of artificial intelligence and lead to legal liability if we fail to meet evolving legal standards or if use of such technologies results in harms or other causes of action we did not predict. For example, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”) entered into force on August 1, 2024, with most provisions becoming effective on August 2, 2026. This legislation imposes significant obligations on providers and deployers of high risk artificial intelligence systems, and encourages providers and deployers of artificial intelligence systems to account for EU ethical principles in their development and use of these systems. The scope of requirements depends on legal and risk determinations that rely on novel legal provisions that have not yet been interpreted by courts or regulators, and non-compliance can lead to significant fines. Likewise, in the U.S., several states, including Colorado, California and Texas, passed laws that will take effect in 2026, to regulate various uses of artificial intelligence, including to make consequential decisions. In addition, various federal regulators have issued guidance and focused enforcement efforts on the use of AI in regulated sectors. If we develop or use AI systems that are governed by these laws or regulations, we will need to meet higher standards of data quality, transparency, and human oversight, and we would need to adhere to specific and potentially burdensome and costly ethical, accountability, and administrative requirements, with the potential for significant enforcement or litigation in the event of any perceived non-compliance. A proposed 10-year federal moratorium on the enforcement of certain state AI laws, which was included in the Trump Administration’s budget reconciliation bill, did not make it past the finish line and was excluded from the OBBBA. This, in turn, may further simulate AI regulation in the states, contributing to a complicated legislative patchwork.

Previous wording

•general economic, political, industry and market conditions such as recessions, interest rates, fuel prices, foreign currency fluctuations, tariffs (including tariffs that have been or may in the future be imposed by the United States or other countries), sanctions, trade protection measures or other trade barriers (including further legislation or actions taken by the United States or other countries that restrict trade), social, political and economic risks and acts of war (such as the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East) or terrorism; and

Current wording

•general macroeconomic, geopolitical, industry and market conditions such as recessions, interest rates, fuel prices, foreign currency fluctuations, tariffs (including tariffs that have been or may in the future be imposed by the United States or other countries), sanctions, trade protection measures or other trade barriers (including further legislation or actions taken by the United States or other countries that restrict trade), social, political and economic risks and acts of war (such as the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East) or terrorism; and

Previous wording

Currently, federal agencies in the U.S. are operating under a continuing resolution that is set to expire on September 30, 2025. Without appropriation of additional funding to federal agencies, our business operations related to our product development activities for the U.S. market could be impacted. The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. The Trump Administration has issued executive orders seeking to greatly reduce the size of the federal workforce, including through layoffs and severance packages offered to employees of federal agencies within the executive branch and independent agencies, including the FDA. Any such reduction in personnel may result in longer review times by the FDA and other agencies.

Current wording

Currently, federal agencies in the U.S. are operating under a continuing resolution that is set to expire on September 30, 2025. Without appropriation of additional funding to federal agencies, our business operations related to our product development activities for the U.S. market could be impacted. The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. The Trump Administration has issued executive orders seeking to greatly reduce the size of the federal workforce, including through layoffs and severance packages offered to employees of federal agencies within the executive branch and independent agencies, including the FDA. Any such reduction in personnel may result in longer review times by the FDA and other agencies.

Previous wording

Disruptions and personnel turnover, as a result of leadership changes, staff reductions or otherwise at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs and biologics or modifications to approved drugs and biologics to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. Changes and cuts in FDA staffing also could result in delays in the FDA’s responsiveness or in its ability to review IND submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion or at all.

Current wording

Disruptions and personnel turnover, as a result of leadership changes, staff reductions or otherwise at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs and biologics or modifications to approved drugs and biologics to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. Changes and cuts in FDA staffing have been reported by some within the pharmaceuticaalso could result in delays in the FDA’s responsiveness or in its ability to review IND submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion or at all.