Mirum Pharmaceuticals Inc

Previous wording

The FDA’s, European Commission’s and comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval for our product candidates or restrict marketing of any then-approved product. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. For example, in April 2023 the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation and the Parliament adopted its related position. If adopted in the form proposed, the recent European Commission proposals to revise the existing EU laws governing authorization of medicinal products may result in a decrease in data and market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the EU and make them open to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than is currently the case with a related reduction in reimbursement status.

Current wording

The FDA’s, European Commission’s and comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval for our product candidates or restrict marketing of any then-approved product. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. For example, in April 2023 the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation, and in April 2024, the Parliament adopted its related position. If adopted in the form proposed, the recent European Commission proposals to revise the existing EU laws governing authorization of medicinal products may result in a decrease in data and market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the EU and make them open to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than is currently the case with a related reduction in reimbursement status.

Previous wording

Even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of our clinical trials, such regulatory authorities may change their requirements in the future. In addition, even if the clinical trials are successfully completed, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not interpret the results as we do, and more clinical trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. In July 2024, the European Commission authorized Livmarli for the treatment of PFIC in patients three months of age and older; however, the EMA may require additional Phase 3 trials in order to expand the label or may reject expansion altogether.

Current wording

Even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of our clinical trials, such regulatory authorities may change their requirements in the future. In addition, even if the clinical trials are successfully completed, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not interpret the results as we do, and more clinical trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval.

Previous wording

We announced topline results of a Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the effects of Chenodal in patients with CTX, known as the RESTORE clinical trial, which we used to support our NDA submission in June 2024 for marketing authorization of Chenodal for CTX in the U.S. The FDA may not agree with our interpretation of the results and may ask for additional data to be submitted or may deny an approval for CTX. The FDA may also not agree with the completeness of our NDA submission and may ask for additional non-clinical, manufacturing or supportive clinical data. We have orphan designation for Chenodal for CTX which has the potential to allow seven years of orphan exclusivity upon approval. If we do not receive approval for CTX, we will not have the benefit of this orphan exclusivity. Furthermore, even with approval, we may not receive the benefit of the orphan designation or such designation may not prevent a generic launch for the treatment of radiolucent gallstones. Any such delay or denial of approval and orphan exclusivity for the treatment of CTX could lead to an adverse impact to our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

We announced topline results of a Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the effects of Chenodal in patients with CTX, known as the RESTORE clinical trial, which we used to support our NDA submission in June 2024 for marketing authorization of Chenodal for CTX in the U.S. The FDA has accepted the NDA submission and has assigned a PDUFA date of December 28, 2024. The FDA may not agree with our interpretation of the results and may ask for additional data to be submitted or may deny an approval for CTX. The FDA may also not agree with the completeness of our NDA submission and may ask for additional non-clinical, manufacturing or supportive clinical data. We have orphan designation for Chenodal for CTX which has the potential to allow seven years of orphan exclusivity upon approval. If we do not receive approval for CTX, we will not have the benefit of this orphan exclusivity. Furthermore, even with approval, we may not receive the benefit of the orphan designation or such designation may not prevent a generic launch for the treatment of radiolucent gallstones. Any such delay or denial of approval and orphan exclusivity for the treatment of CTX could lead to an adverse impact to our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

•any failure or delay in reaching an agreement with contract research organizations (“CROs”) and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical trial sites;

Current wording

•any failure or delay in reaching an agreement with CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical trial sites;

Previous wording

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the U.S. or internationally, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from non-clinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the non-clinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as the case may be, may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or may object to elements of our clinical development program. For example, we have submitted an NDA for Chenodal for CTX but the FDA may require additional preclinical or clinical studies prior to approving our submission. If we were to (and do) conduct such additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not agree with our interpretation of the results and we may not receive approval for our product candidates or additional indications, or marketing of our approved medicines may be subject to additional requirements.

Current wording

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the U.S. or internationally, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from non-clinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the non-clinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as the case may be, may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or may object to elements of our clinical development program. For example, we have submitted an NDA for Chenodal for CTX but the FDA may require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials prior to approving our submission. If we were required to conduct such additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not agree with our interpretation of the results and we may not receive approval for our product candidates or additional indications, or marketing of our approved medicines may be subject to additional requirements.

Previous wording

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effectiveness in the targeted indication or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. While we have three medicines approved for commercial sale, we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses since our inception in May 2018. For the six months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023, we reported a net loss of $49.9 million and $104.2 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $606.2 million.

Current wording

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effectiveness in the targeted indication or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. While we have three medicines approved for commercial sale, we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses since our inception in May 2018. For the nine months ended September 30, 2024 and 2023, we reported a net loss of $64.2 million and $127.8 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $620.4 million.

Previous wording

Further, the IRA will, among other things, (i) allow HHS to negotiate the price of certain drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law and (ii) impose rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. These provisions take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry.

Current wording

Further, the IRA will, among other things, (i) allow HHS to negotiate the price of certain drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law and (ii) impose rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. These provisions took effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon reimbursement prices for the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. HHS will select up to fifteen additional drugs covered under Part D for price negotiation in 2025.

Previous wording

October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework.

Current wording

In July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform. The plan sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, in response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework.

Previous wording

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, generic pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions who are active in rare disease. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing, on an exclusive basis, drug products that are more effective or less costly than our product candidates, which may negatively affect our commercial opportunities. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our product candidates are efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience of dosing, price and reimbursement.

Current wording

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, generic pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions who are active in rare disease. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing, on an exclusive basis, drug products that are more effective or less costly than our product candidates, which may negatively affect our commercial opportunities. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our product candidates are efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience of dosing, price and reimbursement. There may also be competitors for our product candidates that we are unaware of at this point.

Previous wording

We are aware Ipsen has received approval for odevixibat for the treatment of pruritus in patients with PFIC 3 months and older, and pruritus in patients with ALGS 12 months and older, in the U.S., and for the treatment of PFIC in patients 6 months and older in certain European countries. We are aware that Ipsen submitted an application to the EMA seeking to extend the existing marketing authorization for odevixibat for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus in patients with ALGS. A positive CHMP opinion on this application was adopted in July 2024 under the brand name Kayfanda. Ipsen is also conducting a study of odevixibat in BA and plans to pursue other cholestatic liver diseases. Other off-label medications are also used in ALGS and PFIC for cholestatic pruritus such as Ursodeoxycholic acid (“UDCA”), cholestyramine and other bile salt resins, rifampin, naltrexone and other agents, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Despite the lack of FDA approval, these older, generic agents are perceived as part of the standard of care for treating ALGS and PFIC patients suffering from cholestatic pruritus. Further, we may compete with companies that are developing gene therapy for the treatment of PFIC. Additionally, surgical interventions, such as partial external biliary diversion and nasobiliary drainage, and extracorporeal liver support, such as Molecular Adsorbent Recirculation System, are also employed in an attempt to lower bile acid levels, manage pruritus and improve measures of liver function.

Current wording

We are aware Ipsen has received approval for odevixibat (Bylvay) for the treatment of pruritus in patients with PFIC 3 months of age and older, and cholestatic pruritus in patients with ALGS 12 months of age and older, in the U.S., and for the treatment of PFIC in patients 6 months of age and older in Europe and for odevixibat (Kayfanda) for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus in ALGS in patients 6 months of age and older. In Europe, Bylvay and Kayfanda are authorized under exceptional circumstances. Ipsen has opened enrollment in their ALGS open-label extension study to infants 11 months or younger and is also conducting a study of odevixibat in BA and plans to pursue other cholestatic liver diseases. Other off-label medications are also used in ALGS and PFIC for cholestatic pruritus such as Ursodeoxycholic acid (“UDCA”), cholestyramine and other bile salt resins, rifampin, naltrexone and other agents, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Despite the lack of FDA approval, these older, generic agents are perceived as part of the standard of care for treating ALGS and PFIC patients suffering from cholestatic pruritus. Further, we may compete with companies that are developing gene therapy for the treatment of PFIC. Additionally, surgical interventions, such as partial external biliary diversion and nasobiliary drainage, and extracorporeal liver support, such as Molecular Adsorbent Recirculation System, are also employed in an attempt to lower bile acid levels, manage pruritus and improve measures of liver function.

Previous wording

In adult settings of cholestasis, similar to pediatric settings, cholestyramine, UDCA, rifampin and naltrexone are commonly used agents. We are aware that Alfasigma S.p.A's (formerly Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) Ocaliva is approved as a second-line treatment for PBC in patients with inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid. We are aware of several agents in clinical development for the treatment of PBC including Alfasigma’s Ocaliva and bezafibrate, Gilead Sciences’ (formerly Cymabay) seladelpar, Zydus Therapeutics Inc.’s saroglitazar magnesium, Incyte’s INCB000547, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.’s NGM282, Calliditas Therapeutics AB’s setanaxib, COUR Pharmaceuticals’ CNP-104, Ascletis Pharma’s ASC42, Umecrine Cognition’s golexanolone, and GlaxoSmithKline’s linerixibat, another IBATi. We are aware that Gilead Sciences has submitted a marketing application to the FDA and EMA seeking approval for seladelpar for the treatment of PBC in patients with inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid and Ipsen has been granted accelerated approval by FDA and received a positive CHMP opinion from EMA for elafibranor for the treatment of PBC with inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid.

Current wording

In adult settings of cholestasis, similar to pediatric settings, cholestyramine, UDCA, rifampin and naltrexone are commonly used agents. We are aware that Alfasigma S.p.’s (formerly Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) Ocaliva, Gilead Science’s Livdezli, and Ipsen’s Iqirvo are approved as a second-line treatment for PBC in patients with inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid. We are aware of several agents in clinical development for the treatment of PBC including Alfasigma’s Ocaliva and bezafibrate, Zydus Therapeutics Inc.’s saroglitazar magnesium, Incyte’s INCB000547, Calliditas Therapeutics AB’s setanaxib, COUR Pharmaceuticals’ CNP-104, Umecrine Cognition’s golexanolone, Kowa Company Ltd’s K-808, HighTide Therapeutic Inc’s HTD-1801, Hepagene Therapeutics Inc’s HPG-1860, Tharimmune Inc’s TH-104, Cascade Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s CS-0159, Rectify Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s RTY-694, and GlaxoSmithKline’s linerixibat, another IBATi.

Previous wording

We are not aware of FDA or European Commission approved therapeutics for the treatment of PSC. We are aware of several agents in clinical development for the treatment of PSC, including Dr. Falk Pharma's Norucholic acid,

Current wording

We are not aware of FDA or European Commission approved therapeutics for the treatment of PSC. We are aware of several agents in clinical development for the treatment of PSC, including Dr. Falk Pharma's Norucholic acid, HighTide Biopharmaceutical Inc.’s HTD1801, Ipsen’s elafibranor and ritivixibat, NGM Biopharmaceuticals Inc.’s

Previous wording

Even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for Livmarli in PFIC and ALGS, and Chenodal in CTX, we may not be able to obtain or maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug status, including market exclusivity.

Current wording

Even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for several of our product candidates, we may not be able to obtain or maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug status, including market exclusivity.

Previous wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and the EU, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or a patient population of greater than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the U.S. In the EU, the European Commission, on the basis of the opinion of the EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”), grants orphan drug designation for medicines to be developed for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of diseases that are life-threatening or chronically debilitating, for which either no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment exists, or if such method exists, the medicine is of significant benefit to those affected by such condition. To benefit from such designation, either the prevalence of such condition must not be more than five in 10,000 people across the EU or, if more prevalent, it must be unlikely that the marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient returns to justify the investment needed for its development. In September 2013, the FDA granted orphan drug status to Livmarli for the treatment of patients with PFIC and ALGS in the U.S. We also received orphan drug designation for Livmarli for PFIC and ALGS in the EU. The FDA granted orphan drug designation for Chenodal for the treatment of CTX in 2010. Generally, if a drug with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug may be entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the European Commission from approving another marketing application for the same drug (or, in the case of the European Commission, a similar drug) for the same indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU, which may be extended by six months and two years, respectively, in the case of product candidates that have complied with the respective regulatory authority’s agreed upon pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”). There is, however, legislation currently pending in the EU that intends to modify the length of orphan market exclusivity, change the way in which market exclusivity is awarded to drugs with more than one approved orphan indication, and eliminate the two years extension of orphan market exclusivity given for a successful PIP. The exclusivity period in the EU can be reduced to six years if at the end of the fifth year a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be l…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and the EU, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or a patient population of greater than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the U.S. In the EU, the European Commission, on the basis of the opinion of the EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”), grants orphan drug designation for medicines to be developed for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of diseases that are life-threatening or chronically debilitating, for which either no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment exists, or if such method exists, the medicine is of significant benefit to those affected by such condition. To benefit from such designation, either the prevalence of such condition must not be more than five in 10,000 people across the EU or, if more prevalent, it must be unlikely that the marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient returns to justify the investment needed for its development. In September 2013, the FDA granted orphan drug status to Livmarli for the treatment of patients with PFIC and ALGS in the U.S. We also received orphan drug designation for Livmarli for PFIC and ALGS in the EU. The FDA granted orphan drug designation for Chenodal for the treatment of CTX in 2010. Generally, if a drug with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug may be entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the European Commission from approving another marketing application for the same drug (or, in the case of the European Commission, a similar drug) for the same indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU, which may be extended by six months and two years, respectively, in the case of product candidates that have complied with the respective regulatory authority’s agreed upon pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”). There is, however, a legislative proposal pending in the EU that may modify the length of orphan market exclusivity, change the way in which market exclusivity is awarded to drugs with more than one approved orphan indication. The exclusivity period in the EU can be reduced to six years if at the end of the fifth year a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or European Commission determines that the request for designation was materially defe…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

We may fail to realize all of the anticipated benefits of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition or those benefits may take longer to realize than expected.

Current wording

We may fail to realize all of the anticipated benefits of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition or other product candidate acquisitions or those benefits may take longer to realize than expected.

Previous wording

We believe that there are significant benefits that may be realized from the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition. The full benefits of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition, including the anticipated financial contribution of newly acquired assets, may not be realized as expected, may be diminished due to competition or may not be achieved within the anticipated time frame, or at all. For example, the Phase 3 RESTORE clinical trial may not result in an approval. Failure to achieve the anticipated benefits of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition could adversely affect our results of operations or cash flows, divert needed resources away from our current approved medicines and product candidates, decrease or delay any accretive effect of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition and negatively impact the price of our common stock.

Current wording

We believe that there are significant benefits that may be realized from the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition or any other product candidate acquisition. The full benefits of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition, including the anticipated financial contribution of newly acquired assets, may not be realized as expected, may be diminished due to competition or may not be achieved within the anticipated time frame, or at all. For example, the Phase 3 RESTORE clinical trial may not result in an approval. Failure to achieve the anticipated benefits of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition could adversely affect our results of operations or cash flows, divert needed resources away from our current approved medicines and product candidates, decrease or delay any accretive effect of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition and negatively impact the price of our common stock.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2024, we had 294 full time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to need additional development, managerial, operational, financial, sales, marketing and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Current wording

As of September 30, 2024, we had 311 full time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to need additional development, managerial, operational, financial, sales, marketing and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Previous wording

Furthermore, the EU GDPR provides that EEA Member States may introduce specific requirements related to the processing of “special categories of personal data”, including the personal data related to health and genetic information, which we may process in connection with clinical trials or otherwise; as well as personal data related to criminal offences or convictions where allowed under local law and confirmed by potential employee in employment situations. Under the GDPR, companies that do not comply may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR or 17.5 million pounds sterling under the UK GDPR, or in each case, 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests.

Current wording

Furthermore, the EU GDPR provides that EEA Member States may introduce specific requirements related to the processing of “special categories of personal data”, including the personal data related to health and genetic information, which we may process in connection with clinical trials or otherwise; as well as personal data related to criminal offenses or convictions where allowed under local law and confirmed by potential employee in employment situations. Under the GDPR, companies that do not comply may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR or 17.5 million pounds sterling under the UK GDPR, or in each case, 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests.

Previous wording

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2023, we had federal and California and other state net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards of approximately $166.9 million, $30.0 million and $59.7 million, respectively. The federal NOL carryforwards do not expire, and the California and other state NOL carryforwards will begin to expire in

Current wording

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2023, we had federal and California and other state net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards of approximately $166.9 million, $30.0 million and $59.7 million, respectively. The federal NOL carryforwards do not expire, and the California and other state NOL carryforwards will begin to expire in 2038 and 2032, respectively, unless previously utilized. Our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited. As of December 31, 2023, we also had federal and state research and development credit carryforwards totaling $36.5 million and $4.8 million, respectively. The federal research and development credit carryforwards will begin to expire in 2039, unless previously utilized. The state research and development credits do not expire.

Previous wording

Under the Tax Act, as modified by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), federal NOLs generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOLs in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020 is limited to 80% of taxable income. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Act or the CARES Act. Our NOL carryforwards and other applicable tax attributes are subject to review and possible adjustment by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and state tax authorities and may become subject to an annual limitation in the event of certain cumulative changes in the ownership interest of significant stockholders over a three-year period in excess of 50 percentage points (by value), as defined under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. It is possible that we have experienced one or more such ownership changes in the past, and we may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. We may therefore be limited in the portion of NOL carryforwards and other applicable tax attributes that we can use in the future to offset future taxable income. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating losses is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. We have recorded a full valuation allowance related to our NOLs and other deferred tax assets due to the uncertainty of the ultimate realization of the future benefits of those assets.

Current wording

Under the Tax Act, as modified by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), federal NOLs generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOLs in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020 is limited to 80% of taxable income. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. Our NOL carryforwards and other applicable tax attributes are subject to review and possible adjustment by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and state tax authorities and may become subject to an annual limitation in the event of certain cumulative changes in the ownership interest of significant stockholders over a three-year period in excess of 50 percentage points (by value), as defined under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. It is possible that we have experienced one or more such ownership changes in the past, and we may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. We may therefore be limited in the portion of NOL carryforwards and other applicable tax attributes that we can use in the future to offset future taxable income. At the state level, California recently enacted legislation that, with certain exceptions, suspends the ability to use California NOLs to offset California income and limits the ability to use California business tax credits to offset California taxes, for taxable years beginning after 2023 and before 2027. Other states may also suspend or place limitation on the NOL utilization. We have recorded a full valuation allowance related to our NOLs and other deferred tax assets due to the uncertainty of the ultimate realization of the future benefits of those assets.

Previous wording

For example, we may collaborate with U.S. and foreign academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate an exclusive license to any of the institution’s proprietary rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option to negotiate a license, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified time frame or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer, on an exclusive basis, their proprietary rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

Current wording

For example, we have collaborated and may in the future collaborate with U.S. and foreign academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate an exclusive license to any of the institution’s proprietary rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option to negotiate a license, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified time frame or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer, on an exclusive basis, their proprietary rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

Previous wording

The trading price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control, including limited trading volume. For example, the closing price of our common stock since January 1, 2024 to August 6, 2024 has ranged from a low of $23.57 to a high of $43.33. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section, these factors include, among others:

Current wording

The trading price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control, including limited trading volume. For example, the closing price of our common stock since January 1, 2024 to November 11, 2024 has ranged from a low of $23.57 to a high of $44.74. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section, these factors include, among others:

Previous wording

While we have implemented information security measures designed to protect against security incidents, we cannot assure you that our (or the third parties with whom we work) security measures will be effective. We take steps designed to detect, mitigate and remediate vulnerabilities in our information systems (such as our hardware and/or software, including that of third parties with whom we work). We may not, however, be able to detect and remediate all such vulnerabilities, including on a timely basis. Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures and patches designed to address identified vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities could be exploited and result in a security incident.

Current wording

While we have implemented information security measures designed to protect against security incidents, we cannot assure you that our (or the third parties with whom we work) security measures will be effective. It may be difficult and/or costly to detect, investigate, mitigate, contain, and remediate a security incident. Our efforts to detect, investigate, mitigate, contain, and remediate a security incident may not be successful. Actions taken by us or the third parties with whom we work to detect, investigate, mitigate, contain, and remediate a security incident could result in outages, data losses, and disruptions of our business. Threat actors may also gain access to other networks and systems after a compromise of our networks and systems. We take steps designed to detect, mitigate and remediate vulnerabilities in our information systems (such as our hardware and/or software, including that of third parties with whom we work). We may not, however, be able to detect and remediate all such vulnerabilities, including on a timely basis. Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures and patches designed to address identified vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities could be exploited and result in a security incident.

Previous wording

We may expend significant resources or modify our business activities (including our clinical trial activities) to try to protect against security incidents. Certain data privacy and security obligations may require us to implement and maintain specific security measures, industry-standard or reasonable security measures to protect our information technology systems and sensitive information. Applicable data privacy and security obligations may require us to notify relevant stakeholders, including affected individuals, customers, regulators, and investors, of security incidents, or to implement other requirements, such as providing credit monitoring. Such disclosures and compliance with such requirements are costly, and the disclosure or the failure to comply with such requirements could lead to adverse consequences. If such an event were to occur, or we (or a third party with whom we work) are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we may experience adverse consequences. These consequences may include: government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections), additional reporting requirements and/or oversight, restrictions on processing sensitive information (including personal data), litigation (including class claims), indemnification obligations, negative publicity, reputational harm, monetary fund diversions, interruptions in our operations (including availability of data), financial loss, and other similar harms. Security incidents and attendant consequences may negatively impact our ability to grow and operate our business. More specifically, for example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Security incidents and any unauthorized access or disclosure of our sensitive information could also compromise our intellectual property and patent portfolio, expose sensitive business information, expose the personal data of our employees, require us to incur significant remediation costs, disrupt key business operations and divert attention of management and key information technology resources.

Current wording

We may expend significant resources or modify our business activities (including our clinical trial activities) to try to protect against security incidents. Certain data privacy and security obligations may require us to implement and maintain specific security measures, industry-standard or reasonable security measures to protect our information technology systems and sensitive information. Applicable data privacy and security obligations may require us, or we may choose, to notify relevant stakeholders, including affected individuals, customers, regulators, and investors, of security incidents, or to take other actions, such as providing credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. Such disclosures and compliance with applicable requirements are costly, and the disclosure or the failure to comply with such requirements could lead to adverse consequences. If a material security incident was to occur, or we (or a third party with whom we work) are perceived to have experienced such an event, we may experience adverse consequences. These consequences may include: government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections), additional reporting requirements and/or oversight, restrictions on processing sensitive information (including personal data), litigation (including class claims), indemnification obligations, negative publicity, reputational harm, monetary fund diversions, interruptions in our operations (including availability of data), financial loss, and other similar harms. Security incidents and attendant consequences may negatively impact our ability to grow and operate our business. More specifically, for example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Security incidents and any unauthorized access or disclosure of our sensitive information could also compromise our intellectual property and patent portfolio, expose sensitive business information, expose the personal data of our employees, require us to incur significant remediation costs, disrupt key business operations and divert attention of management and key information technology resources.

Previous wording

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and regulations of Nasdaq. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. Each fiscal year, we must perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal controls over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in our Form 10-K filing for that year, as required by Section 404 of the

Current wording

and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. Each fiscal year, we must perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal controls over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in our Form 10-K filing for that year, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This requires that we incur substantial professional fees and internal costs related to our accounting and finance functions and that we expend significant management efforts.

Previous wording

As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, which require, among other things, that we file with the SEC annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC and Nasdaq to implement provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, impose significant requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. Further, in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was enacted. There are significant corporate governance and executive compensation related provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that require the SEC to adopt additional rules and regulations in these areas such as “say on pay” and proxy access. Recent legislation permits emerging growth companies to implement many of these requirements over a longer period. As of June 30, 2023, the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeded $700.0 million. Consequently, we are a large accelerated filer and no longer an emerging growth company. As a result, we are subject to certain disclosure and compliance requirements that apply to other public companies but did not previously apply to us due to our status as an emerging growth company and expect to incur additional legal and financial compliance costs as a result. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate.

Current wording

As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, which require, among other things, that we file with the SEC annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC and Nasdaq to implement provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, impose significant requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. Further, in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was enacted. There are significant corporate governance and executive compensation related provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that require the SEC to adopt additional rules and regulations in these areas such as “say on pay” and proxy access. Recent legislation permits emerging growth companies to implement many of these requirements over a longer period. As of June 30, 2023, the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeded $700.0 million. Consequently, we are no longer an emerging growth company. As a result, we are subject to certain disclosure and compliance requirements that apply to other public companies but did not previously apply to us due to our status as an emerging growth company and expect to incur additional legal and financial compliance costs as a result. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate.