Mirum Pharmaceuticals Inc

Previous wording

Livmarli, Chenodal, and Cholbam are our approved or commercially available medicines. The success of our business depends, in part, on our ability to commercialize our approved medicines profitably. Our successful commercialization of our approved medicines depends on a number of factors, including, among others, the following:

Current wording

The success of our business depends, in part, on our ability to commercialize our approved medicines profitably. Our successful commercialization of our approved medicines depends on a number of factors, including, among others, the following:

Previous wording

•our ability to establish and enforce intellectual property rights in and to our approved medicines and avoid third-party patent interference or intellectual property infringement claims;

Current wording

•our ability to establish and enforce intellectual property rights in and to our approved medicines and avoid or successfully defend third-party patent interference or intellectual property infringement claims;

Previous wording

Growing and maintaining our own sales force to market Livmarli and Cholbam is expensive and time-consuming. Moreover, we may not be able to successfully or adequately develop this capability for our product candidates in development. We compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our approved medicines, and any agreements with such third parties may not be on terms that are favorable to us. To the extent we do rely on third parties to commercialize our approved medicines and our other product candidates, if approved, we may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenues from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. In addition, we have entered into a limited number of partner and distributor agreements. Any loss, commercial failure, or termination of rights pursuant to these agreements could delay or hinder our commercialization efforts.

Current wording

Growing and maintaining our own sales force to market Livmarli, Cholbam and Ctexli is expensive and time-consuming. Moreover, we may not be able to successfully or adequately develop this capability for our product candidates in development. We compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our approved medicines, and any agreements with such third parties may not be on terms that are favorable to us. To the extent we do rely on third parties to commercialize our approved medicines and our other product candidates, if approved, we may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenues from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. In addition, we have entered into a limited number of partner and distributor agreements. Any loss, commercial failure, or termination of rights pursuant to these agreements could delay or hinder our commercialization efforts.

Previous wording

•changes in federal, state or foreign government regulations or private third-party payors’ reimbursement policies;

Current wording

•changes in federal, state or foreign government regulations or private third-party payors’ reimbursement policies, including changes that may result from government administration changes;

Previous wording

In many foreign countries, including EU Member States, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control and the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. In such countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of regulatory approval for a product and varies between countries. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels. For instance, governmental authorities in the EU Member States and third-party payors could base pricing and reimbursement terms on what they perceive to be comparable products, even if approved for different indications. In addition, EU Member States may restrict the range of medicines for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicines for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price for the medicine, it may refuse to reimburse a product at the price set by the manufacturer or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicine on the market. For example, some countries like France may impose a total revenue cap on a product, limiting maximum sales potential at a certain threshold regardless of unit price. These pricing and reimbursement decisions may impact the pricing and reimbursement of our approved medicines in such jurisdictions. Many EU Member States also periodically review their reimbursement procedures for medicines, which could have an adverse impact on reimbursement status. Moreover, political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations often continue after coverage and reimbursement have been obtained. Reference pricing or pricing comparisons to our competitors used by various countries and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced countries, can further reduce prices. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries.

Current wording

In many foreign countries, including EU Member States, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control and the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. In such countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of regulatory approval for a product and varies between countries. In addition, there can be considerable pressure from governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels. For instance, governmental authorities in the EU Member States and third-party payors could base pricing and reimbursement terms on what they perceive to be comparable products, even if approved for different indications. In addition, EU Member States may restrict the range of medicines for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicines for human use. An EU Member State, such as France and Germany, may approve a specific price for the medicine, it may refuse to reimburse a product at the price set by the manufacturer or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicine on the market. For example, some countries, like France, may impose a total revenue cap on a product, limiting maximum sales potential at a certain threshold regardless of unit price. These pricing and reimbursement decisions may impact the pricing and reimbursement of our approved medicines in such jurisdictions. Many EU Member States also periodically review their reimbursement procedures for medicines, which could have an adverse impact on the reimbursement status of our approved medicines in the future. Moreover, political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations often continue after coverage and reimbursement have been obtained. Reference pricing or pricing comparisons to our competitors used by various countries and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced countries, can further reduce prices. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries.

Previous wording

We expect that legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the EU Member States will continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures, such as lower maximum prices, lower or lack of reimbursement coverage and incentives to use cheaper, usually generic, products as an alternative to branded products, and/or branded products available through parallel import to keep healthcare costs down. Moreover, in December 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, (“HTA”), amending Directive 2011/24/EU (“HTA Regulation”), was adopted in the EU. The Regulation will apply beginning January 2025. It is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicines, and providing the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation foresees a three-year transitional period and will permit EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those product candidates in the EU could be negatively affected.

Current wording

We expect that legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the EU Member States will continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures, such as lower maximum prices, lower or lack of reimbursement coverage and incentives to use cheaper, usually generic, products as an alternative to branded products, and/or branded products available through parallel import to keep healthcare costs down. Moreover, in December 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, (“HTA”), amending Directive 2011/24/EU (“HTA Regulation”), was adopted in the EU. The Regulation entered into application on January 12, 2025 through a phased implementation. It is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicines, and providing the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation permits EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those product candidates in the EU could be negatively affected.

Previous wording

As is the case with biopharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events (“AEs”) associated with use of our product candidates. Results of our clinical trials and expanded access program could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Current wording

As is the case with biopharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events (“AEs”) associated with use of our approved medicines and product candidates. Results of our clinical trials and expanded access program could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates by the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Previous wording

In clinical trials of Livmarli in ALGS, the most commonly reported AEs were diarrhea, abdominal pain and vomiting, and were mostly mild to moderate in severity and transient in nature. Additionally, AEs reported in greater than 5% of patients included fat-soluble vitamin deficiency, nausea, liver transaminase increases, and bone fracture. The frequency of observed AEs has not increased over time. In clinical trials of Livmarli in PFIC, AEs reported in greater than 5% of patients and greater than placebo included diarrhea, abdominal pain, increased transaminases, hematochezia or rectal hemorrhage, and bone fractures. Prescribing information for Livmarli includes warnings and precautions related to monitoring for and the risk of hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal adverse reactions, fat-soluble vitamin deficiency and risk of propylene glycol toxicity. In clinical trials of volixibat, the most common AEs reported were mild to moderate GI events

Current wording

In clinical trials of Livmarli in ALGS, the most commonly reported AEs were diarrhea, abdominal pain and vomiting, and were mostly mild to moderate in severity and transient in nature. Additionally, AEs reported in greater than 5% of patients included fat-soluble vitamin deficiency, nausea, liver transaminase increases, and bone fracture. The frequency of observed AEs has not increased over time. In the pivotal trial of Livmarli in PFIC, adverse reactions reported in greater than 5% of patients and greater than placebo included diarrhea, abdominal pain, increased transaminases, hematochezia or rectal hemorrhage, and bone fractures. Prescribing information for Livmarli includes warnings and precautions related to monitoring for and the risk of hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal adverse reactions, fat-soluble vitamin deficiency and risk of propylene glycol toxicity (pediatric patients less than 5 years of age). In clinical trials of volixibat, the most common AEs reported were mild to moderate GI events (diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting) observed in the volixibat groups. In the interim analysis of the PBC VANTAGE study, the incidence of diarrhea in patients on volixibat was 77% with all cases mild to moderate; one patient discontinued the study due to an AE of diarrhea. The most common adverse reactions for Cholbam (≥1%) are diarrhea, reflux esophagitis, malaise, jaundice, skin lesion, nausea, abdominal pain, intestinal polyp, urinary tract infection, and peripheral neuropathy. The most common (> 20%) AEs seen in patients on chenodiol in the RESTORE clinical trial included diarrhea, constipation and headache.

Previous wording

We participate in, or are subject to, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, as administered by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), and other federal and state government pricing programs in the U.S., and we may participate, or be asked to participate, in additional government pricing programs or supplemental rebates in the future. These programs generally require us to pay rebates or otherwise provide discounts to government payors in connection with drugs that are dispensed to beneficiaries/recipients of these programs. In some cases, such as with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the rebates are based on pricing that we report to the government agencies that administer the programs. Pricing requirements and rebate/discount calculations are complex, vary among products and programs, and are often subject to interpretation by governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. The requirements of these programs, including, by way of example, their respective terms and scope, change frequently. For example, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer’s price (“AMP”), for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024. Responding to current and future changes may increase our costs, and the complexity of compliance will be time consuming. Invoicing for rebates is provided in arrears, and there is frequently a time lag of up to several months between the sales to which rebate notices relate and our receipt of those notices, which further complicates our ability to accurately estimate and accrue for rebates related to the Medicaid program as implemented by individual states. Thus, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify all factors that may cause our discount and rebate payment obligations to vary from period to period, and our actual results may differ significantly from our estimated allowances for discounts and rebates. Changes in estimates and assumptions may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Inspector General and other Congressional, enforcement and administrative bodies have recently increased their focus on pricing requirements for products, including, but not limited to the methodologies used by manufacturers to calculate AMP, and best price, for compliance with reporting requirements under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Additionally, several states have a practice of asking, or are increasing activity in requesting supplemental rebates, for covered products. We are liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data and for any overcharging of government payors. For example, failure to submit monthly/quarterly AMP and best price data on a timely basis could result in signific…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

We participate in, or are subject to, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, as administered by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), and other federal and state government pricing programs in the U.S., and we may participate, or be asked to participate, in additional government pricing programs or supplemental rebates in the future. These programs generally require us to pay rebates or otherwise provide discounts to government payors in connection with drugs that are dispensed to beneficiaries/recipients of these programs. In some cases, such as with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the rebates are based on pricing that we report to the government agencies that administer the programs. Pricing requirements and rebate/discount calculations are complex, vary among products and programs, and are often subject to interpretation by governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. The requirements of these programs, including, by way of example, their respective terms and scope, change frequently. For example, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer’s price (“AMP”), for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024. Responding to current and future changes may increase our costs, and the complexity of compliance will be time consuming. Invoicing for rebates is provided in arrears, and there is frequently a time lag of up to several months between the sales to which rebate notices relate and our receipt of those notices, which further complicates our ability to accurately estimate and accrue for rebates related to the Medicaid program as implemented by individual states. Thus, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify all factors that may cause our discount and rebate payment obligations to vary from period to period, and our actual results may differ significantly from our estimated allowances for discounts and rebates. Changes in estimates and assumptions may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Inspector General and other Congressional, enforcement and administrative bodies have recently increased their focus on pricing requirements for products, including, but not limited to the methodologies used by manufacturers to calculate AMP, and best price, for compliance with reporting requirements under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Additionally, several states have a practice of asking, or are increasing activity in requesting supplemental rebates, for covered products. We are liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data and for any overcharging of government payors. For example, failure to submit monthly/quarterly AMP and best price data on a timely basis could result in significant civil mo…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

The FDA, European Commission, competent authorities of individual EU Member States, and comparable foreign regulatory authorities strictly regulate the marketing and promotional claims that are made about drug and biologic products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses or indications that are not approved by the FDA, European Commission, Health Canada or comparable foreign regulatory authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling and comparative safety or efficacy claims cannot be made without direct comparative clinical data. For example, although Livmarli may appeal to individuals who have not been diagnosed with cholestatic pruritus associated with ALGS or PFIC or suffer from other forms of cholestatic pruritus, we are only able to promote Livmarli in the U.S. for cholestatic pruritus associated with ALGS in patients three months of age and older, for cholestatic pruritus in PFIC patients twelve months of age and older and in the EU for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus in patients with ALGS two months of age and older and for the treatment of PFIC in patients three months of age and older. If we are found to have promoted off-label uses of our approved medicines or product candidates, we may receive warning or untitled letters and become subject to significant criminal and civil liability, which would materially harm our business. Further, both federal and state governments have levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper off-label promotion and have enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion and to undertake corrective remedies.

Current wording

The FDA, European Commission, Health Canada, competent authorities of individual EU Member States, and comparable foreign regulatory authorities strictly regulate the marketing and promotional claims that are made about drug and biologic products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses or indications that are not approved by the FDA, European Commission, Health Canada or comparable foreign regulatory authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling and comparative safety or efficacy claims cannot be made without direct comparative clinical data. For example, although Livmarli may appeal to individuals who have not been diagnosed with cholestatic pruritus associated with ALGS or PFIC or suffer from other forms of cholestatic pruritus like those included in our PHASE 3 EXPAND trial, we (and our collaborators, where applicable) are only able to promote Livmarli:

Previous wording

In addition, Livmarli was the subject of a marketing authorization granted by the European Commission under exceptional circumstances in accordance with Article 14.8 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 relating to the authorization and supervision of medicines for human and veterinary use and establishing the EMA. This type of authorization is reviewed annually to reassess the risk-benefit balance of the medicine. The purpose of any specific procedures/obligations imposed as part of the marketing authorization granted in exceptional circumstances is to contribute to the provision of information on the safe and effective use of the product. Grant of a marketing authorization in exceptional circumstances is for a renewable period of one year and will normally not lead to the completion of a full dossier/approval.

Current wording

In addition, Livmarli was the subject of a marketing authorization granted by the European Commission under exceptional circumstances in accordance with Article 14.8 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 relating to the authorization and supervision of medicines for human and veterinary use and establishing the EMA. This type of authorization is reviewed annually to reassess the risk-benefit balance of the medicine. The purpose of any specific procedures/obligations imposed as part of the marketing authorization granted in exceptional circumstances is to contribute to the provision of information on the safe and effective use of the product. Grant of a marketing authorization in exceptional circumstances is renewable for one year periods and will normally not lead to the completion of a full dossier/approval.

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 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.

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. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Council. Moreover, on December 1, 2024, a new European Commission took office. The proposal could, therefore, still be subject to revisions. 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

We may pursue approval in the U.S. or certain countries in Europe using accelerated, exceptional circumstances or conditional approval pathways, which typically require commitments to complete additional clinical trials. The additional clinical trials may not confirm the treatment effect, which may result in the loss of marketing authorization under accelerated approval, exceptional circumstances or conditional approval.

Current wording

We may pursue approval in the U.S., Canada or certain countries in Europe using accelerated, exceptional circumstances or conditional approval pathways, which typically require commitments to complete additional clinical trials. The additional clinical trials may not confirm the treatment effect, which may result in the loss of marketing authorization under accelerated approval, exceptional circumstances or conditional approval.

Previous wording

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of a product candidate, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that a product candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Clinical trials often fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy of the product candidate studied for the target indication. For example, in December 2023, we announced that our Phase 2b EMBARK clinical trial evaluating Livmarli in patients with biliary atresia (“BA”) did not meet its primary or key secondary endpoints. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. In the case of our product candidates, we are seeking to develop treatments for rare diseases for which there is limited clinical experience, and our planned clinical trials use novel end points and measurement methodologies, which add complexity to the conduct of and analysis of data from our clinical trials and may delay or prevent regulatory approval.

Current wording

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of a product candidate, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that a product candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Our clinical trials have in the past and could in the future fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy of the product candidate studied for the target indication. For example, in December 2023, we announced that our Phase 2b EMBARK clinical trial evaluating Livmarli in patients with biliary atresia (“BA”) did not meet its primary or key secondary endpoints. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. In the case of our product candidates, we are seeking to develop treatments for rare diseases for which there is limited clinical experience, and our planned clinical trials use novel end points and measurement methodologies, which add complexity to the conduct of and analysis of data from our clinical trials and may delay or prevent regulatory approval.

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 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.

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. 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

In addition, we may not be able to acquire, discover or develop any additional product candidates, and any additional product candidates we may develop may not be approved, manufactured or produced economically, successfully commercialized or widely accepted in the marketplace or be more effective than other commercially available alternatives. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources whether or not we ultimately identify any candidates. If we are unable to develop or commercialize any other product candidates, our business and prospects will suffer.

Current wording

In addition, we may not be able to acquire, discover or develop any additional product candidates, and any additional product candidates we may develop may not be approved, manufactured or produced economically, successfully commercialized or widely accepted in the marketplace or be more effective than other commercially available alternatives. Research programs to identify and efforts to acquire new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources whether or not we ultimately identify or acquire any candidates. If we are unable to acquire, develop or commercialize any other product candidates on favorable terms or at all, our business and prospects will suffer.

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 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.

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 three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, we reported a net loss of $14.7 million and $25.3 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $658.9 million.

Previous wording

We expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future as we look to acquire products and product candidates, continue our clinical development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates and as we continue commercializing our approved medicines in the U.S. and in certain countries in Europe. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior net losses and expected future net losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses, or when, if at all, we will be able to achieve profitability.

Current wording

We expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future as we look to acquire products and product candidates, continue our clinical development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates and as we continue commercializing our approved medicines in the U.S., Canada and in certain countries in Europe. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior net losses and expected future net losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses, or when, if at all, we will be able to achieve profitability.

Previous wording

Disruptions at the FDA, EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could negatively impact our business.

Current wording

Disruptions at the FDA, EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities caused by layoffs, funding shortages or global health concerns could negatively impact our business.

Previous wording

The ability of the FDA, the competent authorities of EU Member States and other foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve proposed clinical trials or new product candidates can be affected by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, and other events that may otherwise affect these regulatory agencies’ 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.

Current wording

The ability of the FDA, the competent authorities of EU Member States and other foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve proposed clinical trials or new product candidates can be affected by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, and other events that may otherwise affect these regulatory agencies’ 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, including executive and congressional priorities, the impacts of which are inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Previous wording

Disruptions at the FDA, European Commission, EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary regulatory authorities, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, including as a result of the U.S. Congress failing to timely raise the U.S. debt ceiling, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Current wording

Disruptions at the FDA, European Commission, EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary regulatory authorities, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, including as a result of the U.S. Congress failing to timely raise the U.S. debt ceiling, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA, European Commission, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, the current U.S. administration has proposed substantial reductions in force at various U.S. government agencies that, if applied to the FDA in a material way, could significantly reduce the FDA’s capacity to perform its functions in a manner consistent with its past practices and could negatively impact our business.

Previous wording

In addition, the Affordable Care Act has been subject to various health reform measures. For example, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, the Biden administration issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how any additional health care reform measures of the current administration will impact the Affordable Care Act and our business.

Current wording

There have been amendments and executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, the Affordable Care Act has been subject to various health reform measures. On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) was signed into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how any additional health care reform measures of the current presidential administration will impact the Affordable Care Act and our business.

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 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.

Current wording

Further, the IRA will, among other things, (i) allow HHS to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs and biologics that have been on the market for at least 7 years 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 (the “Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program”) 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. On January 17, 2025, HHS selected fifteen additional products covered under Part D for price negotiation in 2025. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

Previous wording

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, included reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024.

Current wording

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, included reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024.

Previous 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.

Current wording

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

We expect that the Affordable Care Act, the IRA and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from third-party payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our approved medicines and our product candidates, if approved.

Current wording

We expect that the Affordable Care Act, the IRA and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from third-party payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our approved medicines and our product candidates, if approved. Further, the overall funding of certain government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare is uncertain and there is no guarantee that funds approved by the U.S. Congress will be made available by the current administration. The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions may include, for example, directives to reduce agency workforce, rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending and eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establishing an AI task force and developing a strategic plan, and directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and price plan transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. Additionally, in its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper Bright decision could result in additional legal challenges to current regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies applicable to our operations, including those issued by the FDA. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA. We expect additional health reform measures may be implemented in the future.

Previous 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.

Current wording

Other off-label medications are also used in ALGS, PFIC, PSC and PBC 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, PFIC, PSC and PBC 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.’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.

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 Livdelzi, 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, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.’s NGM282, Calliditas Therapeutics AB’s setanaxib, COUR Pharmaceuticals’ CNP-104, Ascletis Pharma’s ASC42, Umecrine Cognition’s golexanolone, Kowa Company Ltd’s K-808, HighTide Therapeutics 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, HighTide Biopharmaceutical Inc.’s HTD1801, Ipsen’s elafibranor and ritivixibat, NGM Biopharmaceuticals Inc.’s

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 Therapeutics Inc.’s HTD1801, Alfasigma’s Ocaliva, or obeticholic acid, Ipsen’s elafibranor and ritivixibat, NGM Biopharmaceuticals Inc.’s NGM282, Chemomab Therapeutics Ltd.’s CM-101, Cascade Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s CS-0159, LISCure Biosciences Inc.’s LB-P8, and Pliant Therapeutics’ bexotegrast.

Previous wording

There are other approved chenodeoxycholic acid products available outside of the U.S. Both Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH and Leadiant Biosciences, Inc. have FDA Orphan Drug Designations granted for the treatment of CTX (granted in 2004 and 2007, respectively); and we believe that Leadiant Biosciences, based on publicly available information, has completed enrollment of a clinical study in CTX.

Current wording

There are other approved chenodeoxycholic acid products available outside of the U.S. Both Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH and Leadiant Biosciences, Inc. have FDA Orphan Drug Designations granted for the treatment of CTX (granted in 2004 and 2007, respectively).

Previous wording

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may file an ANDA seeking approval of a generic copy of an approved innovator product or an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) that relies on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and effectiveness in approving the innovator product. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA may be for a new or improved version of the original innovator product. Certain of our approved medicines, including Chenodal and Cholbam, are subject to immediate competition from compounded and generic entrants, as the ANDA and NDA for these drug products have no remaining or current patent or non-patent exclusivity.

Current wording

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may file an ANDA seeking approval of a generic copy of an approved innovator product or an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) that relies on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and effectiveness in approving the innovator product. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA may be for a new or improved version of the original innovator product. Certain of our approved medicines, including Chenodal, Ctexli and Cholbam, are or may be subject to immediate competition from compounded and generic entrants, as the ANDA and NDA for these drug products have no remaining or current patent or non-patent 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, 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.

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. In 2024, the FDA and COMP granted orphan drug designation for volixibat for PBC. The FDA granted orphan drug designation for chenodiol 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 E…

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 other product candidate acquisitions or those benefits may take longer to realize than expected.

Current wording

We may fail to realize all of the anticipated benefits of our commercial and 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 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.

Current wording

We believe that there are significant benefits that may be realized from the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition or any other product or product candidate acquisition. For example, 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. Failure to achieve the anticipated benefits of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition or any other product or product candidate 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 an acquisition and negatively impact the price of our common stock.

Previous 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:

Current wording

As of March 31, 2025, we had 334 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

Our operations, and those of our CROs and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or manmade disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. We rely on third-party manufacturers to produce our approved medicines and product candidates. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of these products could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption. Our corporate headquarters is located in California near major earthquake faults and fire zones. The ultimate impact on us, our significant suppliers and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire or other natural disaster.

Current wording

Our operations, and those of our CROs and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. We rely on third-party manufacturers to produce our approved medicines and product candidates. Our ability to obtain clinical supplies of these products could be disrupted if the operations of these suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption. Our corporate headquarters is located in California near major earthquake faults and fire zones. The ultimate impact on us, our significant suppliers and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire or other natural disaster.

Previous wording

In the past few years, numerous U.S. states—including California, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah—have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, at the state level, the California Consumer Privacy Act , as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”), (collectively, “CCPA”), applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives and employees, and requires businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines for violations (up to $7,500 per intentional violation) and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although the CCPA and other comprehensive state privacy laws exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these laws may increase compliance costs and potential liability for us and the third parties with whom we work. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future.

Current wording

Numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, at the state level, the California Consumer Privacy Act, as amended, (“CCPA”), applies to personal data of California consumers, business representatives and employees, and requires businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines for violations and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although the CCPA and other comprehensive state privacy laws exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these laws may increase compliance costs and potential liability for us and the third parties with whom we work. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future.

Previous wording

We are subject to the GDPR because of our data processing activities that involve the personal data of individuals residing in the EEA and UK, such as in connection with our clinical trials in Europe, and early access program in multiple EU countries, and because of any potential processing of personal data carried out in the context of the activities of our relevant European subsidiaries. In addition, we maintain an office in Switzerland, which subjects us to privacy and data protection laws and regulations similar to the GDPR under the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection, or the FADP. The FADP applies to the collection and processing of personal data, including health-related information, by companies located in Switzerland, or in certain circumstances, by companies located outside of Switzerland.

Current wording

We are subject to the GDPR because of our data processing activities that involve the personal data of individuals residing in the EEA and UK, such as in connection with our clinical trials in Europe, and early access program in multiple EU countries, and because of certain processing of personal data carried out in the context of the activities of our relevant European subsidiaries. In addition, we maintain an office in Switzerland, which subjects us to privacy and data protection laws and regulations similar to the GDPR under the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection, or the FADP. The FADP applies to the collection and processing of personal data, including health-related information, by companies located in Switzerland, or in certain circumstances, by companies located outside of Switzerland.

Previous wording

In the ordinary course of business, we may transfer personal data from Europe (including from our European subsidiaries) and other jurisdictions to the U.S. or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the EEA and the UK have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the U.S. and other countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and/or cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the U.S. in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the U.S. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK, or other jurisdictions, to the U.S., or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including limitations of our ability to conduct clinical trial activities in Europe and/or elsewhere, the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as Europe) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer personal data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and/or injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers of personal data to recipients outside Europe for allegedly violating the EU GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. For example, in May 2023, the Irish Data Protection Commission determined that a major social media company’s use of the standard contractual clauses to transfer personal data from Europe to the U. S. was insufficient and levied a 1.2 billion Euro fine against the company and prohibited the company from transferring personal data to the U.S. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data to recipients outside of the EEA and/or UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the U.S., are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants and activist groups.

Current wording

International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the U.S. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK, or other jurisdictions, to the U.S., or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including limitations of our ability to conduct clinical trial activities in Europe and/or elsewhere, the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as Europe) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer personal data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and/or injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers of personal data to recipients outside Europe for allegedly violating the EU GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. For example, in May 2023, the Irish Data Protection Commission determined that a major social media company’s use of the standard contractual clauses to transfer personal data from Europe to the U. S. was insufficient and levied a 1.2 billion Euro fine against the company and prohibited the company from transferring personal data to the U.S. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data to recipients outside of the EEA and/or UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the U.S., are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants and activist groups. Regulators in the U.S. such as the Department of Justice are also increasingly scrutinizing certain personal data transfers and have proposed and may enact certain data export restrictions and localization requirements, for example, the Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons rule finalized by the Department of Justice in late 2024, enacting the Biden administration’s executive order Preventing Access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern, which went into effect April 8, 2025.

Previous wording

In addition, we are also bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. Additionally, some of our customer contracts require us to host personal data locally. We also publish privacy policies, marketing materials and other statements, such as compliance with certain certifications or self-regulatory principles, regarding data privacy and security. If these policies, materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to adverse consequences.

Current wording

In addition, we are also bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. Additionally, some of our customer contracts require us to host personal data locally. We also publish privacy policies, marketing materials and other statements, such as statements related to compliance with certain certifications or self-regulatory principles, concerning artificial intelligence, data privacy and security. Regulators in the United States may scrutinize these statements, and if these policies, materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, misleading or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to adverse consequences.