SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
|ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934|
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022
|TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934|
For transition period from to
Commission File Number 001-40791
2seventy bio, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
60 Binney Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|Title of each class||Trading Symbol||Name of each exchange on which registered|
|Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share||TSVT||The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|Large accelerated filer||☐||Accelerated filer||☐|
|Non-accelerated filer||☒||Smaller reporting company||☒|
|Emerging growth company||☒|
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐
If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act): Yes ☐ No ☒
The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2022, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second quarter was $496,765,830.
The number of shares of registrant’s common stock outstanding as of March 8, 2023 was 50,189,753.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The registrant intends to file a definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A relating to the 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders within 120 days of the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2022. Portions of such definitive proxy statement are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. We make such forward-looking statements pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other federal securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expects”, “intends”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “predicts”, “potential”, “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:
•our post-separation relationships with bluebird bio, Inc., or bluebird bio, third parties, collaborators and our employees;
•our and Bristol Myers Squibb’s (BMS) plans for the continued commercialization of Abecma and the development and commercialization of earlier lines of therapy;
•our ability to operate as a stand-alone company and execute our strategic priorities;
•our ability to finance our operations and business initiatives and obtain funding for such activities;
•the timing, investment and associated activities involved in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, launching, and commercializing our product candidates;
•our plans with respect to the development, manufacture or sale of our product candidates and the associated timing thereof, including the design and results of pre-clinical and clinical studies;
•the operational capabilities and timelines with respect to our in-house manufacturing facility;
•sourcing supplies for the materials used to manufacture our product candidates;
•the safety profile and related adverse events of our product candidates;
•the perceived therapeutic benefits of our product candidates and the potential indications and market opportunities therefor;
•U.S. and foreign regulatory requirements for our product candidates, including any post-approval development and regulatory requirements, and the ability of our product candidates to meet such requirements;
•our ability to attract and retain key employees needed to execute our business plans and strategies and our expectations regarding our ability to manage the impact of any loss of key employees;
•our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our product candidates and the strength thereof;
•our future financial performance, including estimates of our future revenues, expenses, cash flows, profitability, tax obligations, capital requirements and our needs for additional financing, liquidity sources, real estate need and concentration of voting control, as well as the timing and drivers thereof, and internal control over financial reporting;
•our ability to compete with other companies that are or may be developing or selling products that are competitive with our product candidates;
•the status of government regulation in the life sciences industry, particularly with respect to healthcare reform;
•the potential benefits of strategic collaboration agreements;
•potential indemnification liabilities we may owe to bluebird bio after the separation;
•our business and operations following the separation and any benefits or costs of the separation, including the tax treatment of the separation, the tax treatment of the distribution, and limitations imposed on us under the tax matters agreement that we entered with bluebird bio in connection with the separation and distribution;
•the impact of rising inflation rates on our business, financial condition and results of operation;
•the fluctuation of the market price of our shares;
•trends and challenges in our current and potential markets; and
•other risks and uncertainties, including those listed under the section titled “Risk Factors.”
Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report reflect our current views with respect to future events and with respect to our future financial performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those described under Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.
All of our forward-looking statements are as of the date of this Annual Report only. In each case, actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking information. We can give no assurance that such expectations or forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. An occurrence of or any material adverse change in one or more of the risk factors or risks and uncertainties referred to in this Annual Report or included in our other public disclosures or our other periodic reports or other documents or filings filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, could materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Except as required by law, we do not undertake or plan to update or revise any such forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, changes in plans, assumptions, estimates or projections or other circumstances affecting such forward-looking statements occurring after the date of this Annual Report, even if such results, changes or circumstances make it clear that any forward-looking information will not be realized. Any public statements or disclosures by us following this Annual Report that modify or impact any of the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report will be deemed to modify or supersede such statements in this Annual Report.
We may from time to time provide estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, the general business environment, and the markets for certain diseases, including estimates regarding the potential size of those markets and the estimated incidence and prevalence of certain medical conditions. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties, and actual events, circumstances or numbers, including actual disease prevalence rates and market size, may differ materially from the information reflected in this Annual Report. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business information, market data, prevalence information and other data from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data, and similar sources, in some cases applying our own assumptions and analysis that may, in the future, prove not to have been accurate.
Summary of the Material and Other Risks Associated with Our Business
•We are a cell and gene therapy company with a limited operating history as an independent company. To date, we have not recognized any revenues from the sale of products by us. Our revenues have been derived from out-licensing arrangements and collaboration arrangements, including the collaboration revenue derived from sales of Abecma by BMS. We may never become profitable.
•We have incurred significant operating losses in recent periods and anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future.
•We will require additional capital to finance our operations, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, scale back or discontinue some of our product candidate development programs or pre-commercialization efforts.
•We depend heavily on the success of our lead product candidates, SC-DARIC33 and bbT369. We cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize, any of our current or future product candidates.
•If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.
•Our current or future product candidates may cause adverse or other undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.
•If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals both for our current or future product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our current or future product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.
•Even if we receive regulatory approval for any of our current or future product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our current or future product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our drugs.
•Manufacturing our current or future product candidates is complex and we may encounter difficulties in production. If we encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of our current or future product candidates for preclinical studies and clinical trials or for commercial purposes could be delayed or stopped.
•We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our ongoing and planned clinical trials for our current and future product candidates. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain marketing approval for or commercialize our current and potential future product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.
•We may experience business interruptions or negative market conditions arising out of global crises, including international conflicts, the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, or similar public health crises. Such events could cause a disruption of the development of our product candidates and adversely impact our business. Such events may contribute to global market conditions that negatively impact our ability to raise needed capital on favorable terms and timelines.
•If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection for our technology and product candidates or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and drugs similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and drugs may be impaired.
Item 1. Business
We are a cell and gene therapy company focused on the research, development, and commercialization of transformative treatments for cancer. We are led by an accomplished team with significant expertise and experience in this field, from discovery through clinical development to regulatory approval of Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel, or ide-cel), the first chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, T cell therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for multiple myeloma. Our approach combines our expertise in T cell engineering technology and lentiviral vector gene delivery approaches, experience in research, development, and manufacturing of cell therapies and a suite of technologies that can be selectively deployed to develop highly innovative, targeted cellular therapies for patients with cancer. We are advancing multiple clinical programs, including SC-DARIC33, for the treatment of pediatric patients with relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, and bbT369, for the treatment of patients with B-cell non-Hodgkins lymphoma, or B-NHL, as well as multiple preclinical programs, including bbT4015, an engineered CAR T cell therapy targeting MUC16. Additionally, together with our partner Bristol Myers Squibb, or BMS, we are delivering Abecma to multiple myeloma patients in the United States following approval by the FDA of Abecma in March 2021 for the treatment of adults with multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor and an anti-CD38 (cyclic ADP ribose hydrolase) monoclonal antibody.
In recent years, growing understanding of cancer cell metabolism and genomics, as well as of the body’s immune response to tumor cells, has led to the development of new classes of therapies against cancer targets and pathways that have dramatically reshaped the treatment landscape. The advent of immunotherapy, particularly engineered cell therapies, has offered the potential to move past the treatment paradigm of maintenance of cancer as a “chronic” disease. Few curative therapies, however, exist and, in some settings, such as solid tumors, current approaches do not offer significant depth or durability of outcome for most cancer types and patients. Monotherapies have historically been of limited efficacy in cancer, and drugs are typically combined to deliver an outsized effect relative to the action of any of the individual components, with one potential advantage of combination therapies being the ability to address the heterogeneity of single target expression and/or mechanisms for relapse and resistance specific to a particular mechanism or target.
While medicines such as Abecma have highlighted the power of first-generation CAR T cell therapy by achieving previously unobtainable levels of efficacy in the late line setting, we believe that to be broadly successful in the treatment of cancer, a combination therapy approach is necessary, and that our multiplex approach to next-generation autologous cellular therapy, which allows multiple encoded mechanisms of action to be delivered within a single drug product, may be a potential solution. Based on our experience in the research and development of Abecma, we believe we can develop next-generation, engineered cell therapies to bring new options to patients suffering from a broad range of different tumor types.
In designing our next-generation product candidates, we aim to address the limitations of first-generation T cell therapies by augmenting them with additional technologies. These limitations include: (1) targeting a single tumor-associated antigen that may be lost or down regulated; (2) heterogeneous target expression resulting in the sparing of tumor cells devoid of antigen; (3) expression of immunosuppressive molecules such as transforming growth factor-β, or TGFβ, or programmed death ligand 1, or PD-L1, in the tumor microenvironment; and/or (4) poor T cell engraftment and persistence.
Our approach is to create product candidates that are multiplex engineered cell therapies by combining: (1) CAR and T cell receptor technology, which programs T cells to recognize and kill cancer cells based on the cell surface expression or presentation of intracellular protein targets, respectively; (2) dual-targeting CAR architecture for multi-target tumor cell recognition; (3) our core lentiviral gene transfer technology which delivers these genetic cargos (and more) to program a patient’s own T cells to the kill the cancer cells; (4) our megaTAL-based gene-editing technology which allows us to perform site specific gene addition or deletion from the genome to improve
the properties of the T cell; and (5) genetically encoded technologies for engineering T cells to enhance the cytotoxic activity and reprogram the tumor microenvironment for more effective anti-tumor responses. This approach is differentiated by: (1) careful analysis of clinical and correlative data with the goal of precisely defining the key attributes of a cellular therapy necessary for anti-tumor effect; (2) the ability to design and then engineer a cell with these key attributes; combined with (3) a technology suite capable of delivering multiple innovations within a single drug product.
We believe this approach will allow us to address the challenges of achieving deep and durable clinical benefit to patients with cancers. We believe the ability of tumors to evade the immune system and to escape the action of a single drug intervention can be addressed by cellular therapies pre-armed with multi-layered strategies for tumor eradication and control. These multiplex cell therapies may have the potential to achieve a depth and durability of response, independent of the tumor type, that is not measured in weeks, but in months or years. We believe that our approach will allow us to improve how cell and gene therapies are discovered, developed, and manufactured, with the potential to transform the care of patients with cancer. For example, bbT369, our product candidate for B-NHL, uses multiple technologies in order to address the two main modes of failure observed with CD19-targeted T cell approaches: loss or diminution of antigen expression and reduction in T cell activation through loss or diminution of co-receptor signaling.
We believe that our past experience in the clinical setting also provides us with a unique advantage, given the relative nascency of the CAR T cell field and the consequent paucity of large data sets of autologous cellular therapies in cancer. We, including through our collaborators at BMS, have treated hundreds of patients with multiple myeloma in the clinical setting, and the clinical and correlative data sets from our collaboration with BMS provide us with a deep understanding of the biology of the tumor itself, its interplay with immune cells, and which cell therapy attributes may be key to patient response. We believe that understanding is critical to identifying the key barriers in the treatment of the cancer. Specifically, we believe that understanding the heterogeneity of target expression combined with any tumor-specific mechanisms of immune evasion at play can help define the components of a cellular therapy with the potential for maximal anti-tumor activity. This understanding will be key to our product candidate design and selection, manufacturing process design and execution, and clinical trial design and development strategy.
In designing our next-generation product candidates, we start with the concept of a tumor-redirected T cell (via CAR or engineered T cell receptor, or TCR, technology) and then add one or more additional features or components from the suite of proprietary technologies we have developed with the purpose of overcoming specific limitations of first-generation T cell therapies. For example, these additional technologies may address:
•Tumor targets with off-tumor expression, through the application of our regulatable CAR T technology, dimerizing agent–regulated immunoreceptor complex, or DARIC;
•Immunosuppressive molecules in the tumor microenvironment, through the application of our chimeric TGFβ flip receptor, or CTBR, technology which turns a suppressive signal into a T cell supportive interleukin receptor signal;
•Antigen loss or down-regulation resulting in escape, through application of our dual-targeting CAR T cell technology; or
•Incomplete T cell activation or proliferation resulting in a loss of T cell potency, through the implementation of synergistic co-stimulatory pathways and the application of our gene-editing technology to knock-out intracellular checkpoints.
Our clinical programs in B-NHL and AML are illustrations of our multiplex approach, applied to address the specific challenges of treating those cancers:
We are developing our bbT369 product candidate as a potential treatment for patients with B-NHL. The advent of the first generation of anti-CD19 CAR T products represents a significant advancement in the field of B-NHL and has established a new standard for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory B-NHL. However, more than half of patients treated with an anti-CD19 CAR T do not achieve durable remission. Prognosis remains poor for
these patients, with median overall survival after axicabtagene ciloleucel, or axi-cel, of approximately six months for patients initially responding and less than two months for patients without initial response. The main limitations of the first-generation CAR T therapies are the lack of complete response in some patients and the potential for late relapse, indicating a need for deeper and more durable treatment responses. We take a differentiated approach from the approved anti-CD19 CAR T therapies: we have designed a dual-targeting CAR to target CD20 and CD79a to limit antigen escape (as has been seen with CD19-targeted therapies). We provide split co-stimulation to drive maximal activation of the T cell in response to antigens. We include a gene edit designed to drive increased expansion, resist anergy, and maintain potency in sub-optimal conditions for T cell activation. Clinical study CRC-403, an open-label, multi-site Phase 1/2 dose-escalation study of bbT369, will serve as a potential proof-of-concept assessment of our proprietary gene editing platform, dual-targeting strategies and split co-stimulation signaling technology. Dosing in the first cohort of CRC-403 was completed in 2022, and the trial is currently enrolling patients at the second dose level.
We are developing our SC-DARIC33 product candidate as a potential treatment for pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML. Although CAR T therapy has shown transformative potential and durable efficacy in other hematologic tumors, the use of CAR T therapy in the treatment of AML has been complicated by the expression of key targets such as CD33 across healthy myeloid cells in addition to leukemic blasts and stem cells. In other words, a highly potent CAR T cell directed towards one of these targets carries the significant risk of “on-target, off-tumor” toxicity because of broad myeloid aplasia. In developing SC-DARIC33 as a potential treatment for patients with AML, we seek to address the challenge of balancing potency and safety risk by combining advanced CAR T receptor technology with our DARIC technology, a pharmacologically controlled “on-off” switch to reversibly regulate the activity of the CAR T cell. We have designed the CAR to target both full-length and alternatively spliced CD33 variants to address heterogeneity in the disease, and to reduce the risk of antigen escape and disease relapse. We believe that the DARIC switch will give treating physicians the ability to turn off highly potent CAR T cell activity to allow for myeloid recovery, while being able to re-activate CAR T cell activity on demand. PLAT-08, the investigator-initiated proof-of-concept Phase 1 clinical trial of our SC-DARIC33 product candidate in pediatric and young adult relapsed or refractory AML patients, is led by our partner Seattle Children’s Therapeutics, a non-profit enterprise associated with Seattle Children’s Research Institute, or SCRI. The PLAT-08 trial is nearing completion of the mandatory adult dosing phase, and the totality of initial data to-date suggests SC-DARIC33 activation by rapamycin. The PLAT-08 trial will allow us to further assess our DARIC platform in light of the rapamycin-induced activation of SC-DARIC33 and potential for marrow recovery following rapamycin withdrawal.
We believe that the capabilities and experience that our team has accrued provide us with an opportunity to capitalize on recent progress in the understanding of genetics, gene-editing, gene expression, tumor biology, immunology, process analytics, computational biology and data analytics to discover, develop and bring to the market next-generation cell and gene therapies for cancer:
•Extensive suite of gene modification technologies allows us to create multiplex product concepts: We have access to a broad range of technologies that we can leverage to design product candidates that aim to address the challenges of specific cancers. With internal capabilities to knock-in, knock-out, modify, and control expression of genes across multiple modalities with gene addition, gene-editing, cell engineering, and synthetic biology approaches, we have the ability to apply a combination of technologies to design potential multiplex next-generation cell and gene therapies for cancer.
•Deep clinical experience and expertise with data science-driven iteration: From having treated hundreds of patients with multiple myeloma in CAR T programs through our collaboration with BMS, we have gained a deep understanding of cell therapy itself as well as an appreciation for the value of iterating on clinical data to inform our product candidate design, selection, manufacturing, clinical trial design and development strategy. Additionally, we employ data analytics in manufacturing to understand the critical product attributes of successful cellular products.
•Manufacturing experience and capability: Our team has accumulated significant experience in the manufacturing, analytical testing, and quality aspects from both lentiviral vectors and autologous lentiviral vector-transduced cellular drug products, from shepherding Abecma through clinical development, regulatory approval, and to commercialization in the United States, as well as from bluebird bio’s betibeglogene autotemcel in Europe. Moreover, we, in partnership with National Resilience Inc., or Resilience, have successfully scaled-up our suspension-based manufacturing process for lentiviral vector, or sLVV, which is being utilized in ongoing clinical trials for ide-cel. We recently added a Phase 1 cell therapy manufacturing facility in our Cambridge headquarters which we believe will enable us to improve the profile and accelerate timelines for the delivery of product candidates to patients. We anticipate the facility will be operational by mid-2023. We believe our experience spanning first-in-human to commercial manufacturing, quality control and quality assurance represents know-how critical to the efficient translation and development of our multiplex product candidates.
•Collaboration and connectivity: We have a strategic network of collaborations across industry, academic scientists, and medical experts to access technologies and expertise that supplement our proprietary technologies. We believe these collaborations and partnerships provide us with a rich suite of technologies permitting the design of impactful multiplex product candidates.
Who We Are
Our people form the most vital core of our company. We have assembled a diverse group of experienced scientists and researchers, manufacturing experts, and engineers to execute our strategic plan. We have a passionate and energized team with a bold culture of innovation, focused on the discovery and development of therapies that we believe may have the potential to be first-in-class or best-in-class. We are committed to the research and development of therapeutic approaches that we believe may have the potential to transform the lives of patients with cancer.
Our chief executive officer, Nick Leschly, launched bluebird bio in 2010 and led the growth of the pioneering gene and cell therapy company prior to the separation, leveraging his deep business strategy and entrepreneurial skills built over the last two decades. William “Chip” Baird, our chief financial officer and the chief financial officer of bluebird bio from 2019 until the separation, has more than 20 years of financial and strategic planning experience in the biopharmaceutical sector. Philip Gregory, D. Phil, our chief scientific officer, served as chief scientific officer at bluebird bio from 2015 until the separation. Dr. Gregory has led the scientific development of products for a range of diseases with our three gene therapy technology platforms: gene addition with lentiviral gene delivery, cell therapy and megaTAL-enabled gene-editing.
In addition to our executive leadership team, our company includes 97 individuals with medical or Ph.D. degrees, which include key scientists and researchers who have made important discoveries and progress across our technologies, as well as those with deep experience and expertise in building high growth, disruptive companies.
Our strategy is to apply our broad range of technologies to design multiplex product candidates that address the key treatment challenges in cancer. Unlike other oncology-focused companies in our space, we believe our breadth of technology enables us to develop tailored products focused on the specific areas of cancer biology we have identified. We selectively combine the relevant features and components from our range of tools and technologies to address the defined attributes of a cellular therapy that we believe are necessary for anti-tumor effect.
To execute on our strategy, we plan to:
•Co-commercialize Abecma, including clinical expansion to earlier lines of therapy, through our collaboration with BMS, and leverage our clinical and operational experience under this collaboration and this product revenue stream to further invest in our next-generation proprietary programs.
•Leverage our leadership position in autologous CAR T therapies to advance through the clinic our next-generation programs in B-NHL, AML, and multiple myeloma.
•Apply our multiplex approach to the discovery and design of transformative cell and gene therapy products for the treatment of solid tumors.
•Seek to extend our approach to other cell types beyond T cells and to include off-the-shelf approaches, as we gain additional experience in our autologous T cell programs.
•Build upon our existing internal lentiviral vector manufacturing know-how and experience through both selective investments in manufacturing collaborations and through our internal capabilities, including the build-out of our drug product manufacturing capabilities at our Cambridge, Massachusetts headquarters. The facility, which we anticipate will be operational by mid-2023, is designed to enable rapid translational research in our clinical trials, as well as allow us to manufacture drug product for preclinical and Phase 1 clinical development activities, over time, with the objectives of enabling rapid iteration on clinical learnings into research and development, increasing the efficiency of manufacturing processes, and improving the overall patient and healthcare professional experience.
Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. It is characterized by the uncontrolled growth of cells that have the ability to evade recognition by the immune system’s surveillance. Cancer cells are abnormal cells that have developed mutations in essential cellular functions, driving increased cell division and growth as well as acquiring the ability to escape immune surveillance. In recent years, increased knowledge about cancer cell metabolism and genomics, as well as about the body’s immune response, has led to new classes of therapies against cancer targets and pathways that have dramatically reshaped the treatment landscape. Despite these advances, there remains a high unmet medical need for additional products and treatments, especially for patients with recurrent tumors or cancer types that are resistant to current therapeutic options.
The advent of immunotherapy, and specifically engineered cell therapies, has offered the potential to move past the treatment paradigm of treatment of cancer as a “chronic” disease. By using engineered T cells, the first generation of engineered cell therapies directed the body’s natural immune response against cancer cells. Compelling efficacy data in cancers with historically bleak outcomes, with patients experiencing deep responses lasting for extended periods of time across multiple indications, showed the potential for engineered cell therapy to achieve a functional cure for some patients. However, there remain major tumor types that do not respond to current cell and gene therapy approaches, and, even within tumor types where cell and gene therapy has been broadly successful, many patients fail to receive an optimal outcome.
Challenges that remain in the discovery and development of engineered cell therapies for cancer reflect the difficulties in striking balance between efficacy and safety in these therapies. These challenges include:
•Selecting an appropriate target tumor antigen. If a potential cancer target antigen is also expressed or presented on normal tissues, the risk of on-target, off-tumor toxicity is increased. If an engineered T cell is designed to target a singular antigen, the risk of tumor escape mechanisms increases. Similarly, if the expression of the antigen is reduced or lost due to selective pressure or due to cellular internalization, the risk of tumor escape increases. If any of these occur, the safety and/or efficacy of the engineered cell therapy would be compromised.
•Engineering an optimal receptor. The properties of the receptor and receptor construct are critical for the overall success of the therapy. These properties include the affinity and flexibility of the antigen-binding domains (which are important for tumor-specific recognition), and the co-stimulatory domains for CAR T cell activation (which are important for the metabolism, function and persistence of T cells).
•Complex manufacturing. The manufacture of individualized cell and gene therapies may be lengthy and complex. Patients typically wait approximately three weeks to two months to be treated with autologous engineered cells, and, in the meantime, such patients may experience complications or progressions from underlying disease without bridging therapies, which may introduce additional risk and toxicities for the patients, rendering them ineligible for treatment. In addition, the “process is the product” in the case of engineered cell therapies because of the complex nature of their manufacture, as compared to other
common biologically derived modalities such as recombinant proteins and antibodies. Such therapies are inherently more complex to characterize and control, in part due to the variability of collected cells from the individual patients. Further, the process and analytical sciences to enable scale-up for commercial manufacturing are still significantly less advanced than that of proteins and antibodies, which limits access to patients.
Recent significant progress in the understanding of genetics, gene-editing, gene expression, tumor biology, immunology, process analytics and computational biology have converged to create an opportunity to markedly increase the breadth and depth of the potential impact of cell and gene therapies, and we believe that our capabilities provide us with an opportunity to capitalize on this opportunity to discover, develop and bring to the market next-generation cell and gene therapies for cancer.
Our oncology programs use a lentiviral vector to deliver the genetic cargo with the potential to program a patient’s own T cells to recognize specific proteins or protein fragments on the surface of cancer cells to kill the cancer cells. Our current programs are based on CAR technology designed to program T cells to recognize cancer cells based on expression of specific cell surface antigens, and T cell receptor technology designed to program T cells to recognize cancer cells based on protein fragments derived from either intracellular or extracellular proteins displayed on the tumor cell surface. The genetically engineered T cells are designed to supplement a patient’s immune system and we believe they have the potential to be further engineered to overcome immune evasion mechanisms employed by cancer cells. Our approach is to create multiplex engineered cell therapies by combining our foundational lentiviral vector and CAR/TCR technology with next-generation tools to address the challenges in existing cancer treatments.
•Dual-Targeting. Polyclonal responses are a hallmark of adaptive immunity, but most T cell therapies have been devised with antigen receptors specific to a single target antigen. There are many documented cases of cancer deploying its intrinsic genetic plasticity to escape mono-targeted T cell therapies (both with cellular and more classical modalities, such as small molecules and antibodies). In such cases, our solution is to utilize a dual-targeting antigen receptor, including a multi-chain, dual-targeting architecture, to respond when either target antigen is present on a cancer cell, as well as an architecture that leverages the unique properties of humanized single-domain camelid-derived antibodies.
•DARIC. We have developed a dimerizing agent–regulated immunoreceptor complex, which we refer to as DARIC, that comprises separate antigen targeting and signal transduction componentry. DARIC receptors become poised for anti-tumor function only when the two components are brought together as heterodimers, a process that is strictly dependent on the bridging function of the drug rapamycin. This technology can enable pharmacological, “on-demand” control of engineered T cell responses. Controlling the “on” and “off” states of engineered T cells also creates opportunities to pursue cancers and cancer targets with disease characteristics and expression profiles that are incompatible with constitutively responsive antigen receptors.
•Reversal of immunosuppression. Patients who present in the clinic with advanced metastatic disease host tumors that have evolved to evade endogenous immunity via a variety of mechanisms. Tumor infiltrating T cells lose potency over time due to repetitive antigen stimulation and exhaustion in a tumor microenvironment that suppresses T cell function. Checkpoint engagement, hypoxia, poor nutrient conditions, and exposure to immunosuppressive cell types and cytokines all significantly blunt T cell potency and thwart attempts to regress tumors in clinically meaningful ways. We have developed a suite of synthetic biology innovations that antagonize and rewire immunosuppressive signaling and response pathways. We have focused significant attention on TGFβ, a profoundly immunosuppressive cytokine found at high levels in many solid tumors. Our chimeric TGFβ flip receptor, or CTBR, technology converts this suppressive signal into a supportive interleukin receptor signal that enhances T cell function. Suppressive to enhancing signal conversion operates in a localized, engineered T cell intrinsic manner, enhancing potency within the microenvironment of the tumor where the highest concentrations of activated
TGFβ ligand are present. We have also developed several approaches to modulate T cell metabolism to allow for enhanced function and potency in the metabolically challenging tumor microenvironment.
•Co-stimulation. Parallel track costimulatory domains, also known as chimeric costimulatory receptors, offer a unique set of functional attributes that culminate in enhanced anti-tumor activity. This technology pairs enhanced targeting breadth with a qualitatively distinct and more potent functional response, simultaneously countering two potential mechanisms of resistance.
•Gene-editing. megaTALs are highly specific, compact nucleases that efficiently catalyze the formation and mutagenic resolution of double-stranded breaks at pre-specified genetic target sequences. Using our megaTAL gene-editing platform, we have demonstrated that disrupting genes that intersect with T cell signaling and response pathways can promote more potent immune responses. In addition, we have developed a full suite of on-target editing assays, functional bioassays, and off-target discovery and verification analytics to deeply characterize gene-editing events and their functional consequences in target cells, which may enable the potential application of this technology in the clinical setting.
•mRNA capabilities. We have also developed messenger RNA, or mRNA capabilities that enable transient gene expression, both in cells cultured ex vivo and for organ-specific in vivo delivery. We manufacture mRNA starting from a proprietary plasmid template outfitted with an encoded poly-A tract, an approach that results in highly homogenous mRNA species following in vitro transcription. Our purification process includes double-stranded RNA, or dsRNA depletion steps to minimize immunogenicity and optimize cell viability. A robust suite of analytical assays is in place to ensure that consistently pure and potent material is generated. We have developed clinical-scale electroporation processes for ex vivo mRNA delivery and are actively using these processes to improve T cell potency via our megaTAL gene-editing platform. This technology can potentially be further leveraged to transiently express other factors that may be advantageous to ex vivo manufactured T cells.
In addition, we continue to invest in our core foundational technologies and build upon our leadership position in autologous engineered cell therapy products based on CAR and TCR approaches:
•Next-generation lentiviral vector design. With a management team that collectively possesses decades of experience in this technology, we have extensively refined the componentry and methodology behind lentiviral vector design and manufacturing. Our transfer plasmid design elements include several innovations that have created advanced gene expression tuning capabilities and the delivery of large and complex genetic payloads via transgene stacking. We have developed proprietary codon optimization algorithms, promoter variants, and regulatory elements that we believe together enable constitutive and/or responsive expression profiles across a range of transgene expression levels. These mature capabilities enable highly efficient transfer of sophisticated genetic modules, such as the multiplex product concepts represented by our next-generation programs.
•Target selection and validation. Cancer targets with profiles that make them appropriate for cell therapy development have diverse structural features, biochemical properties, and sub-cellular distribution characteristics. To support novel target identification, we have developed significant in-house expertise and external collaborations in the areas of data mining, functional genomics, and primary tissue analysis. We have also built a full suite of target validation assays to perform confirmatory studies assessing tumor and normal tissue expression properties. In addition, we have developed significant internal expertise specifically aimed at de-risking potential off-target liabilities of TCR engineered T cells. We have focused the bulk of our efforts on select hematological and solid tumor indications. We believe this approach allows us to deeply interrogate the target landscape in cancers where T cell therapies may have the highest potential for technical success.
•Receptor engineering. We have access to state-of-the-art binder capabilities through our collaboration arrangements that cover the full range of potential cancer targets. For intracellular targets of interest, our partners develop TCRs and fully humanized “peptide-in-groove”, or PiG, single-chain variable fragment, or
scFv, reagents. For surface proteins, we have multiple providers of immunization-sourced, fully humanized scFv and single-domain reagents.
•Manufacturing process innovations. Our analytical development, clinical bioassays, correlative research, and data sciences teams have exceptional access to clinical trial data using CAR T therapies. We are regularly interrogating these data sets to isolate key manufacturing variables and correlates of clinical signals that enable hypothesis testing. These activities derive insights that inform process research directions for optimizing T cell manufacturing through reagents, processes, and culture timing, and for the discovery of underlying biological relationships between clinical and correlative data.
B-Cell Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
We are developing our bbT369 product candidate as a treatment for patients with B-NHL, a heterogeneous group of neoplasms that can result in enlarged nodes across the body, neck, and abdomen, often coinciding with “B-symptoms” that are significant to the prognosis and staging of the disease, such as fever, drenching night sweats, and rapid and extreme weight loss. B-cell NHLs represent more than 85% of all NHL cases worldwide, and we plan to develop bbT369 to treat several subtypes of B-cell NHLs, specifically diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or DLBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, or HGBCL, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, or PMBCL, follicular lymphoma, or FL, or transformed follicular lymphoma, or TFL. DLBCL is the most common form of NHL, accounting for a third of all NHL cases, with annual incidence in the United States estimated at approximately 25,000. DLBCL is a particularly aggressive form of NHL that requires immediate therapy upon diagnosis (with a median overall survival of less than one year in untreated patients).
CAR T cells targeting CD19 represent a significant advancement in the field of treatment for B-NHL and established a new standard of treatment for relapsed and refractory patients, with the potential for curative therapy. Specifically, anti-CD19 CAR T products axi-cel, tisagenlecleucel, and lisocabtagene maraleucel have been approved for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed and refractory large B-cell lymphoma (including DLBCL, HGBCL and TFL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. However, survival for certain high-risk subtypes (e.g., non-germinal center B-cell-like subtype of lymphoma and double-hit lymphoma) and relapsed and refractory patients is poor. More than half of patients treated with CD19 CAR T do not achieve durable remission. Prognosis remains poor for these patients with median overall survival after axi-cel of approximately six months for patients initially responding and less than two months for patients without initial response. The main limitations of the currently available CAR T treatments are the lack of complete response in some patients, and the potential for late relapse, indicating a need for deeper and more durable treatment options.
Our multiplex approach is intended to enhance the depth and duration of response in patients currently underserved by existing options. bbT369 is a non-CD19-containing CAR T that addresses the limitations of the currently available therapies by using unique layered technologies, designed with the following key features:
•A novel combination of CD20 and CD79a targets that are co-expressed in many B-NHL tumors to both allow treatment of CD19 negative / CD19 low tumors and to limit the potential for antigen escape;
•Split co-stimulation to drive optimal and complete immune signaling; and
•A gene edit to drive increased expansion, resist anergy, and maintain potency in sub-optimal tumor conditions.
In preclinical models, bbT369 clears a variety of B-NHL tumors, including both dual and single target positive tumors, and outperforms CD19 in cells with varying levels of antigen expression. Additionally, the gene edit demonstrates increased cytokine production and expansion in vitro, and when compared to the same dual-targeted, but unedited, construct, bbT369 results in a lower rate of late tumor relapses.
Dosing in the first cohort of clinical study CRC-403, an open-label, multi-site Phase 1/2 dose-escalation study of bbT369 in relapsed and/or refractory B-NHL after autologous SCT or two or more prior lines of therapy, was
completed in 2022. There have been no dose-limiting toxicities observed to-date. The manufacturing success rate and turnaround time are in line with other autologous CAR Ts despite the additional complexity of the product candidate. CRC-403 will serve as a potential proof-of-concept assessment of our proprietary gene editing platform, dual-targeting strategies and split co-stimulation signaling technology. Multiple clinical trial sites are currently recruiting patients who are either naïve to CD19 CAR T or who have relapsed after CD19 CAR T for the second dose level of the trial. The Phase 1 portion will be a dose-escalation study, with the Phase 2 stage allowing continued investigation of these two different patient populations at the recommended dose. The trial will be conducted at four study sites.
Acute Myeloid Leukemia
We are developing our SC-DARIC33 product candidate for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Systemic therapy (including chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents, and targeted biologics) alongside hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) are the mainstays of AML treatment today. Of note, many adult patients are unfit for such intensive therapy, which in turn leads to less favorable clinical outcomes. Though HSCT provides meaningful clinical benefit to those who are eligible, the unmet need in this heterogenous and aggressive disease remains high. Prognosis is typically poor for adult patients, with a 5-year survival rate of 10-35% depending on disease subtype. In children and adolescents, the 5-year survival rate is 50 to 70%, with variation by subtype and other risk factors as seen in adults. Of note, median overall survival in adults with relapsed and refractory AML is less than 12 months, indicating a particularly high unmet need for these patients.
Although CAR T therapy has shown transformative potential and durable efficacy in other hematologic tumors, their use in the treatment of AML is complicated by the expression of key AML targets, such as CD33, across healthy myeloid cells in addition to leukemic blasts and stem cells. Thus, a highly potent CAR T cell directed towards one of these targets carries the potential risk of significant “on-target, off-tumor” toxicity because of broad myeloid aplasia. Achieving durable remission with a CAR T while balancing the safety risks is a critical challenge for the treatment of AML with CAR T therapy.
We seek to address this challenge with our SC-DARIC33 product candidate, which combines CAR T technology with DARIC, our dimerizing agent-regulated immunoreceptor complex technology. In our SC-DARIC33 product candidate, the traditional components of an anti-CD33 CAR are separated into two subunits which only enable T cell activation in the presence of sub-immunosuppressive doses of rapamycin, an orally-administered small molecule, which functions as an “on-off” toggle switch. In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that this regulated activation is reversible upon withdrawal of rapamycin and can be subsequently re-activated upon re-administration of rapamycin. Our SC-DARIC33 product candidate is designed to utilize this on-off toggle switch in the context of an autologous CD33-directed DARIC-T cell to drive deep responses in AML while “on” and allow myeloid compartment recovery while “off”.
In collaboration with Seattle Children’s Therapeutics, we are enrolling patients in PLAT-08, an investigator-initiated single-center proof-of-concept Phase 1 clinical trial of SC-DARIC33 in pediatric and young adult relapsed or refractory AML patients. This dose-finding trial is aimed at establishing safety, manufacturability, and early efficacy signals for SC-DARIC33 and we expect to conduct correlative analyses to confirm rapamycin-driven regulation in humans. We are nearing completion of the mandatory adult dosing phase, and the totality of the initial data suggests SC-DARIC33 activation by rapamycin. In parallel, we are also advancing next-generation, preclinical product concepts for pediatric and adult AML in partnership with SCRI. These concepts include multiplex targeting and additional enhancement technologies to address the heterogeneity of disease and prevent relapse. Specifically, a next-generation AML product candidate has been selected and will enter non-clinical development in 2023. This new candidate is built off of our new RESET receptor architecture and incorporates dual targeting along with a potency enhancement while retaining the DARIC-like drug regulation. The terms of our arrangements with Seattle Children’s Therapeutics and SCRI are described more fully below under “Strategic Collaborations—Seattle Children’s.”
Multiple myeloma is a blood cancer caused by malignant plasma cells and typically originates in the bone marrow. In the United States, more than 34,000 new cases of multiple myeloma are estimated to have been diagnosed in 2021. Despite advances in treatment, multiple myeloma remains an aggressive and incurable disease characterized by periods of remission and relapse. Most patients experience relapse following initial therapies, and depth and duration of response as well as survival outcomes decrease with each successive treatment. No standard of care has been established for patients who have disease progression despite receiving the three main classes of myeloma therapy (immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies), and outcomes are poor, with very low response rates (20% to 30%), a median progression-free survival of three to four months, and a median overall survival of eight to nine months. Through our collaboration with BMS, Abecma (ide-cel) is our lead program in multiple myeloma. The terms of our arrangements with BMS are described more fully below under “Strategic Collaborations—BMS.” We are also conducting next-generation discovery programs in multiple myeloma on our own.
Abecma and our collaboration with BMS. In March 2021, Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel; ide-cel) was approved by the FDA in the United States for the treatment of adults with multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Abecma is a first-in-class B cell maturation antigen, or BCMA, CAR T therapy for the treatment of multiple myeloma, and represents our first oncology product candidate that has progressed from bluebird bio’s internal research programs, through clinical development to approval and commercialization, together with our collaboration partner, BMS. Gross revenue from sales of Abecma in the United States in 2022 equaled $297 million, which is shared equally between us and BMS along with the related cost of sales and other commercialization costs. Together with BMS, we are in the process of increasing U.S. testing and manufacturing capacity, and therefore overall U.S. supply chain capacity, for Abecma.
BCMA is a cell surface protein that is nearly universally expressed on cancer cells in multiple myeloma, and on normal plasma cells and mature B cells, but not other cells. As the first CAR T cell therapy approved for multiple myeloma, Abecma is a potentially transformative, single-infusion, individualized treatment that offers patients who have limited effective treatment options the potential for long-term disease control. The approval of Abecma in the United States was based on positive results from the pivotal KarMMa study. In the KarMMa study, the overall response rate was 73%, and 33% of patients achieved a complete response. Onset of response was rapid with a median time to first response of one month. Median duration of response was 10.7 months and 19 months for those who achieved a complete response. Abecma has a well-established safety profile with mostly low-grade cytokine release syndrome (Grade ≥3: 5%; grade ≤2 events: 84%) and neurologic toxicities (Grade ≥3: 3%; grade ≤2 events: 18%) with early onset and resolution. Results from the KarMMa study were published in the February 24, 2021 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. The FDA and EMA have granted Orphan Drug status to ide-cel for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. The EMA has granted PRIME eligibility to ide-cel for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. BMS is conducting studies to support the use of Abecma in earlier lines of therapy. Our and BMS’ broad clinical development program for Abecma includes ongoing clinical trials in earlier lines of treatment for patients with multiple myeloma, including newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Additionally, under the collaboration arrangement with BMS, we have an option to co-develop and co-promote bb21217, an investigational BCMA-targeted CAR T cell therapy, within the United States. However, following our review of data from the CRB-402 clinical trial, and based in part on the strength of Abecma clinical data and commercial sales to date, we, together with BMS, do not intend to pursue further development of bb21217.
Next-generation approaches. CAR T therapies have transformed the treatment landscape in multiple myeloma and created the possibility for outcomes that were not possible with traditional therapies. Despite the significant advances that the current generation of CAR T therapies brought to patients, there are still significant challenges such as the need to improve duration of response and reduce manufacturing turnaround time. Our next-generation multiple myeloma program strategy is focused on leveraging our clinical experience from Abecma and bb21217, translational and correlative data, and technology platforms to solve definable and meaningful problems in the field. Leveraging our leadership in autologous CAR T therapy, our next-generation autologous multiple myeloma program utilizes multiple technologies including process improvements and dual targeting, with the goal of achieving best-in-
class efficacy through deeper and more durable responses than the current generation of autologous CAR T products.
Solid tumors represent the next frontier for cell and gene therapies. Survival expectations in patients with solid tumor who have relapsed after existing therapies are often less than one year. While cell and gene therapies have demonstrated durable remission in hematologic malignancies, none have yet been approved for treating solid tumors. Key challenges to the discovery and development of cell and gene therapies in solid tumors includes the lack of strongly and selectively expressed targets as well as a hostile tumor microenvironment that serves as a barrier for T cells accessing the tumor and suppresses immune-mediated responses. We believe that our set of technologies, partnerships and cell and gene therapy experience enables the engineering of multiplex products to uniquely address the key challenges of solid tumors. Our research-stage programs in solid tumors include tumors expressing the MUC16 antigen and tumors expressing the MAGE-A4 antigen, among others.
MUC16. Together with our partner Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Regeneron, we are advancing our bbT4015 product candidate, an engineered T cell therapy targeting MUC16, through preclinical studies. We anticipate submitting an Investigational New Drug Application, or IND, for a clinical trial of bbT4015 in patients with ovarian cancer in 2023. This first in-human study will prospectively include combination agents, including those in Regeneron’s pipeline, and will be the first program to utilize our new in-house drug product manufacturing facility.
MUC16 is a large extracellular protein expressed on over 80% of ovarian tumors, including all ovarian subtypes. Its overexpression in tumors and relatively lower expression on normal tissues makes MUC16 an attractive ovarian cancer target for cellular therapies and a logical fit for the deployment of orthogonal enhancement strategies. Our MUC16 program incorporates a highly potent CAR T that targets a region close to the transmembrane (“nub” region) of MUC16 and is not inhibited by the presence of high concentrations of CA-125. Encouraging preclinical data suggests that T cells expressing the “nub”-directed MUC16 CAR T are able to clear tumors in a highly stringent ovarian cancer tumor rechallenge xenograft mouse model. We intend to combine this potent CAR T with a titratable pharmacologic agent with the goal of enhancing tumor control.
MAGE-A4. Over ten types of solid tumors express the MAGE-A4 antigen, making it a promising target for cell therapy, including lung, head and neck, gynecologic and gastric cancers. Together with our partner Regeneron we are advancing an engineered TCR therapy targeting MAGE-A4 through preclinical studies. We believe our MAGE-A4 program has the potential to address the challenges of solid tumors in a three-pronged way: (1) we have identified a potent T cell receptor targeting a prevalent intracellular peptide antigen from MAGE-A4, (2) engineered this receptor for a strong anti-tumor response, and (3) incorporated an innovative switch receptor (CTBR12) that converts the highly suppressive TGFβ signal in the hostile tumor microenvironment into a potent T cell intrinsic activation signal. The TGFβ signaling pathway has been broadly implicated as a key suppressive factor in the TME of multiple MAGEA4+ indications, including non-small cell lung, bladder, ovarian, and head and neck carcinomas. In 2022, we entered into an agreement with JW (Cayman) Therapeutics Co. Ltd., or JW Therapeutics, to clinically evaluate this potency enhanced MAGE-A4 TCR program. JW Therapeutics plans an investigator-initiated trial in China in 2023, initially focused on esophageal carcinoma.
Together with our partners Novo Nordisk A/S (“Novo Nordisk”) and Genevant Sciences Corporation (“Genevant”), we are also conducting preclinical studies of our product candidate in hemophilia A. Hemophilia A is a serious and rare inherited disease characterized by insufficient blood clotting that results from the lack of functional factor VIII, or FVIII. Hemophilia A is caused by mutations in the gene that encodes the coagulation FVIII protein. Our approach employs our gene editing technology (megaTALs) to insert a corrective copy of the FVIII gene directly into the genome of liver cells. We believe that this targeted integration approach may result in permanently corrected cells that have the potential to provide durable expression of therapeutic levels of FVIII protein.
We have entered into agreements with external manufacturing partners in the United States and Europe to support our various preclinical and clinical programs in oncology, and to support Abecma commercial vector supply. In addition, we have recently added a Phase 1 drug product cell therapy manufacturing facility in our Cambridge, Massachusetts headquarters, which we anticipate will be operational by mid-2023. We believe this manufacturing facility will enable us to rapidly iterate on clinical learnings in the development of our pipeline programs. We also have a strategic manufacturing collaboration with Resilience to increase the efficiency of vector manufacturing processes for cell and gene therapies to reduce the cost of supply and enable patient access.
Given our multiplex approach to the discovery and development of next-generation cell and gene therapies for cancer, we have partnered strategically to access complementary technologies and disease-area expertise. We also have historically formed collaborations to access the substantial funding and other resources required to develop and commercialize cell and gene therapies for cancer. Currently, our strategic collaborations in oncology include:
Bristol Myers Squibb. bluebird bio began a collaboration with BMS in 2013 under a broad-ranging Master Collaboration Agreement with Celgene Corporation (now BMS following its acquisition of Celgene in November 2019) (the “BMS Collaboration Agreement”). bluebird bio continued that collaboration with a series of agreements described below. In connection with the separation, bluebird bio assigned to us all of the agreements relating to its collaboration with BMS.
BMS Collaboration Agreement
In March 2013, bluebird bio entered into the BMS Collaboration Agreement to discover, develop and commercialize potentially disease-altering gene therapies in oncology. bluebird bio concurrently entered into a Platform Technology Sublicense Agreement (the “Sublicense Agreement”) with BMS pursuant to which bluebird bio obtained a sublicense to certain intellectual property from BMS, originating under BMS’s license from Baylor College of Medicine, for use in the collaboration.
In June 2015, both parties amended and restated the BMS Collaboration Agreement (the “Amended BMS Collaboration Agreement”) to narrow the focus of the collaboration to exclusively work on anti-B-cell maturation antigen (“BCMA”) product candidates for a new three-year term.
On a product candidate-by-product candidate basis, up through a specified period following enrollment of the first patient in an initial Phase 1 clinical trial for such product candidate, BMS had an option to obtain an exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize such product. Following BMS’s license of each product candidate, we are entitled to elect to co-develop and co-promote each product candidate in the United States.
BMS Ide-cel related agreements
In February 2016, BMS exercised its option to obtain an exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize ide-cel, the first product candidate under the Amended BMS Collaboration Agreement, pursuant to an executed license agreement (“Ide-cel License Agreement”) and paid the associated $10.0 million option fee. Pursuant to the Ide-cel License Agreement, BMS was responsible for development and related funding of ide-cel after the substantial completion of the Phase 1 clinical trial. bluebird bio was responsible for the manufacture of vector and associated payload throughout development and, upon BMS’s request, throughout commercialization, the costs of which were reimbursable by BMS in accordance with the terms of the Amended and Restated Co-Development, Co-Promote and Profit Share Agreement, as further described below. BMS was responsible for the manufacture of drug product throughout development and commercialization. Under the Ide-cel License Agreement, bluebird bio was eligible to receive (i) U.S. milestones of up to $85.0 million for the first indication to be addressed by ide-cel and royalties for U.S. sales of ide-cel and (ii) ex-U.S. milestones of up to $55.0 million and royalties for ex-U.S. sales of ide-cel.
In March 2018, bluebird bio elected to co-develop and co-promote ide-cel within the United States pursuant to the execution of the Amended and Restated Co-Development, Co-Promote and Profit Share Agreement (“Ide-cel CCPS”), which replaced the Ide-cel License Agreement. As a result, we will share equally in all profits and losses related to developing, commercializing and manufacturing ide-cel within the United States and have the right to participate in the development and promotion of ide-cel in the United States. BMS is responsible for the costs incurred to manufacture vector and associated payload for use outside of the United States, plus a markup. As a result of electing to co-develop and co-promote ide-cel within the United States, the milestones and royalties payable under the Ide-cel License Agreement were adjusted. Under the Ide-cel CCPS, bluebird bio was eligible to receive a $10.0 million milestone related to the development of ide-cel in the United States and, for the first indication to be addressed by ide-cel, ex-U.S. regulatory and commercial milestones of up to $60.0 million. Under the Ide-cel CCPS, the $10.0 million milestone related to the development of ide-cel in the United States was achieved in the second quarter of 2019 and subsequently paid by BMS.
BMS bb21217 License Agreement
In September 2017, BMS exercised its option to obtain an exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize bb21217, an investigational BCMA-targeted CAR T cell therapy, the second product candidate under the Amended BMS Collaboration Agreement, pursuant to an executed license agreement (“bb21217 License Agreement”) and paid bluebird bio an option fee of $15.0 million. Pursuant to the bb21217 License Agreement, BMS is responsible for development and related funding of bb21217 after the substantial completion of the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial. In 2019, the parties amended the protocol for the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial to enroll additional patients for which we were reimbursed an agreed-upon amount per patient. Under the bb21217 License Agreement, we are eligible to receive U.S. milestones of up to $85.0 million for the first indication to be addressed by bb21217 and royalties for U.S. sales of bb21217. Additionally, the Company was eligible to receive ex-U.S. milestones of up to $55.0 million and royalties for ex-U.S. sales of bb21217.
May 2020 Amendments to Ide-cel and bb21217 agreements
In May 2020, the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Co-Development, Co-Promote and Profit Share Agreement (as amended, the "Amended Ide-cel CCPS") and the Second Amended and Restated License Agreement ("Amended bb21217 License Agreement" and, collectively with the Amended Ide-cel CCPS, the “May 2020 Amendments”), which replaced the bb21217 License Agreement, were executed. Under the Amended Ide-cel CCPS, the parties will continue to share equally in all profits and losses related to developing, commercializing and manufacturing ide-cel within the United States. However, the Amended Ide-cel CCPS changed our responsibilities with respect to manufacturing activities. Under the Amended Ide-cel CCPS, BMS assumed the contract manufacturing agreements related to ide-cel adherent lentiviral vector. Over time, BMS is also assuming responsibility for manufacturing ide-cel suspension lentiviral vector outside of the United States, while we remain responsible for manufacturing ide-cel suspension lentiviral vector in the United States.
Under the Amended bb21217 License Agreement, BMS is assuming responsibility for manufacturing suspension lentiviral vector outside of the United States over time, while we remain responsible for manufacturing suspension lentiviral vector in the United States. Under the Amended bb21217 License Agreement, expenses that we incur associated with these activities are fully reimbursable by BMS at cost plus a mark-up. Throughout both development and commercialization, BMS is responsible for the manufacture of drug product.
The May 2020 Amendments relieved BMS of its obligations to pay us for future ex-U.S. milestones and royalties on ex-U.S. sales for each of ide-cel and bb21217 in exchange for an up-front, non-refundable, non-creditable payment of $200.0 million, which represents the aggregate of the probability-weighted, net present value of the future ex-U.S. milestones and royalties on ex-U.S. sales for each of ide-cel and bb21217. In addition, the parties are released from future exclusivity related to BCMA-directed T cell therapies. There are no remaining milestones or royalties under the Amended Ide-cel CCPS. The Amended Ide-cel CCPS will continue on a country-by-country basis until there are no more payments owed by either party on ide-cel in such country, unless earlier terminated (a) by mutual consent of the parties, (b) by us following a material breach by BMS that remains uncured after a specified period, (c) by us at our discretion, following a specified notice period, (d) by BMS following a
material breach by us that remains uncured after a specified period, (e) by BMS at its discretion, following a specified notice period, or (f) pursuant to certain other negotiated termination provisions.
In March 2021, the FDA approved the marketing of Ide-cel as Abecma in the United States for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after four or more prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Under the Amended Ide-cel CCPS, BMS is primarily responsible for the commercialization of Abecma. As previously described, under the collaboration arrangement with BMS, we have an option to co-develop and co-promote bb21217 within the United States. However, following completion of the CRB-402 clinical trial, in January 2022 we, along with BMS, evaluated our plans with respect to bb21217. Based in part on the strength of Abecma clinical data and commercial sales to date, we and BMS elected to discontinue development of bb21217 and, as such, we did not exercise our option to co-develop and co-promote bb21217 within the United States. We are still eligible to receive U.S. milestones and royalties for U.S. sales of bb21217, if further developed by BMS. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the collaboration agreement, because we did not exercise our option to co-develop and co-promote bb21217, we received an additional fee in the amount of $10.0 million from BMS during the second quarter of 2022.
Seattle Children’s. Through our collaboration with Seattle Children’s Therapeutics, a non-profit enterprise associated with Seattle Children’s (“SCRI”), we and SCRI are working to advance the clinical development of SC-DARIC33 as a treatment for patients with AML.
Regeneron. We have a broad collaboration with Regeneron covering the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel cell and gene therapies for cancer. Through this collaboration, we have access to Regeneron’s platform technologies for the discovery and characterization of fully human antibodies as well as T cell receptors against tumor-specific proteins and peptides that we may leverage in our collaboration programs.
JW Therapeutics. Through our agreement with JW Therapeutics, we are collaborating to establish a translational and clinical cell therapy development platform designed to more rapidly explore T cell-based immunotherapy products in the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong (China), and Macao (China).
Medigene. Through our collaboration, we have access to Medigene’s proprietary platform for the generation and design of T cell receptors that we may leverage in our product candidates.
Inhibrx. Through our collaboration, we have access to Inhibrx’s proprietary single-domain antibody platform to multiple cancer targets that we may leverage in our product candidates.
Gritstone Oncology. Through our collaboration with Gritstone, we intend to seek to validate cancer targets and discover T cell receptors that we may leverage in our product candidates.
Novo Nordisk. We have a collaboration with Novo Nordisk focused on the in vivo application of our megaTAL gene-editing technology to treat hemophilia A.
Genevant. Through our collaboration, we have access to Genevant’s lipid nanoparticle, or LNP, technology platform for use in our collaboration with Novo Nordisk for the treatment of patients with hemophilia A. We intend to use Genevant’s LNP platform in the delivery of megaTAL mRNA to hepatocyte cells within the liver.
We are also party to additional significant academic collaborations for the discovery, preclinical development, and initial clinical proof-of-concept of our product concepts, such as our collaboration with the University of North Carolina.
Biogen. In August 2014, bluebird bio entered into a license agreement with Biogen, pursuant to which bluebird bio co-exclusively licensed certain patents and patent applications directed towards aspects of T cell-based products that target BCMA. In connection with the separation, bluebird bio assigned this license agreement to us. Biogen retains the right to practice and use the licensed patents in the licensed field and territory. We have the right to grant sublicenses to third parties, subject to certain conditions. We are obligated to pay Biogen a percentage (in the low single digits) of net sales of products covered by the in-licensed intellectual property, including Abecma, as a
royalty. Additionally, we are subject to certain development and regulatory milestone obligations and must report on our progress in achieving those milestones on a periodic basis. We may be obligated to pay up to $23.0 million in the aggregate for each licensed product upon the achievement of remaining milestones. We may unilaterally terminate the license agreement at any time with prior written notice to Biogen. Either party may terminate the license in the event of the other party’s material breach upon notice and following an opportunity for the breaching party to cure. Either party may also terminate the agreement in the event bankruptcy proceedings are opened against the other party and are not dismissed within a specified period of time. Absent early termination, the agreement will automatically terminate upon the expiration of all patent rights covered by the agreement or ten years from the date of first commercial sale of a licensed product, whichever is later. The longest lived patent rights licensed to us are in a U.S. patent, currently expected to expire in 2032.
NIH. In August 2015, bluebird bio entered into a license agreement with the NIH, pursuant to which bluebird bio exclusively licensed certain patents and patent applications directed towards aspects of T cell-based products that target BCMA. In connection with the separation, bluebird bio assigned this license agreement to us. Any patents within this portfolio that have issued or may yet issue would have an expected statutory expiration date in 2033 to 2034. The NIH retains the right to practice the intellectual property licensed under the agreement on behalf of the government of the United States. We have the right to grant sublicenses to third parties, subject to certain conditions. For each such sublicense we grant we must pay the NIH a fee. Upon commercialization of our products covered by the in-licensed intellectual property, which includes Abecma, we will be obligated to pay the NIH a percentage of net sales as a royalty in the low single digits. We are subject to a domestic production requirement that licensed products, such as Abecma, sold or used in the U.S. or produced through use of the licensed processes must be manufactured substantially in the U.S., unless a waiver is obtained in advance from the NIH. Additionally, we are subject to certain development and regulatory milestone obligations and must report on our progress in achieving those milestones on a periodic basis. We may be obligated to pay up to $9.7 million in the aggregate for a licensed product upon the achievement of these milestones. We may unilaterally terminate the license agreement at any time with prior written notice to the NIH. The NIH may terminate the license in the event of our material breach upon notice and following an opportunity for us to cure the material breach. The NIH may also terminate the agreement in the event bankruptcy proceedings are opened against us and are not dismissed within a specified period of time. Absent early termination, the agreement will automatically terminate upon the expiration of the patent rights covered by the agreement. The longest lived patent rights licensed to us under the Agreement are currently expected to expire in 2034.
Institut Pasteur. Under a 2011 license agreement, Institut Pasteur granted a license to bluebird bio for certain patents relating to the use of DNA sequences, LVV and recombinant cells in the field of ex vivo gene therapy and CAR T cell-based therapy in a range of indications, excluding vaccinations (the “Licensed Pasteur IP”). In February 2023, we entered into a partial assumption and assignment agreement with bluebird bio and Institut Pasteur, by which bluebird bio assigned us its rights, obligations and interests under the 2011 license agreement, to any and all uses of the Licensed Pasteur IP in connection with the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of oncological diseases or disorders and hemophilia. We will pay Institut Pasteur an annual maintenance payment, a percentage of income received in the event of sublicensing arrangements and, upon commercialization of products covered by the Licensed Pasteur IP, a percentage of net sales as a royalty, which varies depending on the indication of the product. Prior to entering into the partial assignment and assumption agreement, the Licensed Pasteur IP was sublicensed by bluebird bio to us under the Intellectual Property License Agreement, dated as of November 3, 2021, entered into in connection with the Separation. The Agreement may be terminated for a substantial breach by either Party that is not cured within 60 days of notification of the substantial breach. 2seventy may terminate the agreement by providing to Institut Pasteur 90 days prior written notice.
bluebird bio. We entered into an intellectual property license agreement in connection with the separation with bluebird bio pursuant to which each party granted a license to certain intellectual property and technology. bluebird bio granted us a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid-up license to certain intellectual property to allow us to use such intellectual property in connection with our ongoing and future research and development activities and product candidates. We granted to bluebird bio a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid-up license (or, as the case may be, sublicense) to certain intellectual property for use in
bluebird bio’s existing products and product candidates. Such licenses between the parties generally allow current or future uses of the intellectual property in connection with each party's respective fields.
The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by intense and rapidly changing competition to develop new technologies and proprietary products. Many of our competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical, and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of treatments and the commercialization of those treatments. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining approval for treatments. Our competitors’ treatments may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any treatment for which we receive marketing approval and may render our approved treatments obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing any of our treatments.
These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical study sites and patient registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.
In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payers seeking to encourage the use of different products driven by cost, discounts, or rebates. If our therapeutic product candidates are approved, we expect that they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products. Depending on how successful these competitive efforts are, it is possible they may increase the barriers to adoption and success of our approved product and product candidates.
We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available. We expect any treatments that we develop and commercialize to compete on the basis of, among other things, efficacy, safety, customer experience, reliability, convenience of administration and delivery, price and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payers.
These efforts include the following:
Multiple Myeloma. The current standard of care for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma includes IMiDs (e.g., thalidomide, lenalidomide, pomalidomide), proteasome inhibitors (e.g., bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib), monoclonal antibodies (e.g., daratumamab, isatuximab, elotuzumab), cytotoxic agents, and HSCT. There are several companies developing autologous T cell therapies for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma that use a similar autologous ex vivo approach, but a different target antigen, BCMA single-chain variable fragment or, we believe, cell processing techniques. These programs include: ciltacabtagene autoleucel, an anti-BCMA CAR T cell therapy marketed as Carvykti that was approved by the FDA in February 2022 (Janssen in collaboration with Legend Biotech); a CAR T-ddBCMA cell therapy in clinical development (pivotal Phase 2 iMMagine-1) jointly developed by Arcellx in partnership with Kite; an anti-BCMA CAR T cell therapy in clinical development (Phase 1) sponsored by BMS following the completion of its acquisition of Juno Therapeutics, Inc. and several other anti-BCMA CAR T cell therapies in Phase 1 study, including and not limited to Novartis and Gracell Biotechnologies Inc. In addition to these autologous T cell-based approaches, Allogene Therapeutics, Inc., Poseida, and CRISPR Therapeutics AG have disclosed preclinical and clinical programs for allogeneic BCMA targeted CAR T cell therapies. There are also other therapies using similar or novel modalities being developed by several groups, including multiple bispecific T cell engagers and specific antibody therapies, such as antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). In October 2022, the FDA approved Tecvayli (teclistamab, first-in-class BCMAxCD3 bispecific antibody) for patients with at least four prior therapies in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma becoming the first treatment option with this modality to gain approval in the US. Two other BCMA-directed bispecific antibodies, Pfizer’s elranatamab and Regeneron’s linvoseltamab are expected to be approved in 2023 and 2024, respectively. In addition to Tecvayli, potential approval of another bispecific antibody developed by Janssen, talquetemab (first-in-class GPRC5DxCD3), is expected in the second half of 2023. After GSK noted the failure of the Phase 3 confirmatory DREAMM-3 study in
3L+ relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, following the request of the FDA, GSK announced plans for full market withdrawal of Blenrep (BCMA targeting ADC). GSK continues to develop Blenrep, and the data from the Phase 3 DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 studies in 2L relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma expected in the first half of 2023 will inform their future regulatory pathways.
B Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The current standard of care for majority of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, or NHL, is focused around CD20 immunotherapy, mainly rituximab, combined with chemotherapy agents such as bendamustine or the four-drug cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) regimen as the first-line option; patients with certain mutations may receive a different chemotherapy cocktail called EPOCH. As patients fail these therapies and reach the relapsed/refractory setting, patients who are eligible for stem cell transplant have typically received CD20 antibodies and high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation, or HDCT-ASCT. CD19 CAR T cell therapies axicabtagene ciloleucel (marked as Yescarta) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (marketed as Breyanzi) were both approved in 2022 for patients refractory to or relapsing within 12 months of initial therapy, replacing HDCT-ASCT as the standard of care for many patients; lisocabtagene maraleucel was also approved in the US for patients who are deemed ineligible for HDCT-ASCT. Axicabtagene ciloleucel and lisocabtagene maraleucel were also previously approved and launched as therapies for NHL patients who had failed at least two prior therapies, as was a third CD19 CAR T, tisagenlecleucel (marketed as Kymriah). More than 60 development programs for NHL therapies are in Phase 1 through Phase 3 trials in the US, including over 20 CAR T cell therapies, most of which target CD19. Among these programs are three dual targeting assets: Miltenyi’s zamtocabtagene autoleucel, a CD19/20 targeting CAR T currently in two potentially registrational Phase 2 trials, Cellular Biomedicine Group’s C-CAR039, a CD19/20 targeting CAR T which opened a Phase 1 trial in the US in 2022, and Autolus Therapeutics’ AUTO3, a CD19/22 dual targeting CAR T for relapsed/refractory NHL with promising Phase 1/2 data which Autolus Therapeutics is aiming to partner or out-license. Most cell therapies, marketed or in the clinic, are exploring patient populations across the treatment paradigm with expectations of replacing current standard of care and procuring expanded labels. In addition to autologous therapies, efforts are ongoing for allogeneic platforms that offer “off-the-shelf” advantage with the option of potentially treating greater number of patients over currently marketed CARs. ALLO-501A, PBCAR0191, CTX110, and ADI-001 have shown promising preliminary data in R/R NHL including patients failed on or refractory to prior CARs, and potentially registrational trials have been initiated for ALLO-501A and CTX110. Beyond cell therapies, Roche’s CD79b-targeting anti-body drug conjugate, polatuzumab vedotin (marketed as Polivy), received approval in relapsed/refractory NHL in the US in 2019 and a broader EMA approval in patients not eligible for stem cell transplant; polatuzumab also showed promising Phase 3 data in newly diagnosed NHL but has not yet been approved in that setting. Another anti-body drug conjugate, ADC Therapeutics’ CD19-targeting loncastuximab tesirine (marketed as Zynlonta), was approved in relapsed/refractory NHL patients after at least two prior therapies in the US in 2021. Morphosys’ tafasitamab (marketed as Monjuvi), a CD-19 targeted antibody, was approved and launched in 2020 in the US in combination with lenalidomide for patients with relapsed or refractory disease ineligible for HDCT-ASCT. Bispecific antibody therapies include Roche’s glofitamab, Genmab and AbbVie’s epcoritamab, and Regeneron’s odronextamab (all CD20 X CD3). Roche and AbbVie have filed BLAs for their respective agents, and Regeneron is expected to submit a BLA for odronextamab in 2023.
Acute Myeloid Leukemia. The current standard of care for AML has changed in the last few years following a host of new small molecule and monoclonal antibody approvals since 2017: midostaurin (commercialized by Novartis), liposomal daunorubicin and cytarabine (commercialized by Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc), enasidenib (commercialized by BMS and Servier), gemtuzumab ozogamicin (commercialized by Pfizer), ivosidenib (commercialized by Servier), gilteritinib (commercialized by Astellas Pharma), venetoclax (commercialized by AbbVie and Genentech), and glasdegib (commercialized by Pfizer). Many of these drugs are first in class and some are biomarker driven, resulting in more segmentation in the AML treatment paradigm. There are several competitors exploring autologous CAR T therapies in Phase 1 trials for relapsed and refractory AML, some against targets that have approved monoclonal antibody competitors on the market already, while others have novel targets. Dual targeting CAR T cell-based approaches are also starting to enter the clinic, including the CD33/CLL-1 targeting CAR Ts being developed by iCell Gene Therapeutics and Legend Biotech. Other groups are exploring TCR-based autologous therapies against novel targets. In addition to autologous cell therapies, there are allogeneic CAR T cell therapies in early trials for AML, including MB-102 in a Phase 1 trial being developed by Mustang Bio, Inc, and UCART123 in a Phase 1 trial being developed by Cellectis as well as NK cell-based therapies. Other modalities,
such as bispecific antibodies, ADCs, and other immunotherapy-based approaches are also in development across a wide range of targets. For example, Janssen is developing JNJ-67571244, a bispecific antibody targeting CD33 and CD3, for the treatment of relapsed or refractory AML, and Immunogen is developing pivekimab sunirine (IMGN632), a CD123 ADC, as monotherapy or in combination with azacytidine +/- venetoclax in relapsed or refractory or newly diagnosed AML. In addition, Gilead is investigating magrolimab, a CD47 targeting antibody, through two ongoing pivotal Phase 3 studies: ENHANCE-3 investigating magrolimab combined with venetoclax and azacytidine in newly diagnosed intensive chemotherapy unfit AML patients and ENHANCE-2 magrolimab in combination with azacytidine vs. physicians’ choice of venetoclax and azacytidine or intensive chemotherapy in newly diagnosed TP53 mutant AML patients. Data is expected for both studies in 2024.
Other Cell and Gene-Based Immunotherapies in Oncology. Hundreds of academic laboratories, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical companies are researching and developing cell-based immunotherapies in oncology, in addition to the programs described above. These include and are not limited to Novartis AG, Adaptimmune Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Amgen, Inc., Sanofi, and Takeda among others. Many of the cell-based immunotherapy programs being developed by these companies are in Phase 1/2 clinical trials for multiple indications in hematologic and solid tumors. Given the complexities of treating heterogeneous solid tumors, early data from cell therapies is very limited and needs extensive exploration and validation. Cancer therapies in other modalities, such as bispecific antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, and dendritic cell vaccines, as well as combinatorial approaches are also in development across a wide range of targets and pose a competitive threat.
We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets relating to our proprietary technology platform and on know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position in the field of gene therapy that may be important for the development of our business. Additionally, we rely on regulatory protection afforded through orphan drug designations, data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions and supplementary protection certificates where available.
Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce our patents; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and operate without infringing the valid enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing our products may depend on the extent to which we have valid and enforceable patent rights or trade secrets that cover these activities. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of manufacturing the same.
We have developed or in-licensed numerous patents and patent applications and possess substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to the development and commercialization of gene therapy products. Our proprietary intellectual property, including patent and non-patent intellectual property, is generally directed to, for example, certain genes, transgenes, methods of transferring genetic material into cells, genetically modified cells, processes to manufacture our lentivirus-based approved product and product candidates and other proprietary technologies and processes related to our approved product and product candidates. As of February 8, 2023, our patent portfolio includes the following:
•66 patents or patent applications that we own or have exclusively or co-exclusively in-licensed from third parties related to lentiviral vectors and vector manufacturing or production;
•163 patents or patent applications that we own or have exclusively or co-exclusively in-licensed from third parties related to therapeutic cellular product candidates;
•6 patents or patent applications that we have non-exclusively in-licensed or optioned from third parties related to oncology and therapeutic T cells;
•660 patents or patent applications that we own, have exclusively or co-exclusively in-licensed, or optioned from third parties related to oncology product candidates, including CAR T cell vector systems and manufacturing, T cell manufacturing, and therapeutic T cells;
•179 patents or patent applications that we own or have exclusively or co-exclusively in-licensed from third parties related to gene-editing compositions and methods; and
•2 patent applications that we have non-exclusively in-licensed from third parties related to gene-editing compositions and methods.
Our objective is to continue to expand our portfolio of patents and patent applications in order to protect our gene therapy product candidates and manufacturing processes. Examples of the products and technology areas covered by our intellectual property portfolio are described below. See also “—Strategic Collaborations.” From time to time, we also evaluate opportunities to sublicense our portfolio of patents and patent applications that we own or exclusively license, and we may enter into such licenses from time to time.
While we maintain patents and patent applications in important foreign markets, such as in Europe, China, and Japan, we do not consider our patent portfolio outside of the United States to be material to 2seventy bio at this time. With respect to the patent portfolios for our commercial-stage product idecabtagene vicleucel, or ide-cel, development and commercialization rights have been exclusively licensed to BMS in exchange for an up-front payment. As a consequence, 2seventy bio will not receive royalties on sales of ide-cel outside of the United States.
In addition, our other oncology programs are preclinical and we have not initiated the clinical trials for these programs either in the United States or elsewhere. As a result, we do not view the patent portfolios for these programs to be material to 2seventy bio at this time.
Ide-cel and Independent Multiple Myeloma Program
The multiple myeloma programs include the patent portfolios described below. These rights were assigned or sublicensed to us pursuant to the intellectual property license agreement and other agreements that we entered into with bluebird bio in connection with the separation. See “Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions‒Relationship with bluebird bio.”
•Pasteur Institute. The in-licensed Pasteur patent portfolio contains patents and patent applications directed to FLAP/cPPT elements and lentiviral vectors used to produce ide-cel for multiple myeloma. As of February 8, 2023, we had a non-exclusive license in the field of oncology (from bluebird bio) to two issued U.S. patents. We expect the issued composition of matter patents to expire in 2022 and 2023 in the United States (excluding possible patent term extensions).
•RDF. The in-licensed RDF patent portfolio contains the patents and patent applications directed towards aspects of our lentiviral vectors used to produce ide-cel for multiple myeloma. As of February 8, 2023, we had a non-exclusive license in the field of oncology (bluebird bio) to 11 issued U.S. patents and one pending U.S. patent applications related to our lentiviral vector platform. Corresponding foreign patents related to our lentiviral vector platform include issued patents in Canada, Europe, and Israel. We expect the issued composition of matter patents to expire from 2021-2027 in the United States, and in 2022 in the rest of the world (excluding possible patent term extensions).
•Biogen. The in-licensed Biogen Inc. (formerly Biogen Idec MA Inc.; referred to herein as Biogen) patent portfolio, contains patents and patent applications directed toward aspects of T cell-based products that target BCMA. As of February 8, 2023, we had a co-exclusive license to five issued U.S. patents, one pending U.S. patent application, and 49 issued corresponding foreign patents related to T cell-based
products that target BCMA. We expect the issued composition of matter patents to expire from 2024-2032 (excluding possible patent term extensions). Further, we expect any other patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2024-2030 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
•NIH. The in-licensed patent portfolio from National Institutes of Health, or NIH, contains patents and patent applications directed towards aspects of chimeric antigen receptor-based immunotherapies that target BCMA. As of February 8, 2023, we had an exclusive license to 16 issued U.S. patents, three pending U.S. patent applications, 27 issued corresponding foreign patents and 18 corresponding foreign patent applications related to chimeric antigen receptor-based immunotherapies that target BCMA and methods of use. We expect the issued composition of matter and methods patents to expire from 2033-2034 (excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2033 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
•2seventy bio IP. The owned patent portfolio contains patents and patent applications directed to certain specific compositions of matter and methods for generating CAR T cells.
▪As of February 8, 2023, we owned 12 issued U.S. patents, 9 pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 310 corresponding foreign patents, and 91 corresponding foreign patent applications related to CAR composition, methods of manufacture, and methods of treatment. We expect the issued composition of matter and methods patents to expire in 2035 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents, if issued from the pending patent applications or a corresponding national stage application, if applicable, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2035-2040 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
▪As of February 8, 2023, we owned one pending PCT application related to alternative anti-BCMA binders, CARs, and corresponding methods. We expect any patents, if issued from a corresponding national stage application, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2041 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
Lentiviral Platform (e.g., Vectors, Manufacturing, and Cell Therapy Products)
The lentiviral platform, which is potentially applicable across our programs in severe genetic disease and oncology, includes the following patent portfolios described below. These rights were assigned or sublicensed to us pursuant to the intellectual property license agreement and other agreements that we entered into with bluebird bio in connection with the separation.
•Pasteur Institute. The Pasteur patent portfolio contains the patents and patent applications described above.
•RDF. The in-licensed RDF patent portfolio contains the patents and patent applications described above.
•2seventy bio IP. Another component of the owned patent portfolio includes the vector manufacturing platform and is potentially applicable to our oncology programs. This portion of the portfolio contains patent applications directed to improved methods for transfection and transduction of therapeutic cells. As of February 8, 2023, we owned one provisional application, one pending U.S. patent application, 7 corresponding foreign patent applications, and one PCT application related to vector manufacturing, purification, and formulation. We expect any composition of matter or methods patents, if issued from a corresponding national stage application, if applicable, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2040-2043 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2040-2043 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
Oncology Platform (e.g., T Cell-Based Products)
Our T cell-based oncology platform and oncology research program, which is applicable to our multiple myeloma programs and other potential programs in cancer, includes the following patent portfolios described below. These rights were assigned or sublicensed to us pursuant to the intellectual property license agreement and other agreements we entered into with bluebird bio in connection with the separation.
•2seventy bio IP. One aspect of the owned or co-owned patent portfolio contains patent applications directed to certain specific compositions of matter for generating CAR T cells directed against various cancers and improved CAR T cell compositions. As of February 8, 2023, we owned 27 patent families that include 4 issued U.S. patents, 19 pending U.S. patent applications, 17 corresponding foreign patents, and 93 corresponding foreign patent applications; one pending U.S. provisional application; and 6 pending PCT applications. We expect the issued composition of matter patent to expire in 2034 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents, if issued from a corresponding non-provisional patent application, the pending patent applications or a corresponding national stage application, if applicable, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2034-2043 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2034-2043 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
•T Cell Manufacturing Methods License. We have in-licensed certain patents and patent applications that are directed to specific methods for generating CAR T cells. As of February 8, 2023, we have a nonexclusive license to two issued U.S. patents, one pending U.S. patent application, and 30 corresponding issued foreign patents. We expect the issued method patents to expire in 2026 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2026 (excluding possible patent term extensions).
•T Cell Immunotherapy Product Candidate Licenses. We have in-licensed certain patents and patent applications that are directed to specific compositions of matter for generating CAR T cells directed against various cancers and related methods of treatment.
▪As of February 8, 2023, we had an exclusive license to three families of U.S. non-provisional applications and corresponding foreign applications directed to compositions and methods for treating cancers that express particular target antigens. We expect any composition of matter or methods patents, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2040 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
▪In addition, as of February 8, 2023, we co-owned (with Medigene AG) two patent families of U.S. non-provisional applications and corresponding foreign applications directed to compositions and methods for treating cancers that express a particular antigen. We expect any composition of matter or methods patents, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2040 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
▪Also as of February 8, 2023, we co-owned (with Inhibrx, Inc.) four families of U.S. non-provisional applications and corresponding foreign applications directed to compositions and methods for treating cancers that express a particular antigen. We expect any composition of matter or methods patents, if issued from a corresponding national stage application, if applicable, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2040 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other
governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2040 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
▪Also as of February 8, 2023, we had a non-exclusive license to one family of U.S. non-provisional applications and corresponding foreign applications directed to compositions and methods for expressing transgenes. We expect any composition of matter or methods patents, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2038 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
▪Also as of February 8, 2023, we co-owned (with Seattle Children’s Research Institute) one international application directed to compositions and methods for treating patients with regulatable therapeutic T cells. We expect any composition of matter or methods patents, if issued from a corresponding national stage application, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2042 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
▪Also as of February 8, 2023, we co-owned (with Regeneron) one international application directed to compositions and methods for treating patients with that express a particular antigen. We expect any composition of matter or methods patents, if issued from a corresponding national stage application, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2042 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
Gene-editing Platform (e.g., homing endonucleases, chimeric endonucleases, megaTALs, genetically modified cells, and related methods)
The gene-editing platform includes the following patent portfolios described below. These rights were assigned or sublicensed to us pursuant to the intellectual property license agreement and other agreements that we entered into with bluebird bio in connection with the separation.
•Gene-editing License. We have in-licensed certain patent portfolios that contain patents and patent applications directed to aspects of our gene-editing platform to produce genome modifying enzymes and genetically modified cells that are potentially applicable to oncology programs.
▪As of February 8, 2023, we had an exclusive/co-exclusive license to seven issued U.S. patents, one pending U.S. patent application, 28 corresponding foreign patents, and one corresponding foreign patent applications related to our gene-editing platform. We expect the issued composition of matter patents to expire in 2030 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents in this portfolio, if issued from the pending patent applications and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2030 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
▪In addition, as of February 8, 2023, we had an exclusive license to two issued U.S. patents and six corresponding foreign patents related to our gene-editing platform. We expect the issued composition of matter patent to expire from 2027-2031 in the United States (excluding possible patent term extensions) and in 2027 in the rest of the world.
•Academic Gene-editing Licenses. We have in-licensed patent portfolios from multiple academic medical centers, each portfolio containing patents and patent applications directed to aspects of our gene-editing platform to produce genome modifying enzymes and genetically modified cells that are potentially applicable to our oncology programs.
▪As of February 8, 2023, we had an exclusive license to 7 issued U.S. patents, 2 pending U.S. patent applications, 25 corresponding foreign patents, and one corresponding foreign patent application related to our gene-editing platform. We expect the issued patent to expire in 2027-2032 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents in
this portfolio, if issued and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2027-2032 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
▪As of February 8, 2023, we also had a non-exclusive license to one issued U.S. patent and one pending U.S. patent application related to our gene-editing platform. We expect the issued composition of matter patent to expire in 2035 (excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents in this portfolio, if issued and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2035 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
•2seventy bio IP. One aspect of the owned patent portfolio contains patent applications that are potentially applicable to certain aspects of our gene-editing platform to produce genome modifying enzymes and genetically modified cells that are potentially applicable to our oncology and other programs.
▪As of February 8, 2023, we owned 9 patent families that include 4 issued U.S. patents, 10 pending U.S. patent applications, 6 corresponding foreign patents, and 56 corresponding foreign patent applications related to our gene-editing platform. We expect the issued composition of matter patent to expire in 2038 (excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any composition of matter or methods patents, if issued from the pending patent applications, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2037-2039 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire from 2037-2039 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
▪As of February 8, 2023, we also owned two international applications related to our gene-editing platform. We expect any composition of matter or methods patents, if issued from a corresponding national stage patent application, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2041 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
▪As of February 8, 2023, we co-owned (with Cellectis SA) two issued U.S. patents, 17 corresponding foreign patents, and two corresponding foreign patent applications related to our gene-editing platform. We expect the issued composition of matter patent to expire in 2034 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions). We expect any other patents in this portfolio, if issued from the pending patent applications and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2034 (worldwide, excluding possible patent term extensions).
The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing the non-provisional application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier expiring patent. Our patents expire at various times over the next 20 years, with patent protection for some expiring from 2023 through 2027. We do not expect such expirations to materially affect our business as the patents set to expire during this time cover intellectual property that is used in combination with other proprietary technologies, which technologies are therefore are covered by patents and patent applications with expiration dates beyond 2027. For these reasons, among others, we believe that no single patent expiration would have a material adverse effect on our business as a whole.
The term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration of a U.S. patent as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Moreover, a patent
can only be extended once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple products, it can only be extended based on one product. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. When possible, depending upon the length of clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of a BLA, we expect to apply for patent term extensions for patents covering our approved products or methods of using the same.
We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and third parties. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.
The Separation and Distribution
In January 2021, bluebird bio announced its plans to separate its oncology portfolio and programs from its severe genetic disease portfolio and programs and spin off its oncology portfolio and programs into a separate publicly traded company, 2seventy bio. In furtherance of this plan, 2seventy bio was incorporated as a Delaware corporation in April 2021, and in September 2021, bluebird bio’s board of directors approved the distribution of all of the issued and outstanding shares of 2seventy bio common stock on the basis of one share of 2seventy bio common stock for every three shares of bluebird bio common stock issued and outstanding on October 19, 2021, the record date for the distribution.
On November 3, 2021 we entered into a separation agreement with bluebird bio, which is referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as the separation agreement, as well as various other agreements with bluebird bio, including a tax matters agreement, an employee matters agreement, an intellectual property license agreement, a transition services agreement under which we temporarily receive certain services from bluebird bio, and a second transition services agreement under which we temporarily provide certain services to bluebird bio. These agreements also govern certain of our relationships with bluebird bio after the separation. For additional information regarding the separation agreement and the other related agreements, see "Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Separation" and "Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions—Agreements with bluebird bio." As a result of the distribution, we became an independent, publicly traded company on November 4, 2021.
In the United States, biological products, including cell and gene therapy products, are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the testing, research, development, manufacturing, quality control, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, approval, reporting, import, export, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products. FDA authorization must be obtained before clinical testing of biological products, and each clinical study protocol for a gene therapy product is reviewed by the FDA. FDA approval also must be obtained before marketing of biological products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals.
Within the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, regulates cell and gene therapy products. CBER works closely with the NIH. The FDA and the NIH have published guidance documents with respect to the development and submission of gene therapy protocols. The FDA also has published guidance documents related to, among other things, gene therapy products in general, their preclinical assessment, observing
subjects involved in gene therapy studies for delayed adverse events, potency testing, and chemistry, manufacturing and control information in gene therapy INDs.
Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology. More restrictive regulations or claims that our products are unsafe or pose a hazard could prevent us from successfully commercializing our product or any future products. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.
United States Biological Products Development Process
The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
•completion of nonclinical laboratory tests and animal studies according to good laboratory practices, or GLPs, and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations;
•submission to the FDA of an application for an IND, which must become effective before human clinical studies may begin and must be updated annually and when certain changes are made;
•approval by an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, or independent ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each trial may be initiated;
•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical studies according to the FDA’s regulations commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or GCPs, and any additional requirements for the protection of human research subjects and their health information, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed biological product for its intended use;
•submission to the FDA of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, for marketing approval that includes substantive evidence of safety, purity, and potency from results of nonclinical testing and clinical studies, and payment of a user fee, unless waived;
•satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product is produced to assess compliance with good manufacturing practices, or GMPs, to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality and purity and, if applicable, the FDA’s current good tissue practices, or GTPs, for the use of human cellular and tissue products;
•potential FDA audit of the nonclinical and clinical study sites that generated the data in support of the BLA; and
•FDA review and approval, or licensure, of the BLA.
Before testing any biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs.
The clinical study sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the clinical study on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns
before the clinical study can begin. A clinical hold may either be a full clinical hold or a partial clinical hold that would limit a trial, for example, to certain doses or for a certain length of time or to a certain number of subjects. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical studies due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, studies may not commence or recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical studies to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such studies.
In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain clinical studies of cells containing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules, including human gene transfer studies, are subject to oversight of institutional biosafety committees, or IBCs, as set forth in the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or the NIH Guidelines. Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules conducted at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. Compliance with the NIH Guidelines is mandatory for investigators at institutions receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA; however, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Such trials remain subject to FDA and other clinical trial regulations, and only after FDA, IBC, and other relevant approvals are in place can these protocols proceed.
Clinical studies involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the study sponsor’s control. Clinical studies are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and effectiveness, including stopping rules that assure a clinical study will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical studies must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical study must be reviewed and approved by an IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical study will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of study participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical studies are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical study subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical study until completed.
Human clinical studies are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:
•Phase 1. The biological product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients who have the disease or condition the product candidate is intended to treat. These studies are typically designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the investigational product in humans, evaluate the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness.
•Phase 2. The biological product is evaluated in a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule.
•Phase 3. Clinical studies are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites. These clinical studies are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product
approval and labeling. Generally, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA for approval of a BLA.
Post-approval clinical studies, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. In some cases, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of a BLA. The FDA generally recommends that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by ten years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire, of study subjects.
During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical study investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical studies must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, the NIH, as applicable, and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical studies may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical study at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical study at its institution if the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
Human gene therapy products are a new category of therapeutics. Because this is a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there can be no assurance as to the length of the study period, the number of patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the studies in order to establish the safety, efficacy, purity and potency of human gene therapy products, or that the data generated in these studies will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing approval.
Concurrent with clinical studies, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with GMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHS Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life and to identify appropriate storage conditions for the product candidate.
United States Review and Approval Processes
After the completion of clinical studies of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human studies, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, as amended, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. The testing and approval
processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.
Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with GMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. Each BLA must be accompanied by a user fee, and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.
Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with GMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For a cell or gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the GTPs. These are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical studies were conducted in compliance with IND study requirements and GCP requirements. To assure GMP, GTP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.
Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical studies are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical studies. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, withdraw the application, or request a hearing.
If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a risk management plan, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require Phase 4 clinical studies, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.
One of the performance goals agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA is to review 90% of standard BLAs in 10 months and 90% of priority BLAs in six months, whereupon a review decision is to be made. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs and its review goals are subject to change from time to time. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 or the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug or biological product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting a new drug application, or NDA, or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.
If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same biological product as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity. Orphan designation may also be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of the patient with the rare disease or condition. Orphan product designation in the EU has similar, but not identical, benefits.
Expedited Development and Review Programs
The FDA has established several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs and biologics to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval.
New drugs and biological products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug or biologic may request the FDA to designate the drug or biologic as a fast track product at any time during the clinical development of the product. The FDA may consider for review sections of the marketing application on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. A product may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review, accelerated approval, and breakthrough therapy designation. Under the breakthrough therapy program, products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may be eligible for the benefits of the fast track program when preliminary clinical evidence demonstrates that such product may have substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. Breakthrough Therapy designation includes all of the benefits of Fast Track designation in addition to intensive
guidance on a development program beginning as early as Phase 1. Additionally, FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product receives timely advice and interactive communications to help the sponsor design and conduct a development program as efficiently as possible. A product may also be eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug or biological products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means that they may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical studies establishing that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, the FDA is now permitted to require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Sponsors are also required to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such studies, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the sponsor fails to conduct such studies in a timely manner and send the necessary updates to the FDA, or if a confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA currently requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.
Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapies Designation
As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress amended the FD&C Act to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, which include cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Regenerative medicine advanced therapies do not include those human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act and 21 CFR Part 1271. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and qualify for RMAT designation. A drug sponsor may request that FDA designate a drug as an RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the drug meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A BLA for a regenerative medicine therapy that has received RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of RMAT designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy with RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence from clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval.
Maintaining compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to GMP. We will rely, and expect to continue to rely, on
third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of any future products that we may commercialize. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the GMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. For certain commercial prescription drug and biologic products, manufacturers and other parties involved in the supply chain must also meet chain of distribution requirements and build electronic, interoperable systems for product tracking and tracing and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or other products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products include reporting of GMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to official lot release. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.
Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biological products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with GMPs and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain GMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval. In addition, companies that manufacture or distribute drug or biological products or that hold approved BLAs must comply with other regulatory requirements, including submitting annual reports, reporting information about adverse drug experiences, and maintaining certain records. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a drug’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures, including a REMS or the conduct of post-marketing studies to assess a newly-discovered safety issue.
We also must comply with the FDA’s and other jurisdictions’ advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising and advertising to healthcare professionals, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. Consequences could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with healthcare professionals, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. Although physicians may prescribe approved products for off-label use, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties, including liabilities under the False Claims Act where products carry
reimbursement under federal health care programs. Promotional materials for approved biologics must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication.
United States Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our United States patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date and only those claims covering such approved biological product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The United States PTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical studies and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.
A biological product can obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The BPCIA attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.
Under the BPCIA, a reference biologic is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product, and an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. The first biologic product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against other biologics submitting under the abbreviated approval pathway for the lesser of (i) one year after the first commercial marketing, (ii) 18 months after approval if there is no legal challenge, (iii) 18 months after the resolution in the applicant’s favor of a lawsuit challenging the biologics’ patents if an application has been submitted, or (iv) 42 months after the application has been approved if a lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period. The FDA may approve multiple “first” interchangeable products so long as they are all approved on the same first day of marketing, and the exclusivity period may be shared among multiple first interchangeable products.
Healthcare and Privacy Laws
In addition to restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state/federal laws and trade association membership codes of conduct have been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry in recent years. These laws include Anti-Kickback and false claims statutes. The United States federal healthcare program Anti-Kickback statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully
offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. A person or entity need not have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration to those who prescribe, purchase, or recommend pharmaceutical and biological products, including certain discounts, or engaging healthcare professionals or patients as speakers or consultants, may be subject to scrutiny if they do not fit squarely within the exemption or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability. Moreover, there are no safe harbors for many common practices, such as educational and research grants or patient assistance programs.
The United States federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment of government funds, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payers if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the False Claims Act and to share in any monetary recovery. In recent years, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have faced enforcement actions under the federal False Claims Act for, among other things, allegedly submitting false or misleading pricing information to government health care programs and providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have faced enforcement actions for causing false claims to be submitted because of the company’s marketing the product for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses. Federal enforcement agencies also have showed increased interest in pharmaceutical companies’ product and patient assistance programs, including reimbursement and co-pay support services, and a number of investigations into these programs have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements. In addition, the Affordable Care Act amended federal law to provide that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. Criminal prosecution is possible for making or presenting a false or fictitious or fraudulent claim to the federal government.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, also created several new federal crimes, including healthcare fraud and false statements relating to healthcare matters. The healthcare fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers. The false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.
The United States Federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, being implemented as the Open Payments Program, requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to engage in extensive tracking of payments and other transfers of value to physicians, certain other licensed health care practitioners and teaching hospitals, including physician ownership and investment interests, and public reporting of such data. Pharmaceutical and biological manufacturers with products for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program are required to track such payments, and must submit a report on or before the 90th day of each calendar year disclosing reportable payments made in the previous calendar year. Additionally, federal government price reporting laws, which require us to calculate and report complex
pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs and consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers, may apply to us. A number of other countries, states and municipalities have also implemented additional payment tracking and reporting requirements, which if not done correctly may result in additional penalties.
In addition, the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA, prohibits corporations and individuals from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any official of another country, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in that capacity. In many other countries, healthcare professionals who prescribe pharmaceuticals are employed by government entities, and the purchasers of pharmaceuticals are government entities. Our dealings with these prescribers and purchasers may be subject to the FCPA.
Other countries, including a number of EU member states, have laws of similar application, including anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws such as the UK Bribery Act. The UK Bribery Act prohibits giving, offering, or promising bribes to any person, as well as requesting, agreeing to receive, or accepting bribes from any person. Under the UK Bribery Act, a company that carries on a business or part of a business in the United Kingdom may be held liable for bribes given, offered or promised to any person in any country by employees or other persons associated with the company in order to obtain or retain business or a business advantage for the company. Liability under the UK Bribery Act is strict, but a defense of having in place adequate procedures designed to prevent bribery is available.
HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, impose requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In California the California Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), which went into effect on January 1, 2023, establishes a privacy framework for covered businesses by creating an expansive definition of personal information, establishing data privacy rights for consumers in the State of California, imposing special rules on the collection of consumer data from minors, and creating a potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the CCPA and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches. The CPRA also created a new state agency that is vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. While clinical trial data and information governed by HIPAA are currently exempt from the current version of the CCPA, other personal information may be applicable and possible changes to the CCPA may broaden its scope.
Certain other state laws impose similar privacy obligations, and we also anticipate that more states will increasingly enact legislation similar to the CCPA. The CCPA has prompted a number of proposals for new federal and state-level privacy legislation and in some states efforts to pass comprehensive privacy laws have been successful. For example, on January 1, 2023, the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, or CDPA, became effective. Further, many additional US state privacy laws will go into effect throughout 2023: Colorado Privacy Act, or CPA (July 1, 2023); Connecticut Data Privacy Act, or CTDPA (July 1, 2023); Utah Consumer Privacy Act, or UCPA (December 31, 2023). The CDPA, CPA, CTDPA, and UCPA are substantially similar in scope and contain many of the same requirements and exceptions as the CCPA, including a general exemption for clinical trial data and information governed by HIPAA. However, each of these laws also contain additional requirements that may impose additional compliance obligations upon us. Additionally, any of these laws may broaden their scope in the future, and similar laws have been proposed on both a federal level and in more than half of the states in the U.S. The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country, if enacted, will add additional complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, require additional investment of resources
in compliance programs, impact strategies and the availability of previously useful data, and has resulted in and will result in increased compliance costs and/or changes in business practices and policies.
Many US states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payer. Several states now require pharmaceutical companies to report expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of pharmaceutical products in those states and to report gifts and payments to individual health care providers in those states. Some of these states also prohibit certain marketing-related activities including the provision of gifts, meals, or other items to certain health care providers. In addition, some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing expenditures, and drug pricing information. Certain state and local laws require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. In addition, globally, many countries have enacted stringent privacy and data protection laws. In the event that we begin to conduct trials outside of the United States or otherwise process personal information in countries outside of the United States, we will have to implement a comprehensive compliance program to address these requirements.
In the United States, to help patients afford our products, we may utilize programs to assist them, including patient assistance programs and co-pay coupon programs for eligible patients. Government enforcement agencies have shown increased interest in pharmaceutical companies' product and patient assistance programs, including reimbursement support services, and a number of investigations into these programs have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements. In addition, at least one insurer has directed its network pharmacies to no longer accept co-pay coupons for certain specialty drugs the insurer identified. Our co-pay coupon programs could become the target of similar insurer actions. In addition, in November 2013, the CMS issued guidance to the issuers of qualified health plans sold through the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces encouraging such plans to reject patient cost-sharing support from third parties and indicating that the CMS intends to monitor the provision of such support and may take regulatory action to limit it in the future. CMS subsequently issued a rule requiring individual market qualified health plans to accept third-party premium and cost-sharing payments from certain government-related entities.
In September 2014, the OIG of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS issued a Special Advisory Bulletin warning manufacturers that they may be subject to sanctions under the federal anti-kickback statute and/or civil monetary penalty laws if they do not take appropriate steps to exclude Part D beneficiaries from using co-pay coupons. Accordingly, companies exclude these Part D beneficiaries from using co-pay coupons. It is possible that changes in insurer policies regarding co-pay coupons and/or the introduction and enactment of new legislation or regulatory action could restrict or otherwise negatively affect these patient support programs, which could result in fewer patients using affected products, and therefore could have a material adverse effect on our sales, business, and financial condition.
Third party patient assistance programs that receive financial support from companies have become the subject of enhanced government and regulatory scrutiny. The OIG has established guidelines that suggest that it is lawful for pharmaceutical manufacturers to make donations to charitable organizations who provide co-pay assistance to Medicare patients, provided that such organizations, among other things, are bona fide charities, are entirely independent of and not controlled by the manufacturer, provide aid to applicants on a first-come basis according to consistent financial criteria and do not link aid to use of a donor's product. However, donations to patient assistance programs have received some negative publicity and have been the subject of multiple government enforcement actions, related to allegations regarding their use to promote branded pharmaceutical products over other less costly alternatives. Specifically, in recent years, there have been multiple settlements resulting out of government claims challenging the legality of their patient assistance programs under a variety of federal and state laws.
On December 2, 2020, the HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price
reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between PBMs and manufacturers. Implementation of this change and new safe harbors for point-of-sale reductions in price for prescription pharmaceutical products and PBM service fees are currently under review by the current U.S. presidential administration and may be amended or repealed. Further, on December 31, 2020, CMS published a new rule, effective January 1, 2023, requiring manufacturers to ensure the full value of co-pay assistance is passed on to the patient or these dollars will count toward the Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price calculation of the drug ("Accumulator Rule"). On May 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's (PhRMA) motion for summary judgement invalidating the Accumulator Rule. We cannot predict how the implementation of and any further changes to this rule will affect our business. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the current U.S. presidential administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the current U.S. presidential administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.
Because of the breadth of these various healthcare and privacy laws, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Such a challenge could have material adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In the event governmental authorities conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare and privacy laws and regulations, they may impose sanctions under these laws, which are potentially significant and may include civil monetary penalties, damages, exclusion of an entity or individual from participation in government health care programs, criminal fines and imprisonment, as well as the potential curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our financial condition and divert the attention of our management from operating our business.
Government Regulation Outside of the United States
In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical studies and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.
Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application, or CTA, much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical studies. In the EU, for example, a CTA must be submitted for each clinical trial to each country’s national competent authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and the IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, the corresponding clinical study may proceed. In April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which entered into application to replace Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on January 31, 2022. The new Regulation, which will be directly applicable in all EU member states (meaning that no national implementing legislation in each EU member state is required), aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the Regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point through the Clinical Trials Information System, or CTIS; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts (Part I contains scientific and medicinal product documentation and Part II contains the national and patient-level documentation). Part I is assessed by a coordinated review by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned) of a draft report prepared by a Reference Member State. Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.
The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical studies are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.
To obtain regulatory approval of a medicinal product in the EU, we must submit a marketing authorization application. The application used to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the EU, with the exception of, among other things, region-specific document requirements. Medicinal product candidates may only be commercialized after obtaining the marketing authorization application. A centralized marketing authorization is issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, of the EMA, and is valid throughout the EU, and in the additional member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products (gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines), and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU.
Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a marketing authorization application considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, it provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, who make the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding clock stops, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.
The EU also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. For example, in the EU, upon receiving marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the innovative medicinal product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU during such eight-year period starting from the date of grant of the innovative medicinal product's marketing authorization. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity (and the grant of the relevant generic or biosimilar marketing authorization). The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained a marketing authorization based on a marketing authorization application with a complete, independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.
Products receiving orphan designation in the EU and being granted a marketing authorization for an orphan medicinal product can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no similar medicinal product for the same indication may be placed on the market. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product
containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU where the application for a marketing authorization includes the results of all studies conducted in accordance with an agreed pediatric investigation plan for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.
The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five (5) in ten thousand (10,000) persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) it is unlikely that the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan drug designation itself does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.
The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, a marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product for the same indication at any time if:
•the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior;
•the marketing authorization holder of the authorized product consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or
•the marketing authorization holder of the authorized product cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.
In the EU, the advertising and promotion of our products will also be subject to EU member states’ laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices, as well as other EU member state legislation that may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s approved Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. The off-label promotion of medicinal products is prohibited in the EU. The applicable laws at the EU level and in the individual EU member states also prohibit the direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicinal products. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the EU could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict communications concerning the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on our promotional activities with healthcare professionals.
Failure to comply with the EU member state laws implementing the EU laws on medicinal products, and EU rules governing the promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices, with the EU member state laws that apply to the promotion of medicinal products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the EU member state authorities (or in addition, in some member states, enforcement action from industry bodies or legal action from competitors), which may include any of the
following: fines, imprisonment, orders forfeiting products or prohibiting or suspending their supply to the market, or requiring the manufacturer to issue public warnings, or to conduct a product recall.
The national laws of certain EU member states require payments made to physicians to be publicly disclosed. Moreover, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, or EFPIA, Code on disclosure of transfers of value from pharmaceutical companies to healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations imposes a general obligation on members of the EFPIA or related national industry bodies to disclose transfers of value to healthcare professionals. In addition, agreements with physicians must often be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his/her competent professional organization, and/or the competent authorities of the individual EU member states. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes, or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU member states.
The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA, which consists of the EU member states, plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.
For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Central and South America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. This act could have implications for our interactions with physicians in and outside the UK. In all cases, again, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP, applicable regulatory requirements, and ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.
If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, warning letters or untitled letters, injunctions, civil, administrative, or criminal penalties, monetary fines or imprisonment, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, suspension of ongoing clinical studies, refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to applications filed by us, suspension or the imposition of restrictions on operations, product recalls, the refusal to permit the import or export of our products or the seizure or detention of products.
Pricing, Coverage and Reimbursement
In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payers to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payers is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payers, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.
Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any drug products for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payers tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payers. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payer to payer. The process for determining whether a payer will provide coverage for a drug product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payer will pay for the drug product. Third-party payers may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. Third-party payers may provide coverage, but place stringent limitations on such coverage, such as requiring alternative treatments to be tried first. These third-party payers are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services,
in addition to their safety, efficacy, and overall value. In addition, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare products. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to incurring the costs required to obtain FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically reasonable or necessary or cost-effective. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:
•a covered benefit under its health plan;
•safe, effective and medically necessary;
•appropriate for the specific patient;
•neither experimental nor investigational.
Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the EU, governments influence the price of drug products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate systems under which products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of studies or analyses of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to set their own prices for medicines, but exert cost controls in other ways, including but not limited to, placing revenue caps on product sales, providing reimbursement for only a subset of eligible patients, mandating price negotiations after a set period of time, or mandating that prices not exceed an average basket of prices in other countries. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, European governments may periodically review and decrease prices based on factors, including but not limited to, years-on-market, price in other countries, competitive entry, new clinical data, lack of supporting clinical data, or other factors.
The marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payers fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, the emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to exert downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies, third-party reimbursement rates and pharmaceutical pricing regulations may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
Payers, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or private, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs and those methods are not always specifically adapted for new technologies such as gene therapy and therapies addressing rare diseases such as those we are developing. In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, was enacted, which, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars; increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs; created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under
Medicare Part D; and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.
In addition, other legislative and regulatory changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted:
•The U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. Subsequent legislation extended the 2% payment reduction which remains in effect through 2030.
•On January 2, 2013, the U.S. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers.
•On April 13, 2017, CMS published a final rule that gives states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces.
•On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.
•On May 23, 2019, CMS published a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020.
Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. President Biden has issued multiple executive orders that have sought to reduce prescription drug costs. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries to $2,000 starting in 2025; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would limit the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have one rare disease designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product receives multiple rare disease designations or has multiple approved indications, it may not qualify for the orphan drug exemption. The effects of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general is not yet known.
Federal, state and local governments in the United States and foreign governments continue to consider other legislation to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including the cost of prescription drugs. Specifically, there have been several recent United States Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.
In addition, there have been several changes to the 340B drug pricing program, which imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. On December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change under the 340B drug pricing program, and CMS subsequently altered the FYs 2019 and 2018 reimbursement formula on specified covered outpatient drugs (“SCODs”). The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” which was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation. However, most recently, on July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and found that the changes were within the Secretary’s authority. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (i.e., before the full court), but was denied on October 16, 2020. Plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court on February 10, 2021. On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were contrary to the statute and unlawful. We continue to review developments impacting the 340B program.
At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.
Human Capital Resources
As of February 1, 2023, we employ approximately 425 full-time employees, 97 of whom hold M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. To allow us flexibility in meeting varying workflow demands, we also engage consultants and temporary workers when needed. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement or represented by a trade or labor union. We consider our employee relations to be good.
Compensation and benefits programs
Our compensation programs are designed to align our employees' interests with the drivers of growth and stockholder returns by supporting our achievement of its primary business goals. Our goal is to attract and retain employees whose talents, expertise, leadership, and contributions are expected to sustain growth and drive long-term stockholder value. We are committed to providing comprehensive benefit options and it is our intention to offer benefits that will allow our employees and their families to live healthier and more secure lives, with a focus on both physical and mental well-being. All full-time employees are eligible for medical, dental, and vision insurance, paid time off, paid and unpaid leaves, an employee stock purchase plan, a 401(k) plan, and group life and disability coverage.
Employee development and training
The development, recruitment and retention of our employees is a critical success factor for our company. To ensure we provide a meaningful experience for our employees, we intend to offer training and development programs to increase our organizational learning and support the promotion and career development of our current employees.
At 2seventy bio, we believe that it’s about time that Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging become more than words. It is the core practice we are driven by in all we create. From our focus on patients, to how we are building our business and our culture, we believe diversity and belonging empower us to change the way we think, teach, and learn — from each other and about each other. Our mission is rooted in the belief that our cumulative and unique differences enable us to become better — better at our development of revolutionary scientific advancements and how we advance health equity by addressing cancer disparities with a goal of creating transformative treatments for those who need them. We strive to build an environment where we will deliver our best — that means having the
hard conversations and doing the hard work — so we can all be unencumbered and inspired to celebrate who we are fully as human beings.
We were incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in April 2021. Our mailing address and executive offices are located at 60 Binney Street, Cambridge Massachusetts 02142 and our telephone number at that address is (339) 499 -9300.
The company intends to use its website www.2seventybio.com as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with its disclosure obligations under the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Regulation FD. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in any other filings we make with the SEC.
We make available on or through our website certain reports and amendments to those reports that we file with or furnish to the SEC in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These include our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and our current reports on Form 8-K, exhibits and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. We make this information available on or through our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the information with, or furnish it to, the SEC.
A copy of our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are posted on our website at https://ir.2seventybio.com/corporate-governance/governance-overview, under “Investors & Media – Corporate Governance.”
The SEC maintains an Internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding us and other issuers that file electronically with the SEC. The SEC’s Internet website address is http://www.sec.gov.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
An investment in shares of our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following information about these risks, together with the other information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and related notes hereto, before deciding to invest in our common stock. The occurrence of any of the following risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects. In these circumstances, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs
Our business has incurred significant losses and we anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future. We have never recognized revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.
Our business has incurred operating losses due to costs incurred in connection with our research and development activities and general and administrative expenses associated with our operations. Our net loss for the year ended December 31, 2022 was $254.2 million, and our net losses for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 were $292.2 million and $120.1 million, respectively. We expect to incur operating losses for several years, as we continue our research activities and conduct development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates, including Abecma for additional indications.
The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of our future expenditures and our ability to recognize revenues. We have devoted significant financial resources to research and development, including our clinical and preclinical development activities, which we expect to continue for the foreseeable future. Our current and future revenues will depend upon the size of any markets in which Abecma and any future products have received approval, and our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, reimbursement from third-party payors and adequate market share for Abecma and any future products in those markets.
We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and continued operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase if and as we:
•continue our research and preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates, including any additional clinical trials of Abecma, which we are co-developing with Bristol Myers Squibb, or BMS;
•conduct commercialization activities for Abecma;
•obtain, build and expand manufacturing capacity, including capacity at third-party manufacturers;
•hire additional manufacturing personnel for our drug product facility;
•initiate additional research, preclinical, clinical or other programs as we seek to identify and validate additional product candidates;
•acquire or in-license other product candidates and technologies;
•maintain, protect and expand our intellectual property portfolio;
•attract and retain skilled personnel; and
•experience any delays or encounter issues with any of the above.
Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, or other regulatory agencies, domestic or foreign, to perform clinical and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even though Abecma has been approved by the FDA, and even if one or more of the product candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we may never recognize revenue in amounts sufficient to achieve and maintain profitability. The net losses we incur
may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. In any particular quarter or quarters, our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline.
We will need to raise additional funding to advance our product candidates, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts or other operations. Raising additional capital may dilute our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or cause us to relinquish valuable rights.
As of December 31, 2022, we held cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $267.7 million. We will require significant additional funding to advance our product candidates, alone or with strategic partners, through clinical studies and to seek marketing approval, as well as to continue advancing our research and development efforts with our preclinical product candidates. We may also need to raise additional funds sooner than currently anticipated if we choose to pursue additional indications or geographies for Abecma or any future products for which we obtain regulatory approval, identify additional product candidates to advance through clinical development or otherwise expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any other product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to product sales, medical affairs, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. We also may elect to raise additional funds sooner because we believe market conditions are attractive or as a risk mitigation measure.
Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our approved product and product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborative partners or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. Regardless of the terms of any debt or equity financing, our agreements and obligations under the tax matters agreement with bluebird bio, Inc., or bluebird bio, may limit our ability to issue stock. See "—Risks Related to the Separation."
If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, or if revenues from collaboration arrangements or product sales are less than we have projected, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs for our product candidates or the commercialization of Abecma or any future products or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if we are unable to obtain necessary funding on a timely basis, we may have to liquidate some or all of our assets and may receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our audited financial statements, which could cause investors to lose all or a part of their investment.
Because we have a limited operating history, valuing our business and predicting our prospects is challenging.
We were incorporated in April 2021 and separated from bluebird bio in November 2021. Although our business was conducted as part of bluebird bio prior to our separation, we did not operate as an independent company prior to the completion of the separation. We are developing an oncology pipeline of cell and gene therapies for cancer, the first of which, Abecma (ide-cel), was approved by the FDA in March 2021. The FDA granted approval of Abecma to BMS, our partner with whom we are jointly commercializing Abecma in the U.S. through our co-development and co-promotion arrangement. Our revenues to date have been derived from out-licensing arrangements and
collaboration, including the collaboration revenue derived from commercial sales of Abecma by BMS. To date, we have not recognized any revenues from the sale of products by us. Our operating activities to date have been limited primarily to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, developing our technology, identifying potential product candidates and clinical trial activities.
We have limited experience in commercial scale manufacturing of the lentiviral vector for Abecma and in the sales and marketing activities necessary for the commercialization of Abecma. In addition, we have not obtained marketing approval of any of our other product candidates. Our short operating history offers limited insight into our prospects for success or even viability and we expect our operating results to be subject to frequent fluctuations. We will encounter challenges frequently experienced by biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields, and we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully navigate such challenges. If we do not address the challenges we face successfully, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be materially harmed.
Risks Related to the Discovery, Product Development and Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates
Research and development of biopharmaceutical products is inherently risky. We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical studies, or we may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities.
Our business depends heavily on successful clinical development, regulatory approvals and commercialization of Abecma. Our current product candidates are in various stages of clinical and preclinical development. Our current product candidates, as well as any we may discover in the future, will require substantial additional development and testing, as well as regulatory approvals, prior to commercialization.
Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical and clinical studies that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate benefit-risk profile for its intended use in its intended patient population. Failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study and clinical trial processes, and because many of our product candidates are in an early stage of development, there is a high risk of failure. In some instances, significant variability in safety or efficacy appear in different clinical studies of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in study protocols, differences in the number and characteristics of the enrolled subjects, variations in the dosing regimen and other clinical study parameters or the dropout rate among study participants. Product candidates in later stages of clinical studies often fail to demonstrate adequate safety and efficacy despite encouraging preclinical study and earlier clinical trial results. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in later-stage clinical studies. Most product candidates that begin clinical studies are never approved for commercialization by regulatory authorities. If the results of our ongoing or future preclinical studies and clinical trials are inconclusive with respect to the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, if we do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical and clinically meaningful significance, or if there are safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we may be prevented or delayed in obtaining marketing approval for such product candidates.
If we encounter difficulties in recruiting or enrolling subjects in our clinical studies, we could be delayed or prevented from proceeding with clinical trials of our product candidates.
Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical studies of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical studies depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates, and we may experience delays in our clinical studies if we encounter difficulties in enrollment. The estimated incidence of our target indications, including newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and acute myeloid leukemia, the target indications for our product candidates, vary considerably. Determining the incidence of these conditions, including in specific geographies or demographic groups, is challenging. The lower the actual incidence of these conditions, the more challenges we will encounter enrolling subjects in our clinical studies, which could delay development of our product candidates. Clinical trial recruitment and enrollment may also encounter difficulties for a variety of other reasons. The number of patients eligible for a clinical trial may be substantially limited by stringent eligibility criteria in a study protocol, such as the
inclusion of biomarker-driven identification or other highly specific criteria related to stage of disease progression or to specific patient reported outcome measures. The number of patients required to power the statistical analysis of the study's endpoints may be very large leading to an extended enrollment period. Issues such as the proximity of subjects to a study site, the complexity of the study design, our ability to recruit investigators with appropriate skill and experience, competing clinical studies for similar therapies or targeting similar subjects, perceptions of the benefit-risk profile of the product candidate relative to other available therapies or product candidates, risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials drop out before clinical trial completion, and ability to obtain and maintain institutional review board, or IRB, approvals and patient consents all could have a substantial impact on the timing of clinical trial enrollment. In addition, our ability to recruit and enroll patients may be significantly delayed by the effects of public health crises, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or the outbreak of a similar epidemic, and actual or anticipated government responses to such health events. If we are unable to enroll sufficient subjects in clinical studies in a timely way, obtaining study results will be delayed, which may harm our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations.
If the market opportunities for Abecma or any future approved products are smaller than we believe they are, and if we are not able to successfully identify patients and achieve significant market share, our revenues may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.
We focus our research, development, and commercialization efforts on treatments for cancer. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with Abecma or any future approved products, are based on estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower or more difficult to identify than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for Abecma and any future approved products may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our products.
Even if we obtain significant market share for a product within an approved indication, because the potential target populations for our product and for the product candidates in our pipeline are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining marketing approval for additional indications. In the field of cancer, the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for use in patients with relapsed or refractory advanced disease. We expect to initially seek approval of our engineered cell therapy product candidates in cancer in this context. Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, we would expect to seek approval in earlier lines of treatment and potentially as a first line therapy, but there is no guarantee that our product candidates, even if approved, would be approved for earlier lines of therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we may have to conduct additional clinical trials. For example, BMS received marketing approval from the FDA for Abecma as a treatment for adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have not responded to, or whose disease has returned after, at least four prior lines of therapy. BMS is conducting additional studies with the intention to generate data to support marketing approvals for earlier lines of therapy in multiple myeloma, but there is no assurance that such studies will be successful or be sufficient to support label expansion. For example, based on interim results from KarMMa-3, we plan to seek FDA approval for Abecma as a third line therapy in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients; however, we may not be successful in our efforts to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize Abecma in this indication.
Any of these factors may negatively affect our ability to recognize revenues from sales of Abecma and any future products and our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and, as a consequence, our business may suffer.
We cannot predict when or if we will obtain marketing approval to commercialize our product candidates, and the marketing approval of Abecma and any future approved products may ultimately be for more narrow indications than we expect. If our product candidates are not approved in a timely manner or at all for any reason, our business prospects, results of operations, and financial condition would be adversely affected.
Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the commercialization of each of our product candidates, we must complete preclinical studies and then conduct extensive clinical studies to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency, and efficacy, of the product candidate in humans. Preclinical and clinical testing is
expensive, time-consuming and uncertain as to outcome. There is a high failure rate for drugs and biologics proceeding through clinical studies. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in later stage clinical studies even after achieving encouraging results in preclinical studies or earlier stage clinical studies. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:
•we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate is safe and effective for its proposed indication;
• the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval;
•data collected from clinical trials may not be sufficient to support the submission or to obtain regulatory approval
•delays in reaching, or failure to reach, a consensus with regulatory agencies on study design;
•imposition of a clinical hold by regulatory agencies, after an inspection of our clinical study operations or study sites or due to unforeseen safety issues;
•delays in the testing, validation, manufacturing and delivery of our product candidates to the clinical sites;
•failure to obtain sufficient cells from patients to manufacture enough drug product or achieve target cell doses;
•delays in having patients complete participation in a study or return for post-treatment follow-up;
•delays or difficulties in initiating clinical study sites or patients dropping out of a study;
•occurrence of serious adverse events associated with the product candidate that are viewed to outweigh its potential benefits; or
•changes in regulatory requirements and guidance that require amending or submitting new clinical protocols.
Furthermore, the timing of our clinical studies depends on the speed at which we can recruit eligible patients to participate in testing our product candidates, and we may experience delays if we encounter difficulties in recruitment or enrollment. The conditions for which we plan to evaluate our current product candidates in severe genetic diseases are rare disorders with limited patient pools from which to draw for clinical studies. The eligibility criteria of our clinical studies will further limit the pool of available study participants, and the process of finding and diagnosing patients may prove costly. Patients may be unwilling to participate in our studies because of negative publicity from adverse events in the biotechnology or gene therapy industries or for other reasons, including competitive clinical studies for similar patient populations, the proximity and availability of clinical study sites for prospective patients, and the patient referral practices of physicians. If patients are unwilling to participate in our studies for any reason, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies, and obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates may be delayed. We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics to achieve diversity in a study, to complete our clinical studies in a timely manner or as required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We have experienced delays in some of our clinical studies in the past, and we may experience similar delays in the future.
Even if our product candidates demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical studies, regulatory delays or rejections may be encountered as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development. We may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, changes in regulatory agency policy, or additional regulatory feedback or guidance during the period of product development, clinical studies and the review process. The field of engineered cell therapy is evolving, and as more products are reviewed by regulatory authorities, regulatory authorities may
impose additional requirements that were not previously anticipated. Regulatory agencies also may approve a treatment candidate for fewer or more limited indications than requested, impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings, or a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or may grant approval subject to the performance of post-marketing studies. In addition, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, approvals by the EMA and the European Commission may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval. In general, the FDA requires the successful completion of two pivotal trials to support approval of a biologics license application, or BLA, but in certain circumstances, will approve a BLA based on only one pivotal trial. Additionally, certain factors beyond our and our collaborators’ control may impact the timeliness of the regulatory reviews of our submissions or any applications for approval.
If our product candidates are ultimately not approved for any reason, our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition would be adversely affected.
Interim, “topline,” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to confirmation, audit, and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.
From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations, and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the topline results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, topline data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim or preliminary data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment and treatment continues and more patient data become available or as patients from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock after this offering.
Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the potential of the particular program, the likelihood of marketing approval or commercialization of the particular product candidate, any approved product, and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is derived from information that is typically extensive, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure.
If the interim, topline, or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.
Results from previous or ongoing studies are not necessarily predictive of our future clinical study results, and initial or interim results may not continue or be confirmed upon completion of the study. There is limited data concerning long-term safety and efficacy following treatment with our engineered cell therapy product candidates. These data, or other positive data, may not continue or occur for these patients or for any future patients in our ongoing or future clinical studies, and may not be repeated or observed in ongoing or future studies involving our product candidates. Furthermore, our product candidates may also fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in later stages of clinical development despite having successfully advanced through initial clinical studies. There can be no assurance that any of these studies will ultimately be successful or support further clinical advancement or
marketing approval of our product candidates. For instance, patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with Abecma in clinical trials have experienced disease progression. We have experienced unexpected results in the past, and we may experience unexpected results in the future.
Delays in the commencement and completion of clinical trials could increase costs and delay or prevent regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates.
We cannot guarantee that clinical trials of our product candidates will be initiated or conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of the clinical trial process, and other events may cause us to temporarily or permanently stop a clinical trial. Events that may prevent successful or timely commencement and completion of clinical development include:
•negative preclinical data;
•delays in receiving the required regulatory clearance from the appropriate regulatory authorities to commence clinical trials or amend clinical trial protocols, including any objections to our Investigational New Drug Applications, or INDs, or protocol amendments from the FDA;
•delays in reaching, or a failure to reach, a consensus with regulatory authorities on study design;
•delays in reaching, or failure to reach, agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations, or CROs, and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;
•difficulties in adding a sufficient number of clinical trial sites and obtaining IRB or independent ethics committee approval at each site;
•challenges in recruiting suitable patients to participate in a trial;
•slower enrollment in clinical trials than anticipated or a larger number of patients required for a clinical trial than anticipated;
•the inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients in clinical trials to ensure adequate statistical power to detect statistically significant treatment effects;
•difficulties in having patients complete a trial or return for post-treatment follow-up;
•our CROs or clinical trial sites or other third parties failing to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all, deviating from the protocol or dropping out of a clinical trial;
•unforeseen safety issues, including occurrence of treatment emergent adverse events associated with the product candidate that are viewed to outweigh the product candidate’s potential benefits;
•the need to suspend or terminate clinical trials for various reasons, including non-compliance with regulatory requirements, a finding that our product candidates have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;
•difficulties in adding new clinical trial sites;
•our preclinical studies or clinical trials failing to show safety or efficacy or otherwise producing ambiguous or negative interim results, leading us to decide, or regulators requiring us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials or abandon our research efforts for our other product candidates;
•lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial;
•greater costs than anticipated;
•difficulties in manufacturing sufficient quantities of acceptable product candidate for use in preclinical studies or clinical trials in a timely manner, or at all; or
•global health crises, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or the outbreak of a similar epidemic, which may result in clinical site closures, delays to patient enrollment, patients discontinuing their treatment or follow up visits or changes to trial protocols.
We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by a Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial or by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical trial protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to recognize product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down the development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and recognize revenues for these product candidates. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.
In addition, data obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Our clinical trial results may not be successful, or even if successful, may not lead to regulatory approval.
Where appropriate, we may seek approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities through the use of accelerated approval pathways. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA, EMA or such other regulatory authorities may seek to withdraw the accelerated approval.
Where possible, we may pursue accelerated development strategies in areas of high unmet need. We may seek an accelerated approval pathway for our one or more of our product candidates from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Under the accelerated approval provisions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the FDA’s implementing regulations, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a therapeutic candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit, and the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that such studies be underway prior to approval or within a specified period after the date of approval. Sponsors must also update FDA on the status of these studies, and under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, the FDA has increased authority to withdraw approval of a drug granted accelerated approval on
an expedited basis if the sponsor fails to conduct such studies in a timely manner, send the necessary updates to the FDA, or if such post-approval studies fail to verify the drug’s predicted clinical benefit.
Prior to seeking accelerated approval, we will seek feedback from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit a BLA for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent feedback from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval, there can be no assurance that such application will be accepted or that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type, including, for example, if other products are approved via the accelerated pathway and subsequently converted by FDA to full approval. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our product candidate would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace. Moreover, even if we are able to obtain accelerated approval for any of our product candidates, there is no guarantee that post-approval studies will be able to confirm the clinical benefit, which could cause FDA to withdraw our approval.
We may seek fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and/or orphan drug designation from the FDA or similar designations from other regulatory authorities for one or more of our product candidates. Even if one or more of our product candidates receive any of these designations, we may be unable to obtain or maintain the benefits associated with such designation.
The FDA has established various designations to facilitate more rapid and efficient development and approval of certain types of drugs and biologics. Such designations include fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, and orphan drug designation. Fast track designation is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of therapies for serious conditions that fill an unmet medical need. Programs with fast track designation may benefit from early and frequent communications with the FDA, potential priority review and the ability to submit a rolling application for regulatory review. If any of our product candidates receive fast track designation but do not continue to meet the criteria for fast track designation, or if our clinical trials are delayed, suspended or terminated, or put on clinical hold due to unexpected adverse events or issues with clinical supply or due to other issues, we will not receive the benefits associated with the fast track program. Fast track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.
A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA, and drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for other expedited approval programs, including accelerated approval. Even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies pursuant to FDA standards, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification. Thus, even though we may seek breakthrough therapy designation for one or more of our current or future product candidates, there can be no assurance that we will receive breakthrough therapy designation.
Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and the EU, may also designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, or the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the U.S., or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the U.S. where 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 EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) evaluates orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU. In the U.S., orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers, and it may entitle the therapeutic to exclusivity in the U.S. and the EU. Regulatory authorities may not grant our requests for orphan designation, or may require submission of additional data before making such determination. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for that product candidate.
If any of our programs or product candidates receive fast track, breakthrough therapy or orphan drug designation by the FDA or similar designations by other regulatory authorities, there is no assurance that we will receive any benefits from such programs or that we will continue to meet the criteria to maintain such designation. Even if we obtain such designations, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. A fast track, breakthrough therapy, or orphan drug designation does not ensure that a product candidate will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. In addition, the FDA may withdraw any such designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.
The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, or if BMS is ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approvals for Abecma in additional or expanded indications, we will be unable to recognize product revenue and our business will be substantially harmed.
We cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable, typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical studies and depends upon numerous factors, including the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates involved. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept an application for review, or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies.
In September 2020, the FDA accepted for priority review the BLA submitted by BMS for Abecma (ide-cel) as a treatment for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma and the FDA approved this BLA in March 2021. However, obtaining one regulatory approval does not guarantee that the FDA will conclude that the information BMS may submit for additional or expanded indications for Abecma will be sufficient to support approval for those indications and BMS may fail to obtain additional regulatory approvals in the United States for Abecma. Additionally, certain factors beyond our and BMS’ control may impact the timeliness of the regulatory reviews of our submissions or any applications for approval.
We may never be able to obtain regulatory approval for any other product candidates. If our product candidates, including Abecma for additional indications, are ultimately not approved for any reason, our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition would be adversely affected.
Our ongoing clinical studies may not be completed on schedule, and our planned clinical studies may not begin on schedule, if at all. The completion or commencement of clinical studies can be delayed or prevented for a number of reasons, including, among others:
•the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not authorize us or our investigators to commence planned clinical studies, or require that we suspend ongoing clinical studies through imposition of clinical holds;
•negative results from our ongoing studies or other industry studies involving engineered cell therapy product candidates;
•delays in reaching or failing to reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical study sites, the terms of which can be subject to considerable negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and study sites;
•inadequate quantity or quality of a product candidate or other materials necessary to conduct clinical studies, for example delays in the manufacturing of sufficient supply of finished drug product;
•difficulties obtaining ethics committee or IRB, approval to conduct a clinical study at a prospective site or sites;
•challenges in recruiting and enrolling subjects to participate in clinical studies, the proximity of subjects to study sites, eligibility criteria for the clinical study, the nature of the clinical study protocol, the availability of approved effective treatments for the relevant disease and competition from other clinical study programs for similar indications;
•severe or unexpected drug-related side effects experienced by subjects in a clinical study, such as severe neurotoxicity and cytokine release syndrome;
•we may decide, or regulatory authorities may require us, to conduct additional clinical studies or abandon product development programs;
•the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our clinical study design, implementation of clinical trials or our interpretation of data from clinical studies, or may change the requirements for approval even after it has reviewed and commented on the design for our clinical studies;
•reports from preclinical or clinical testing of other competing candidates that raise safety or efficacy concerns; and
•difficulties retaining subjects who have enrolled in a clinical study but may be prone to withdraw due to rigors of the clinical studies, lack of efficacy, side effects, personal issues, or loss of interest.
Clinical studies may also be delayed or terminated as a result of ambiguous or negative interim results. In addition, a clinical study may be suspended or terminated by us, the FDA or other comparable authorities, the IRBs or ethic committees at the sites where the IRBs or ethic committees are overseeing a clinical study, a data and safety monitoring board overseeing the clinical study at issue or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including, among others:
•failure to conduct the clinical study in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols;
•inspection of the clinical study operations or study sites by the FDA or other regulatory authorities that reveals deficiencies or violations that require us to undertake corrective action, including in response to the imposition of a clinical hold;
•unforeseen safety issues, including any that could be identified in our ongoing studies, adverse side effects or lack of effectiveness;
•changes in government regulations or administrative actions;
•problems with clinical supply materials; and
•lack of adequate funding to continue clinical studies.
In addition, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for any of our product candidates, the terms of such approval may limit the use of any approved product, which will limit its prospects for commercialization, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
Patients receiving T cell-based immunotherapies such as Abecma may experience serious adverse events, including neurotoxicity and cytokine release syndrome. Serious adverse events or undesirable side effects associated with Abecma or our product candidates may result in delays, clinical holds, or terminations of our clinical trials, impact our ability to obtain or maintain marketing approval, and impact market acceptance and commercial sales, which will significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.
Abecma is a chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, T cell-based immunotherapy. In previous and ongoing clinical studies involving CAR T cell products, including those involving ide-cel, patients experienced side effects such as neurotoxicity and cytokine release syndrome. There have been life-threatening events related to severe neurotoxicity and cytokine release syndrome, requiring intense medical intervention such as intubation or vasopressor support, and in several cases, resulted in death. Severe neurotoxicity is a condition that is currently defined clinically by cerebral edema, confusion, drowsiness, speech impairment, tremors, seizures, or other central nervous system side effects, when such side effects are serious enough to lead to intensive care. In some cases, severe neurotoxicity was thought to be associated with the use of certain lymphodepletion regimens used prior to the administration of the CAR T cell products. Cytokine release syndrome is a condition that is currently defined clinically by certain symptoms related to the release of cytokines, which can include fever, chills, low blood pressure, when such side effects are serious enough to lead to intensive care with mechanical ventilation or significant vasopressor support. The exact cause or causes of cytokine release syndrome and severe neurotoxicity in connection with treatment of CAR T cell products is not fully understood at this time. In addition, patients have experienced other adverse events in these studies, such as a reduction in the number of blood cells (in the form of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia or other cytopenias), febrile neutropenia, chemical laboratory abnormalities (including elevated liver enzymes), and renal failure.
Undesirable side effects caused by Abecma, other CAR T product candidates targeting B cell maturation antigen, or BCMA, or our other engineered cell therapy product candidates, could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical studies and could result in restrictions on the labeling, distribution, or marketing of our approved products or a requirement to conduct potentially costly post-approval studies or the delay or denial of marketing approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. For example, the prescribing information for Abecma includes a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicities, and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, and Abecma is only available in the U.S. through a REMS program. Additionally, FDA has imposed a post-marketing requirement for Abecma that requires completion of an observational study to assess the long-term safety of Abecma and the risk of secondary malignancies occurring after treatment by following patients for a 15-year period. Side effects and toxicities associated with Abecma, as well as the warnings, precautions, and requirements listed in the prescribing information, could affect the willingness of physicians to prescribe, and patients to use, Abecma and negatively affect market acceptance and commercial sales. In some cases, side effects such as neurotoxicity or cytokine release syndrome have resulted in clinical holds of ongoing clinical trials and/or discontinuation of the development of the product candidate. Results of our studies could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the studies or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from engineered cell therapies are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. Medical personnel may need additional training regarding engineered cell therapies to understand their side effects. Inadequate training in recognizing or failure to effectively manage the potential side effects of engineered cell therapies could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
If we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by Abecma or our product candidates, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:
•regulatory authorities may withdraw or limit their approval of Abecma or our product candidates;
•regulatory authorities may require the addition of labeling statements, including a “boxed” warning or contraindications, such as the “boxed” warning included in the product label for Abecma;
•we and/or BMS may be required to change the way Abecma or such product candidates are distributed or administered, conduct additional clinical trials or change the labeling for Abecma or such product candidates;
•regulatory authorities may require a REMS plan to mitigate risks, such as the REMS program for Abecma;
•we may be subject to regulatory investigations and government enforcement actions;
•we or BMS may decide to remove Abecma or such product candidates from the marketplace;
•we could be sued and held liable for injury caused to individuals exposed to or taking Abecma or our product candidates; and
•our reputation may suffer.
Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of gene therapy and genetic research may damage public perception of Abecma, our product candidates, and any future products or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain and maintain marketing approvals for Abecma and our product candidates.
Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy, including gene editing technologies, is unsafe or unethical, and research activities and adverse events in the field, even if not ultimately attributable to us or Abecma or our product candidates, could result in increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, challenges in recruiting patients to participate in our clinical studies, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our product candidates, labeling restrictions for Abecma or any future approved products, and a decrease in demand for any such product. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any approved products.
Changes in regulatory requirements, FDA guidance or unanticipated events during our preclinical studies and clinical studies of our product candidates may occur, which may result in changes to preclinical or clinical study protocols or additional preclinical or clinical study requirements, which could result in increased costs to us and could delay our development timeline.
Changes in regulatory requirements, FDA guidance or unanticipated events during our preclinical studies and clinical studies may force us to amend preclinical studies and clinical study protocols. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also impose additional preclinical studies and clinical study requirements. Amendments or changes to our clinical study protocols would require resubmission to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities and IRBs for review and approval, which may increase the cost or delay the timing or successful completion of clinical studies. Similarly, amendments to our preclinical studies may increase the cost or delay the timing or successful completion of those preclinical studies. If we experience delays completing, or if we terminate, any of our preclinical or clinical studies, or if we are required to conduct additional preclinical or clinical studies, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to recognize product revenue will be delayed.
Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in other jurisdictions.
In order to market any product outside of the United States, we must establish and comply with the numerous and varying safety, efficacy and other regulatory requirements of other countries. Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from those in the United States, including additional preclinical or
clinical studies, as studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. The marketing approval processes in other countries may implicate all of the risks detailed above regarding FDA approval in the United States, as well as other risks. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our product candidates is also subject to approval.
Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval in other countries or any delay or other setback in obtaining such approval would impair our ability to market our product candidates in such countries. Any such impairment would reduce the size of our potential market, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates.
The success of our business depends primarily upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize products based on our engineered cell therapy technologies. Our research programs in oncology may fail to identify other potential product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons. We may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates or our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the products unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our research, development or commercialization efforts for a program or programs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations.
Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties
We are dependent on BMS for the successful development, commercialization and manufacture of Abecma. If BMS does not devote sufficient resources to the commercialization, manufacture and further development of Abecma, is unsuccessful in its efforts, or chooses to terminate its agreements with us, our business will be materially harmed.
We are co-developing and co-promoting ide-cel, being marketed as Abecma in the United States, with BMS under our amended and restated co-development and co-promotion agreement with BMS, or the Ide-cel CCPS. Under the Ide-cel CCPS, we and BMS share the obligation to develop and commercialize ide-cel in the United States.
In our partnership with BMS, BMS is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize ide-cel. BMS may determine however, that it is commercially reasonable to de-prioritize or discontinue the development of ide-cel. These decisions may occur for many reasons, including internal business reasons (including due to the existence of other BMS programs that are potentially competitive with ide-cel), results from clinical trials or because of unfavorable regulatory feedback. Further, on review of the safety and efficacy data, the FDA may impose additional requirements on the program that renders it commercially nonviable. In addition, under our agreements with BMS, BMS has certain decision-making rights in determining the development and commercialization plans and activities. We may disagree with BMS about the development strategy it employs, but we will have limited rights to impose our development strategy on BMS. Similarly, BMS may decide to seek marketing approval for, and limit commercialization of, ide-cel to narrower indications than we would pursue. More broadly, if BMS elects to discontinue further development and commercialization of ide-cel, we may be unable to advance these efforts ourselves. In addition, we rely on BMS to deliver complete, accurate and timely information about its financial results related to ide-cel.
This partnership may not be scientifically or commercially successful for us due to a number of important factors, including the following:
•BMS has wide discretion in determining the efforts and resources that it will apply to its partnership with us. The timing and amount of any downstream commercial profits, milestones and royalties that we may receive under such partnership will depend on, among other things, BMS’s efforts, allocation of resources and successful development and commercialization of ide-cel.
•BMS may develop and commercialize, either alone or with others, products that are similar to or competitive with ide-cel. For example, BMS is currently commercializing a number of its existing products, including lenalidomide and pomalidomide, for certain patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, as well as our CAR-T product candidate targeting BCMA.
•BMS may terminate its partnership with us without cause and for circumstances outside of our control, which could make it difficult for us to attract new strategic partners or adversely affect how we are perceived in scientific and financial communities.
•BMS may develop or commercialize Abecma in such a way as to elicit litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property rights or expose us to potential liability.
•BMS may not comply with all applicable regulatory and compliance requirements, including failing to report safety data in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements.
•If BMS were to breach its arrangements with us, we may need to enforce our right to terminate the agreement in legal proceedings, which could be costly and cause delay in our ability to receive Abecma rights back. If we were to terminate an agreement with BMS due to BMS's breach or if BMS were to terminate an agreement without cause, the development and commercialization of Abecma could be delayed, curtailed or terminated because we may not have sufficient financial resources or capabilities to continue development and commercialization of these product candidates on our own if we choose not to, or are unable to, enter into a new collaboration for these product candidates.
•BMS may enter into one or more transactions with third parties, including a merger, consolidation, reorganization, sale of substantial assets, sale of substantial stock or other change in control, which could divert the attention of its management and adversely affect BMS’s ability to retain and motivate key personnel who are important to the continued development of Abecma. In addition, the third-party to any such transaction could determine to re-prioritize BMS’s development programs such that BMS ceases to diligently pursue the development of Abecma and/or cause the respective collaboration with us to terminate.
We rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our clinical studies, and if these third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, it may harm our business.
We rely on CROs and clinical study sites to ensure our studies are conducted properly and on time. While we have agreements governing their activities, we will have limited influence over their actual performance. We control only certain aspects of our CROs’ activities, and as a result, we have less direct control over the conduct, timing, and completion of our clinical studies and the management of data developed through studies than would be the case if we relied on our own staff. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.
We and our CROs are required to comply with the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ good clinical practices, or GCPs, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical studies to assure that the data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of clinical study participants are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators, and trial sites. If we or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our future clinical studies may be deemed unreliable and the FDA and other regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical studies before approving any marketing applications.
If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our
clinical protocols or regulatory requirements, or for any other reasons, our clinical studies may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain marketing approval for, or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to recognize revenues could be delayed.
We rely on third parties to conduct some or all aspects of our lentiviral vector production, drug product manufacturing, and testing, and these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.
We do not independently conduct all aspects of our lentiviral vector production, drug product manufacturing, and testing. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties with respect to these items, including manufacturing and testing in the preclinical, clinical and commercial context.
Our reliance on these third parties for manufacturing, testing, research and development activities reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required regulations and study protocols. For example, for products that we develop and commercialize on our own, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our IND-enabling studies and clinical studies are conducted in accordance with the study plan and protocols, and that our lentiviral vectors and drug products are manufactured in accordance with good manufacturing practices, or GMP, as applied in the relevant jurisdictions. Our third-party manufacturers are subject to inspections by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities to confirm compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, conduct our studies in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated study plans and protocols, or manufacture our lentiviral vectors and drug products in accordance with GMP, whether due to the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or otherwise, we will not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the preclinical and clinical studies and manufacturing process validation activities required to support future IND, marketing authorisation application, or MAA, and BLA submissions and approval of our product candidates, or to support commercialization of Abecma or any future products. Many of our agreements with these third parties contain termination provisions that allow these third parties to terminate their relationships with us at any time. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, our product development and commercialization activities could be delayed.
Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the products ourselves, including:
•the inability to negotiate manufacturing agreements with third parties under commercially reasonable terms;
•reduced control as a result of using third-party manufacturers for all aspects of manufacturing activities;
•the risk that these activities are not conducted in accordance with our study plans and protocols;
•termination or nonrenewal of manufacturing agreements with third parties in a manner or at a time that is costly or damaging to us; and
•disruptions to the operations of our third-party manufacturers or suppliers caused by conditions unrelated to our business or operations, including the bankruptcy of the manufacturer or supplier.
We may be forced to manufacture lentiviral vector and drug product ourselves, for which we may not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with a different manufacturer, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms or without delays, if at all. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our lentiviral vector or drug product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer, and we may have difficulty or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. Any of these events could lead to clinical study delays or failure to obtain marketing approval, or impact our ability to successfully commercialize Abecma or any future products. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA or comparable foreign regulatory action, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of production. In addition, if we are required to change third-
party manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations.
We also may alter various aspects of Abecma or our product candidates, such as the manufacturing, formulation, method of administration or other alterations designed to optimize the candidate or processes for scale necessary for later stage clinical trials and potential approval and commercialization. For example, we intend to switch to a suspension vector for Abecma and certain of our product candidates. These changes may not produce the intended optimization, including production of drug substance and drug product of a quality and in a quantity sufficient for further clinical development or commercialization, which may cause delays in the initiation or completion of clinical trials or impact commercialization and result in greater costs. We will need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process, by us or by a new manufacturer, will produce Abecma or our product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another comparable foreign regulatory authority.
The delays associated with the verification of a new third-party manufacturer or new manufacturing process could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize any approved products in a timely manner or within budget. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials.
We and our contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing Abecma and product candidates. The manufacturing facilities on which we rely may not continue to meet regulatory requirements and have limited capacity.
All entities involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical studies or commercial sale, including our existing contract manufacturers for Abecma and our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Abecma and our product candidates in clinical studies must be manufactured in accordance with GMP. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record keeping) and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of Abecma or our product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We or our contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA or MAA on a timely basis and where required, must adhere to good laboratory practices, or GLP, and GMP regulations enforced by the FDA or other regulators through facilities inspection programs. Some of our contract manufacturers have not produced a commercially-approved product and therefore have not obtained the requisite FDA or other marketing approvals to do so. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of marketing approval for our product candidates. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, FDA or other marketing approval of the products will not be granted.
The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time-consuming for us or a third party to implement and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical study or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.
If we or any of our third-party manufacturers fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA or other regulators can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application
for a biologic product, or revocation of or restrictions to an approved BLA. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially harmed.
The manufacturing processes for our lentiviral vectors and our drug products are complex. We explore improvements to our manufacturing processes on a regular basis, as we evaluate clinical and manufacturing data and based on discussions with regulatory authorities. In some circumstances, changes in the manufacturing process, such as our planned switch to a suspension vector for Abecma, may require us to perform additional comparability studies, develop additional assays, modify release specifications, collect additional data from patients, submit additional regulatory filings, or comply with additional requirements, which may lead to delays in our clinical development and commercialization plans. Additionally, the FDA may not agree with our changes to the manufacturing process which could require us to perform additional development work and lead to further delays.
If supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in commercial supply. The number of manufacturers with the necessary manufacturing capabilities is limited. In addition, an alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through a BLA supplement or similar regulatory submission which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.
These factors could cause the delay of clinical studies, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of Abecma and any future products, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing our products successfully. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements, and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical studies may be delayed, our commercial activities may be impacted, or we could lose potential revenues.
Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.
Because we rely on third parties to manufacture our vectors and our drug products, and because we collaborate with various organizations and academic institutions on the advancement of our engineered cell therapy technologies, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.
In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, provided that we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time in order to secure our intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us, although in some cases we may share these rights with other parties. We also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development partnerships or similar agreements. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets in cases where we do not have proprietary or otherwise protected rights at the time of publication. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.
Any collaboration or license arrangements that we may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could impede our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.
We may seek collaboration or license arrangements for the commercialization, or potentially for the development, of certain of our product candidates depending on the merits of retaining commercialization rights for ourselves as compared to entering into collaboration or license arrangements. We will face, to the extent that we decide to enter into such arrangements, significant competition in seeking appropriate partners. Moreover, collaboration and license arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and maintain. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement such arrangements should we so chose to enter into them. The terms of any collaborations, licenses or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.
Any future collaboration or license arrangements that we enter into may not be successful. The success of such arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our partners. Collaboration and license arrangements are subject to numerous risks, which may include risks that:
•partners have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to collaborations;
•a partner with marketing, manufacturing and distribution rights to one or more products may not commit sufficient resources to or otherwise not perform satisfactorily in carrying out these activities;
•partners may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our intellectual property or proprietary information in a way that gives rise to actual or threatened litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential liability;
•collaboration and license arrangements may be terminated, and, if terminated, this may result in a need for additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable current or future product candidates;
•partners may own or co-own intellectual property covering products that results from our collaborating with them, and in such cases, we would not have the exclusive right to develop or commercialize such intellectual property;
•disputes may arise with respect to the ownership of any intellectual property developed pursuant to our collaboration or license arrangements; and
•a partner's sales and marketing activities or other operations may not be in compliance with applicable laws resulting in civil or criminal proceedings.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property Rights
If we are unable to obtain or protect intellectual property rights related to our approved product or product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.
We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our approved product or product candidates. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our approved product or product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our approved product or product candidates, third parties have and may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed or invalidated. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our approved product or product candidates or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.
If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our programs or approved product or product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our approved product or product candidates, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates, and threaten our ability to commercialize, future products. Several patent applications covering our product candidates have been filed recently. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patent or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of our approved product or any product candidates that we may develop. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate or our approved product. Furthermore, if third parties have filed such patent applications, an interference or derivation proceeding in the United States can be initiated by a third-party to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available however the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our approved product or product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from generic medications.
In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our approved product or product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, and information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors.
Although we expect all of our employees and consultants to assign their inventions to us, and all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed or that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. For example, the FDA, as part of its transparency initiative, may consider whether to make additional information publicly available on a routine basis, including information that we may consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA’s disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all.
Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent material disclosure of the non-patented intellectual property related to our technologies to third parties, and there is no guarantee that we will have any such enforceable trade secret protection, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.
Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, derivation proceedings, oppositions, ex parte reexaminations, post-grant review, and inter partes review proceedings before the federal courts or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or U.S. PTO, and corresponding foreign courts and patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we have an approved product or are pursuing development candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our approved product or product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.
Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our approved product or product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our approved product or product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our approved product or product candidates, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire. Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize our approved product or the applicable product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.
Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.
We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to gene therapy product components and processes for our approved product or development pipeline through acquisitions and in-licenses.
Presently we have rights to the intellectual property, through licenses from third parties or sublicenses from bluebird bio and under patents that we own, to develop our product candidates and commercialize our approved product. Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and these rights may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license, either through direct license or sublicenses, any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.
For example, we sometimes 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 a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such right of first negotiation for intellectual property, 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 the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.
In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights, our business, financial condition and prospects for growth could suffer.
If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.
We are a party to a number of intellectual property license agreements that are important to our business and expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to market products covered by the license.
Where we are a sublicensee of certain intellectual property rights from a third party, our sublicensed rights may be terminated due to defaults of our licensor, or for any other reasons, under the original license agreement between our licensor and the third party. In such a scenario, we may be unable to negotiate a license directly with the third party under terms that are acceptable to us, and as a result, our ability to develop and commercialize our products or product candidates may be impaired.
We may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance the development of our product candidates or allow commercialization of our approved product, and we have done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates or approved product, which could harm our business significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current product candidates, approved product, or future products, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties.
In many cases, patent prosecution of our licensed technology is controlled solely by the licensor. If our licensors fail to obtain and maintain patent or other protection for the proprietary intellectual property we license from them, we could lose our rights to the intellectual property or our exclusivity with respect to those rights, and our competitors could market competing products using the intellectual property. In certain cases, we control the prosecution of patents resulting from licensed technology. In the event we breach any of our obligations related to such prosecution, we may incur significant liability to our licensing partners. Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business, and scientific issues and is complicated by the rapid pace of scientific discovery in our industry. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:
•the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;
•the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;
•the sublicensing of patent and other rights under our collaborative development relationships;
•our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;
•the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners; and
•the priority of invention of patented technology.
If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected approved product or product candidates.
We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including patent eligible subject matter, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the U.S. PTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties have and may raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity challenges, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our approved product and/or product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.
Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of litigation or interference or derivation proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.
Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.
We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.
We employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any of our employee’s former employer or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend
against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.
We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.
We may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. We have had in the past, and we may also have in the future, ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our approved product or product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.
Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.
Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees, and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the U.S. PTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ an outside firm and rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. The U.S. PTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.
Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.
As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the United States has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the U.S. PTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.
Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may
use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.
Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.
Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Product Candidates
We have limited experience as a commercial company and the marketing and sale of Abecma or any future approved products may be unsuccessful or less successful than anticipated.
Although BMS has responsibility for, and is undertaking, the key commercialization activities for Abecma, to the extent we are required to participate in commercialization activities we have limited experience in doing so, and we may not be able to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties encountered by companies commercializing products in the biopharmaceutical industry. To execute our business plan, in addition to successfully marketing and selling any future products for which we gain regulatory approval, we will need to successfully:
•establish and maintain our relationships with healthcare providers who will be treating the patients who may receive Abecma and any future approved products;
•obtain adequate pricing and reimbursement for any future products, if approved;
•gain regulatory acceptance for the development and commercialization of the product candidates in our pipeline;
•develop and maintain successful strategic alliances; and
•manage our spending as costs and expenses increase due to clinical trials, marketing approvals, and commercialization.
If we are unsuccessful in accomplishing these objectives, we may not be able to successfully develop product candidates, commercialize any future products, if approved, raise capital, expand our business or continue our operations.
We may not be successful in supporting the commercialization of Abecma.
BMS is primarily responsible for the commercialization of Abecma, and there can be no guarantee that BMS will be able to commercialize Abecma successfully. Although we have recognized collaborative arrangement revenue related to commercial sales of Abecma, we cannot be certain that we will continue to generate such revenue. The extent to which we will recognize revenue from Abecma depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, BMS’ ability to:
•set an acceptable price for Abecma;
•obtain commercial quantities of Abecma, at acceptable cost levels;
•establish and maintain a commercial sales force team for Abecma;
•obtain and maintain third-party coverage or adequate reimbursement for Abecma;
•achieve market acceptance of Abecma, in the medical community and with third-party payors; and
•have Abecma included in accepted clinical guidelines for the conditions for which Abecma is intended to target.
Additionally, our and BMS’ ability to achieve the top end of our projected 2023 topline Abecma U.S. revenue of $470 million to $570 million depends upon successfully increasing vector and drug product manufacturing capacity, including an additional adherent vector manufacturing suite.
Furthermore, we expect to incur additional sales and marketing costs as we and our partner BMS commercialize Abecma pursuant to our co-development and co-promotion agreement. Even if we expend these costs, Abecma may not be commercially successful.
If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market any future approved products, we may not be successful in commercializing those products if and when they are approved.
We do not currently have an infrastructure for the sale, marketing, market access, patient service and distribution of pharmaceutical products. In order to market any future products that receive regulatory approval from the FDA or any other regulatory authority outside the United States, we must build our sales, marketing, managerial and other non-technical capabilities, or arrange with third parties to perform these services. There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product candidate launch. If commercialization is delayed or does not occur, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred such expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our commercialization personnel.
If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability of product revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products we may develop ourselves. In addition, we may fail to enter into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, or if we are unable to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if approved and our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be materially harmed.
Abecma or any future approved products may not achieve broad market acceptance by patients, physicians, healthcare payors or others in the medical community, which would limit the revenue that we recognize from their sales.
The commercial success of Abecma and any future products that may be approved by the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities outside the United States, will depend upon the awareness and acceptance of these products among the medical community, including patients, physicians, and healthcare payors. If Abecma or any future products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by patients, physicians, healthcare payors and others in the medical community, we may not recognize sufficient revenue to become, or remain, profitable. Market acceptance of Abecma and any future products, will depend on a number of factors, including, among others:
•the efficacy and safety of our products as demonstrated in clinical trials;
•the clinical indications for which our products are approved, including our ability to obtain regulatory approval for Abecma in additional indications;
•product labeling or product insert requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, including the expansion of the label for Abecma;
•limitations or warnings contained in the labeling approved by the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities;
•any restrictions on the use of our products together with other medications or restrictions on the use of our products in certain types of patients;
•the prevalence and severity of any adverse effects associated with our products;
•the size of the target patient population, and the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;
•the safety, efficacy, cost, and other potential advantages of our products compared to other available therapies;
•relative convenience and ease of administration, including as compared to alternative treatments and competitive products;
•our ability to generate cost effectiveness data that supports a profitable price;
•our ability to obtain sufficient reimbursement and pricing by third-party payors and government authorities;
•the willingness of patients to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of sufficient payor coverage;
•the timing of market introduction of our products as well as competitive products;
•the effectiveness of our sales and marketing strategies; or
•publicity concerning our products or competing products and treatments.
If Abecma or any future products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by patients, physicians and payors, we may not recognize sufficient revenue from our product candidates to become or remain profitable. Before granting reimbursement approval, healthcare payors may require us to demonstrate that our products, in addition to treating these target indications, also provide incremental health benefits to patients. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors about the benefits of Abecma or any future products may require significant resources and may never be successful.
Reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell our products profitably. Price controls may be imposed in foreign markets, which may harm our future profitability.
In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Market acceptance and sales of Abecma and any approved product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors and government authorities and may be affected by existing and future health care reform measures. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. There is also significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. For more information, see the section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 titled “Business – Government Regulations – Pricing, Coverage and Reimbursement.”
In the United States, Medicare and Medicaid are significant third party payors. Medicare is administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, or HHS and Medicaid is administered jointly by CMS and the individual states. Obtaining adequate coverage and reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid is important for new drug products. Additionally, private payors may adopt coverage policies or reimbursement methodologies similar to Medicare. Reimbursement by a third-party payer may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor's determination that use of a product is: a covered benefit under its health plan; safe, effective and medically necessary; appropriate for the specific patient; cost-effective; and neither experimental nor investigational. Novel and expensive cell therapies like CAR-T cell therapies have experienced and continue to experience coverage and reimbursement challenges. For example, Medicare only covers CAR-T cell therapies that meet specific criteria set forth in a national coverage decision. Other third party payors may impose coverage criteria more extensive than compliance with FDA labeling. We may have to negotiate coverage and reimbursement on a case-by case basis. Reimbursement, particularly if the cost of the therapy is reimbursed as part of a standard procedure, may not be adequate.
Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. We or our partners may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. We cannot be sure that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be available for any of our product candidates. Also, we cannot be sure that reimbursement amounts will not reduce the demand for, or the price of, our products. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to commercialize certain of our products. In addition, in the United States, third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain health care costs by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement of new drugs. As a result, significant uncertainty exists as to whether and how much third-party payors will reimburse patients for their use of newly approved drugs, which in turn will put pressure on the pricing of drugs.
Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price, or ASP, and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs.
In some countries, particularly member states of the European Union, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we or our partners may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. 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. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be harmed.
Even though BMS has obtained marketing approval for Abecma, it, and any future approved product, will remain subject to regulatory scrutiny.
Abecma and any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export, recordkeeping, monitoring, and
reporting of our products. These requirements include submissions of safety and other postmarketing information and reports, facility registration and drug listing requirements, as well as continued compliance with GMP. Even if we, BMS or any other of our collaborators obtain marketing approval in a jurisdiction, regulatory authorities may still impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses or marketing of any approved products, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies, post-market surveillance or patient or drug restrictions. Additionally, the holder of an approved BLA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. The holder of an approved BLA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws.
In addition, product manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with GMP and adherence to commitments made in the BLA. If we, our collaborators, or a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions relative to that product or the manufacturing facility, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. Additionally, sponsors of approved drugs and biologics must provide 6 months’ notice to the FDA of any changes in marketing status, such as the withdrawal of a drug, and failure to do so could result in the FDA placing the product on a list of discontinued products.
If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following marketing approval for a product, a regulatory agency may:
•impose restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of our products, withdraw the product from the market, or impose a voluntary or mandatory product recall;
•impose limitations on approved uses or additional warnings, contraindications, or other safety information, or a REMS;
•require us and/or BMS to conduct additional post-market clinical trials to assess the product safety;
•issue a warning letter asserting that we are in violation of the law;
•seek an injunction or impose civil or criminal penalties or monetary fines;
•suspend or withdraw marketing approval;
•suspend any ongoing clinical studies;
•refuse to approve a pending marketing application, such as a BLA or supplements to a BLA submitted by us;
•refuse to permit the import or export of product; or
•refuse to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts.
Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize any approved product and recognize revenues.
Regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities is limited to those specific indications and conditions for which approval has been granted, and we may be subject to substantial fines, criminal penalties, injunctions, or other enforcement actions if we are determined to be promoting our products for unapproved or “off-label” uses, or in a manner inconsistent with the approved labeling, resulting in damage to our reputation and business.
We must comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for Abecma and any future product for which we or our collaborators obtain marketing approval. Post-approval marketing and promotional communications with respect to therapeutics are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and continuing review by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of Congress, and the public. When the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities issue a regulatory approval for a product candidate, the regulatory approval is limited to those specific uses and indications for which a product is approved. If we or our collaborators are not able to obtain FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority approval for desired uses or indications for our products or any future products, we and our collaborators may not market or promote them for those indications and uses, referred to as off-label uses, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects will be materially harmed. We also must sufficiently substantiate any claims that we make for our products, including claims comparing our products to other companies’ products, and must abide by the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority’s strict requirements regarding the content of promotion and advertising.
While physicians may choose to prescribe products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical trials and approved by the regulatory authorities, we and any third parties engaged on our behalf are prohibited from marketing and promoting the products for indications and uses that are not specifically approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Regulatory authorities in the United States generally do not restrict or regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatment within the practice of medicine. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by biopharmaceutical companies concerning off-label use.
If we are found to have impermissibly promoted our current product or any future product, we may become subject to significant liability and government fines. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations regarding product promotion, particularly those prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted a product may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.
Furthermore, the use of our products for indications other than those approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not effectively treat such conditions. Any such off-label use of our products could harm our reputation in the marketplace among physicians and patients. There may also be increased risk of injury to patients if physicians attempt to use our products for these uses for which they are not approved, which could lead to product liability suits that that might require significant financial and management resources and that could harm our reputation.
We are subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws and health information privacy and security laws. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties, reputational harm, and diminished profits and future earnings.
In the United States, the research, manufacturing, distribution, sale, and promotion of drugs and biologic products are subject to regulation by various federal, state, and local authorities in addition to FDA, including CMS, other divisions of the HHS, (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the United States Department of Justice offices of the United States Attorney, the Federal Trade Commission and state and local governments. For more information, see the section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 titled “Business – Government Regulation – Healthcare and Privacy Laws.”
We are subject to state and foreign equivalents of these healthcare laws and regulations, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the May 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance
Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make disclosures related to financial interactions with healthcare providers, marketing expenditures or prices to the state and/or require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to penalties. Finally, there are state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
These laws apply to, among other things, our sales, marketing and educational programs. State and federal regulatory and enforcement agencies continue actively to investigate violations of health care laws and regulations, and the United States Congress continues to strengthen the arsenal of enforcement tools. For example, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 increased the criminal and civil penalties that can be imposed for violating certain federal health care laws, including the Anti-Kickback Statute. Enforcement agencies also continue to pursue novel theories of liability under these laws. In particular, government agencies have recently increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement activity with respect to programs supported or sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, including reimbursement and co-pay support, funding of independent charitable foundations and other programs and activities that offer benefits for patients as well as interactions with patients and patient organizations. Several investigations into such activities have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements.
The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry.
Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. We are in the process of developing a compliance program to prevent and detect non-compliance. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, individual imprisonment, reputational harm, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly and time consuming, and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs and imprisonment. If any of the above occur, our ability to operate our business and our results of operations could be adversely affected.
In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy laws by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. For example, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, imposes requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs
associated with pursuing federal civil actions In addition to HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, California recently enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which creates new individual privacy rights for California consumers (as defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA will require covered companies to provide certain disclosures to consumers about its data collection, use and sharing practices, and to provide affected California residents with ways to opt-out of certain sales or transfers of personal information. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020, and the California Attorney General was able to commence enforcement actions against violators beginning July 1, 2020. While there is currently an exception for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA, as currently written, the CCPA may impact our business activities. The California Attorney General has proposed draft regulations, which have not been finalized to date, that may further impact our business activities if they are adopted. The uncertainty surrounding the implementation of CCPA exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information.
Further, a new California privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, was passed by California voters on November 3, 2020. The CPRA created additional obligations with respect to processing and storing personal information that took effect on January 1, 2023 (with certain provisions having retroactive effect to January 1, 2022). Additionally, some observers have noted that the CCPA and CPRA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the U.S., which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. Already, in the United States, we have witnessed significant developments at the state level. For example, on March 2, 2021, Virginia enacted the Consumer Data Protection Act (the “CDPA”) and, on July 8, 2021, Colorado’s governor signed the Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”), into law. The CDPA and the CPA both became effective January 1, 2023. While the CDPA and CPA incorporate many similar concepts of the CCPA and CPRA, there are also several key differences in the scope, application, and enforcement of the law that will change the operational practices of regulated businesses. The new laws will, among other things, impact how regulated businesses collect and process personal sensitive data, conduct data protection assessments, transfer personal data to affiliates, and respond to consumer rights requests.
A number of other states have proposed new privacy laws, some of which are similar to the above discussed recently passed laws. Such proposed legislation, if enacted, may add additional complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, require additional investment of resources in compliance programs, impact strategies and the availability of previously useful data and could result in increased compliance costs and/or changes in business practices and policies. The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country would make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for noncompliance.
In the European Union, interactions between pharmaceutical companies, healthcare professionals, and patients are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct in the individual EU member states. The provision of benefits or advantages to healthcare professionals to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the European Union. Also, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicinal products is prohibited at the European Union level and in the individual member states. In addition, the UK Bribery Act applies to any company incorporated in or “carrying on business” in the UK, irrespective of where in the world the alleged bribery activity occurs, which could have implications for our interactions with physicians both in and outside of the UK. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.
Payments made to physicians in certain European Union member states must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual European Union member states. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the European Union member states. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.
We face intense competition and rapid technological change and the possibility that our competitors may develop therapies that are more advanced or effective than ours, which may adversely affect our financial condition and
our ability to successfully commercialize Abecma and any future products. If our competitors obtain orphan drug exclusivity for products that regulatory authorities determine constitute the same drug and treat the same indications as Abecma or any future products, we may not be able to have competing products approved by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time.
We are engaged in the development of gene therapies for cancer and this field is competitive and rapidly changing. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and universities and other research institutions. For example, one such competitive product, Janssen and Legend Biotech’s ciltacabtagene autoleucel, an anti-BCMA CAR T cell therapy marketed as Carvykti, was approved by the FDA in February 2022. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff, manufacturing capabilities, experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations. 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, products that are more effective, safer, or less costly than any products that we may develop, or achieve patent protection, marketing approval, product commercialization and market penetration earlier than us. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against competitors.
Even if we are successful in achieving marketing approval to commercialize a product candidate faster than our competitors, we may face competition from biosimilars due to the changing regulatory environment. In the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar,” or biosimilar, to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product. This pathway could allow competitors to reference data from biological products already approved after 12 years from the time of approval. In Europe, the European Commission has granted marketing authorizations for several biosimilars pursuant to a set of general and product class-specific guidelines for biosimilar approvals issued over the past few years. In Europe, a competitor may reference data from biological products already approved, but will not be able to get on the market until 10 years after the time of approval. This 10-year period will be extended to 11 years if, during the first eight of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an approval for one or more new therapeutic indications that bring significant clinical benefits compared with existing therapies. In addition, companies may be developing biosimilars in other countries that could compete with our products. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our products, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences. Expiration or successful challenge of our applicable patent rights could also trigger competition from other products, assuming any relevant exclusivity period has expired.
In addition, although Abecma has been granted orphan drug status by the FDA and EMA, there are limitations to the exclusivity. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. In the United States, the exclusivity period for orphan drugs is seven years (with limited exceptions), and pediatric exclusivity adds six months to any existing patents or exclusivity periods. In Europe, orphan drugs may be able to obtain 10 years of marketing exclusivity and up to an additional two years on the basis of qualifying pediatric studies. However, orphan exclusivity may be reduced to six years if the drug no longer satisfies the original designation criteria. Additionally, a marketing authorization holder may lose its orphan exclusivity for a number of reasons, including if it consents to a second orphan drug application, its request for designation is found to be materially defective, or if the marketing authorization holder cannot supply enough drug. Orphan drug exclusivity also can be lost when a second applicant demonstrates its drug is “clinically superior” to the original orphan drug, in that it is shown to be safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care compared with the product that has orphan exclusivity. Generally, if a product with an orphan drug designation receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the European Commission from approving another marketing application for a product that constitutes the same
drug treating the same indication for that marketing exclusivity period, except in limited circumstances. If another sponsor receives such approval before we do (regardless of our orphan drug designation), we will be precluded from receiving marketing approval for our product for the exclusivity period for the applicable indication.
Finally, as a result of the expiration or successful challenge of our patent rights, we could face more litigation with respect to the validity and/or scope of patents relating to our competitors’ products. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize.
We face potential product liability, and, if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability and costs. If the use of Abecma or any of our product candidates and, if approved, our products harms patients, or is perceived to harm patients even when such harm is unrelated to such product candidate or product, our marketing approvals could be revoked or otherwise negatively impacted and we could be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims.
The use of Abecma and our product candidates in clinical studies and the sale of Abecma or any future products exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by patients participating in clinical trials, consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our product or product candidates. There is a risk that Abecma, our product candidates or any future product for which we obtain marketing approval may induce adverse events. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:
•impairment of our business reputation;
•withdrawal of clinical study participants;
•costs due to related litigation;
•distraction of management’s attention from our primary business;
•substantial monetary awards to patients or other claimants;
•the inability to develop our product candidates or commercialize any approved product; and
•decreased demand for any approved product.
We carry product liability insurance and we believe our product liability insurance coverage is sufficient in light of our current clinical programs; however, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at commercially reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs or medical treatments that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.
Patients with the diseases targeted by Abecma and our product candidates are often already in severe and advanced stages of disease and have both known and unknown significant pre-existing and potentially life-threatening health risks. During the course of treatment, patients may suffer adverse events, including death, for reasons that may be related to Abecma or our product candidates. Such events could subject us to costly litigation, require us to pay substantial amounts of money to injured patients, delay, negatively impact or end our opportunity to receive or maintain marketing approval for any approved product, or require us to suspend or abandon our commercialization efforts for any approved product. Even in a circumstance in which we do not believe that an adverse event is related to our products the investigation into the circumstance may be time-consuming or inconclusive. These investigations may impact and limit the type of marketing approval our product candidates may receive or any approved product maintains. As a result of these factors, a product liability claim, even if successfully defended, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business. For more information, see the section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 titled “Business – Government Regulation – Healthcare Reform.”
There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.
We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:
•the demand for our product candidates, if we obtain regulatory approval;
•our ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our products, if licensed;
•our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability;
•the level of taxes that we are required to pay; and
•the availability of capital.
Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.
We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare drugs and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates or additional pricing pressures. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize our product candidates outside the United States, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties.
Our future profitability may depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize our product candidates outside the United States for which we may rely on partnerships with third parties. If we commercialize our product candidates outside the United States, we would be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:
•our customers' ability to obtain reimbursement for our product candidates outside the United States;
•our ability to gain reimbursement in foreign markets at a price that is profitable;
•our inability to directly control commercial activities because we are relying on third parties;
•the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting and legal requirements;
•different medical practices and customs in foreign countries affecting acceptance in the marketplace;
•import or export licensing requirements;
•longer accounts receivable collection times;
•longer lead times for shipping;
•language barriers for technical training;
•reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries;
•the existence of additional potentially relevant third-party intellectual property rights;
•foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations; and
•the interpretation of contractual provisions governed by foreign laws in the event of a contract dispute.
Foreign sales of our product candidates could also be harmed by the imposition of governmental controls, political and economic instability, trade restrictions and changes in tariffs.
Risks Related to Our Business Operations
Our business is affected by macroeconomic conditions, including rising inflation, interest rates and supply chain constraints.
Various macroeconomic factors could adversely affect our business and the results of our operations and financial condition, including changes in inflation, interest rates and overall economic conditions and uncertainties such as those resulting from the current and future conditions in the global financial markets. We may experience business interruptions or negative market conditions arising out of global crises, including international conflicts, the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, or similar epidemics or public health events. Recent supply chain constraints have led to higher inflation, which if sustained could have a negative impact on our product development and operations. If inflation or other factors were to significantly increase our business costs, our ability to develop our current pipeline and new products may be negatively affected. Interest rates, the liquidity of the credit markets and the volatility of the capital markets could also affect the operation of our business and our ability to raise capital on favorable terms, or at all, in order to fund our operations. Similarly, these macroeconomic factors could affect the ability of third-party suppliers and manufacturers to manufacture Abecma as well as clinical trial materials for product candidates.
Adverse developments affecting the financial services industry, such as actual events or concerns involving liquidity, defaults or non-performance by financial institutions or transactional counterparties, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Actual events involving limited liquidity, defaults, non-performance or other adverse developments that affect financial institutions, transactional counterparties or other companies in the financial services industry generally, or concerns or rumors about any events of these kinds or other similar risks, have in the past led and may in the future lead to market-wide liquidity problems. On March 10 and March 12, 2023, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) took control and was appointed receiver of Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) and Signature Bank, respectively, after each bank was unable to continue its operations. We are unable to predict the extent or nature of
the impacts of the failures of SVB and Signature Bank and related circumstances at this time. Similarly, we cannot predict the impact that the high market volatility and instability of the banking sector more broadly could have on economic activity and our business in particular. The failure of other banks and financial institutions and measures taken, or not taken, by governments, businesses and other organizations in response to these events could adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If the financial institutions with which we do business enter receivership or become insolvent in the future, there is no guarantee that the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC will intercede to provide us and other depositors with access to balances in excess of the $250,000 FDIC insurance limit, that we would be able to access our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments, that we would be able to maintain any required letters of credit or other credit support arrangements, or that we would be able to adequately fund our business for a prolonged period of time or at all, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our current and/or projected business operations and results of operations and financial condition. In addition, if any parties with which we conduct business are unable to access funds pursuant to such instruments or lending arrangements with such a financial institution, such parties’ ability to continue to fund their business and perform their obligations to us could be adversely affected, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our prospects for success depend on our ability to retain our management team and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.
We are highly dependent on our management and scientific and medical personnel, including our chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief scientific officer. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management and scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees and other scientific and medical advisors and an inability to find suitable replacements could result in delays in product development and harm our business. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.
We may not be able to attract, recruit or retain qualified management and scientific and medical personnel in the future due to the intense competition for a limited number of qualified personnel among biopharmaceutical, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. Many of the other pharmaceutical companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high quality candidates than what we may be able to offer. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific personnel from universities and research institutions. The failure to succeed in preclinical or clinical studies may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified personnel. In addition, in order to induce employees to continue their employment with us, we have provided equity awards that vest over time and the value to our employees of such equity awards may be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may be at any time insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can develop and commercialize product candidates will be limited.
Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which would have the result of making our future operating results difficult to predict and could cause our operating results to fall below expectations or our guidance.
Our operating results will likely fluctuate from quarter to quarter and year to year and be difficult to predict. This uncertainty is heightened by the unpredictable scope of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has adversely affected the operations of third parties upon which we rely in our commercialization efforts, patient access to hospitals, physicians’ offices, clinics and other administration sites, and global economic conditions, as well as caused a re-prioritization of healthcare services.
In addition, our licensing and collaboration agreements with other companies include research and development funding and milestone payments to us, and we expect that amounts earned from our collaboration agreements will be an important source of our revenues. Accordingly, our revenues will also depend on research and development funding and the achievement of development and clinical milestones under our existing collaboration and license agreements, including, in particular, our collaborations with BMS and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as well as entering into potential new collaboration and license agreements. These payments may vary significantly from quarter to quarter and any such variance could cause a significant fluctuation in our operating results from one quarter to the next.
Further, changes in our operations, such as increased development, manufacturing and clinical trial expenses in connection with our expanding pipeline programs, or our undertaking of additional programs, or business activities, or entry into strategic transactions, including potential future acquisitions of products, technologies or businesses may also cause significant fluctuations in our expenses.
The cumulative effects of these factors, further exacerbated by the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare systems and economic conditions, will likely result in large fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. Investors should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance. This variability and unpredictability could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of industry or financial analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any forecasts we may provide to the market, or if the forecasts we provide to the market are below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated revenue or earnings guidance we may provide.
We will need to expand our organization and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.
As of February 1, 2023, we employed 425 full-time employees. As we mature, we expect to expand our full-time employee base and to hire more consultants and contractors. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Future growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to recognize and/or grow revenues could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.
We expect to invest significant resources to establish and maintain our own manufacturing facility. We may fail to successfully operate this facility, which could adversely affect our clinical trials and the commercial viability of our product candidates.
We are in the process of establishing our own manufacturing facility, which we intend to use for the manufacture of some of our product candidates. Our manufacturing facility will be subject to review and oversight by the FDA, and the FDA could object to use of our manufacturing facility for our product candidates. In addition, we will be required to manufacture our product candidates in accordance with GMP, which will require us to expend significant resources to ensure continued compliance with these requirements. We have limited experience manufacturing drug and biological products, and if we are unable to successfully manufacture material that conforms to the product specifications and the requirements of FDA, we will not be able to secure and maintain regulatory approval for the use of our manufacturing facility.
If we submit an application for marketing authorization of a product candidate manufactured at this facility, we would likely be subject to a pre-approval inspection by FDA, and any unresolved issues cited by FDA could result in
a delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, such marketing authorization. If we manufacture approved products at this facility, we would be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with GMP and other government regulations. Our ability to manufacture approved products and product candidates will be subject to continued regulatory review.
If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal controls, our ability to produce accurate and timely financial statements could be impaired, which could result in sanctions or other penalties that would harm our business.
We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the rules and regulations of The Nasdaq Global Market. Our financial results historically were included within the consolidated results of bluebird bio, and until the distribution occurred, we were not directly subject to reporting and other requirements of the Exchange Act and Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We qualify as an "emerging growth company." For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we will be exempt from Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires auditor attestation to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. We will cease to be an emerging growth company on the date that is the earliest of (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total gross annual revenues of $1.07 billion or more; (ii) the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the distribution; (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; or (iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the SEC. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on the exemptions available to us as an emerging growth company. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.
We are subject to Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and, as of the expiration of our emerging growth company status, we will be broadly subject to enhanced reporting and other requirements under the Exchange Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We are required to furnish, among other things, annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. These and other obligations place significant demands on our management, administrative and operational resources, including accounting and information technology resources. To comply with these requirements, we have implemented financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures and maintain accounting, finance and information technology staff. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations carry legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costlier. If we are unable to maintain these controls, systems, and procedures, or if we are unable to retain the appropriate personnel, our ability to comply with our financial reporting requirements and other rules that apply to reporting companies could be impaired and our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be harmed.
We may discover weaknesses in our system of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. Our internal control over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system's objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.
If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls over financial reporting, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. If that were to happen, our investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, the market price of our stock could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities.
Our computer systems, or those of our third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product candidates’ development programs and have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations.
Our computer systems and those of our current or future third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors and consultants may fail and are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. The size and complexity of our information technology systems, and those of our collaborators, service providers, contractors and consultants, and the large amounts of information stored on those systems make those systems vulnerable to service interruptions, security breaches, or other failures, resulting from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees or those of third-party business partners, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties. Attacks on information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and they are being conducted by increasingly sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. In addition to extracting sensitive information, such attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. The prevalent use of mobile devices also increases the risk of data security incidents. If we experience a material system failure, accident or security breach that causes interruptions in our operations or the operations of third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors and consultants, it could result in significant reputational, financial, legal, regulatory, business or operational harm. For example, the loss of clinical trial data for our product candidates could result in delays in our marketing approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications or other data or applications relating to our technology or product candidates, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liabilities and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed. In addition, it is possible that unauthorized access to our data may be obtained through inadequate use of security controls by suppliers or other vendors. We rely on such third parties to implement effective security measures and identify and correct for any failures, deficiencies or breaches. Specifically, we rely on third-party service providers for management of the manufacture and delivery of drug product to patients in the commercial context, including for chain of identity and chain of custody. We also rely on third-party service providers for aspects of our internal control over financial reporting and such service providers may experience a material system failure or fail to carry out their obligations in other respects, which may impact our ability to produce accurate and timely financial statements, thus harming our operating results, our ability to operate our business, and our investors’ view of us. In addition, our liability insurance may not be sufficient in type or amount to cover us against claims related to material failures, security breaches, cyberattacks and other related breaches.
Any failure or perceived failure by us or any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants to comply with our privacy, confidentiality, data security or similar obligations to third parties, or any data security incidents or other security breaches that result in the unauthorized access, release or transfer of sensitive information, including personally identifiable information, may result in governmental investigations, enforcement actions, regulatory fines, litigation or public statements against us. These events could cause third parties to lose trust in us or could result in claims by third parties asserting that we have breached our privacy, confidentiality, data security or similar obligations, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition or results of operations. Moreover, data security incidents and other security breaches can be difficult to detect, and any delay in identifying them may lead to increased harm. Because the techniques used by computer programmers who may attempt to penetrate and sabotage our network security or our website change frequently and may not be recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques. While we have implemented data security measures intended to protect our information technology systems and infrastructure, there can be no assurance that such measures will successfully prevent service interruptions or data security incidents. Moreover, as we outsource more of our information systems to vendors and rely more on cloud-based information systems, the related security risks will increase, and we will need to expend additional resources to protect our technology and information systems.
Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including violating applicable regulatory standards and requirements or engaging in insider trading, which could significantly harm our business.
We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA and applicable foreign regulators, provide accurate information to the FDA and applicable foreign regulators, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and
regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately and/or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, research and development, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to considerable laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations restrict, regulate or prohibit a wide range of activities pertaining to clinical trials including the informed consent process, data integrity, and conducting the study in accordance with the investigational plan, and for approved products, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of, including trading on, information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. Prior to effecting the distribution of any approved products, we will adopt a code of conduct, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may be ineffective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions, possible exclusions from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other U.S. federal healthcare programs, contractual damages and reputational harm.
If we or any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.
We and any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air and water; and employee health and safety. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.
We could be adversely affected by violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA, and other worldwide anti-bribery laws.
We are subject to the FCPA, which prohibits U.S. corporations and their representatives from offering, promising, authorizing or making payments to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business abroad. The scope of the FCPA includes interactions with certain healthcare professionals in many countries. Other countries have enacted similar anti-corruption laws and/or regulations. In some countries in which we operate, the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries are exposed to a high risk of corruption associated with the conduct of clinical trials and other interactions with healthcare professionals and institutions. While we intend to conduct any foreign operations in compliance with the FCPA, any such activities could expose us to potential liability under the FCPA, which may result in us incurring significant criminal and civil penalties and to potential liability under the anti-corruption laws and regulations of other jurisdictions in which we operate. In addition, the costs we may incur in defending against an FCPA investigation could be significant.
Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock
The market price of our common stock may fluctuate widely and you could lose part or all of your investment in our common stock as a result.
Our common stock has a limited trading history and the market price has fluctuated widely, and may in the future fluctuate widely, depending upon many factors, some of which are beyond our control, including the following:
•results and timing of preclinical studies and clinical studies of Abecma or our product candidates;
•the commercial performance of Abecma or any of our products that may be approved, as well as the costs associated with such activities;
•BMS’ disclosure of revenue from Abecma in its earning releases or otherwise;
•results of clinical studies of our competitors' products;
•failure to adequately protect our trade secrets;
•our inability to raise additional capital and the terms on which we raise it;
•commencement or termination of any strategic partnership or licensing arrangement;
•regulatory developments with respect to our products or our competitors' products, including any developments, litigation or public concern about the safety of such products;
•announcements concerning product development results, including clinical trial results, the introduction of new products or intellectual property rights of us or others;
•actual or anticipated fluctuations in our financial condition and our quarterly and annual operating results;
•deviations in our operating results from any guidance we may provide or the estimates of securities analysts;
•additions and departures of key personnel;
•the passage of legislation or other regulatory developments affecting us or our industry;
•fluctuations in the valuation of companies perceived by investors to be comparable to us;
•sales of our common stock by us, our insiders or our other stockholders;
•strategic decisions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions, divestitures, spin-offs, joint ventures, strategic investments or changes in business strategy;
•announcement or expectation of additional financing efforts;
•publication of research reports by securities analysts about us or our competitors or our industry and speculation regarding our company or our stock price in the financial or scientific press or in online investor communities;
•changes in market conditions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector; and
•changes in general credit and financial markets and economic conditions.
In addition, if the market for stocks in our industry or industries related to our industry, or the stock market in general, experiences a loss of investor confidence, the trading price of our common stock could decline for reasons unrelated to our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If any of the foregoing occurs, it could cause our stock price to fall and may expose us to lawsuits that, even if unsuccessful, could be costly to defend and a distraction to management.
In addition, a decline or volatility in the market price of our common stock may affect our willingness and ability to raise equity capital through the sale of our common stock in public and/or private offerings, which may adversely affect our ability to fund our business operations.
If securities or industry analysts fail to initiate or maintain coverage of our stock, publish a negative report or change their recommendations regarding our stock adversely, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us, our business, our market or our competitors. If securities or industry analysts fail to initiate coverage of our stock, the lack of exposure to the market could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline. If any of the analysts who cover us or may cover us in the future publish a negative report or change their recommendation regarding our stock adversely, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, our stock price would likely decline. If any analyst who covers us or may cover us in the future were to cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.
Actual or potential sales of our common stock by our employees, including our executive officers, pursuant to pre-arranged stock trading plans could cause our stock price to fall or prevent it from increasing for numerous reasons, and actual or potential sales by such persons could be viewed negatively by other investors.
In accordance with the guidelines specified under Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the policies that we intend to adopt prior to the distribution regarding stock transactions, a number of our employees, including executive officers and members of our board of directors, may adopt stock trading plans pursuant to which they arrange to sell shares of our common stock from time to time in the future. Generally, sales under such plans by our executive officers and directors will require public filings. Actual or potential sales of our common stock by such persons could cause the price of our common stock to fall or prevent it from increasing for numerous reasons.
Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.
In the future, your percentage ownership in the Company may be diluted because of equity issuances for acquisitions, capital market transactions or otherwise, including equity awards that we plan to grant to our directors, officers and employees pursuant to our equity incentive plans. Such awards will have a dilutive effect on our earnings per share, which could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
In addition, we are authorized under our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to issue, without the approval of our stockholders, one or more classes or series of preferred stock having such designation, powers, preferences and relative, participating, optional and other special rights, including preferences over our common stock with respect to dividends and distributions, as our board of directors may determine. The terms of one or more classes or series of preferred stock could dilute the voting power or reduce the value of our common stock. For example, we could grant the holders of preferred stock the right to elect some number of directors in all events or on the happening of specified events or the right to veto specified transactions. Similarly, the repurchase or redemption rights or liquidation preferences we could assign to holders of preferred stock could affect the residual value of the common stock.
The administrator of the 2021 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, or 2021 Plan, is authorized to exercise its discretion to effect the repricing of stock options and stock appreciation rights and there may be adverse consequences to our business if the administrator of the 2021 Plan exercises such discretion.
Pursuant to our 2021 Plan, we are authorized to grant equity awards, including stock options and stock appreciation rights, to our employees, directors and consultants. The administrator of the 2021 Plan (which is our compensation committee) is authorized to exercise its discretion to reduce the exercise price of stock options or stock appreciation rights or effect the repricing of such awards. Although we do not anticipate needing to exercise this discretion in the near term, or at all, if the administrator of the 2021 Plan were to exercise such discretion without seeking prior stockholder approval, certain proxy advisory firms or institutional investors may be unsupportive of such actions and publicly criticize our compensation practices, and proxy advisory firms may recommend an “against” or “withhold” vote for members of our compensation committee. In addition, if we are required to hold an advisory vote on named executive officer compensation (known as the “say-on-pay” vote) at the time of, or subsequent to, any such repricing, it is likely that proxy advisory firms would issue an “against” recommendation on our say on pay vote and institutional investors may not be supportive of our say-on-pay vote. If
proxy advisory firms or institutional investors are successful in aligning their views with our broader stockholder base and we are required to make changes to the composition of our board and its committees, or if we need to make material changes to our compensation and corporate governance practices, our business might be disrupted and our stock price might be negatively impacted. Even if we are able to successfully rationalize the exercise of such discretionary power, defending against any “against” or “withhold” recommendation for members of our compensation committee, any “against” recommendation on our say on pay vote or public criticism could be distracting to management, and responding to such positions from such firms or investors, even if remedied, can be costly and time-consuming.
In addition, if the administrator of the 2021 Plan does determine to reprice stock options or stock appreciation rights, even absent negative reactions from proxy advisory firms and institutional investors, management attention may be diverted and we could incur significant costs, including accounting and administrative costs and attorneys’ fees. We may also be required to recognize incremental compensation expense as a result of such repricing. These actions could cause our stock price to decrease and experience periods of increased volatility, which could result in material adverse consequences to our business.
We do not expect to pay any cash dividends for the foreseeable future.
We do not anticipate that we will pay any cash dividends to holders of our common stock in the foreseeable future. Instead, we plan to retain any earnings to maintain and expand our operations. In addition, any future debt financing arrangement may contain terms prohibiting or limiting the amount of dividends that may be declared or paid on our common stock. Accordingly, investors must rely on sales of their common stock after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any return on their investment. As a result, investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase our common stock.
Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and by-laws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us or increase the cost of acquiring us, even if doing so would benefit our stockholders or remove our current management.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain, and Delaware law contains, provisions that may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of us or changes in our management. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and by-laws include provisions that:
•authorize “blank check” preferred stock, which could be issued by our board of directors without stockholder approval and may contain voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to our common stock;
•create a classified board of directors whose members serve staggered three-year terms;
•specify that special meetings of our stockholders can be called only by our board of directors, the chairperson of our board of directors, our chief executive officer or our president;
•prohibit stockholder action by written consent;
•establish an advance notice procedure for stockholder approvals to be brought before an annual meeting of our stockholders, including proposed nominations of persons for election to our board of directors;
•provide that our directors may be removed only for cause;
•provide that vacancies on our board of directors may be filled only by a majority of directors then in office, even though less than a quorum;
•specify that no stockholder is permitted to cumulate votes at any election of directors;
•expressly authorize our board of directors to modify, alter or repeal our amended and restated by-laws; and
•require supermajority votes of the holders of our common stock to amend specified provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated by-laws.
These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management.
In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which limits the ability of stockholders owning in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock to merge or combine with us.
Any provision of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or amended and restated by-laws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.
Our amended and restated bylaws designate certain specified courts as the sole and exclusive forums for certain disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or employees.
Our amended and restated bylaws provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or the Chancery Court, will be the sole and exclusive forum for state law claims for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action asserting a claim of, or a claim based on, a breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees to us or our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law, our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws, (iv) any action to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws, or (v) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine, or the Delaware Forum Provision. The Delaware Forum Provision does not apply to any causes of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, or the Exchange Act. Our amended and restated bylaws further provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the sole and exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, or the Federal Forum Provision. Our amended and restated bylaws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing Delaware Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision; provided, however, that stockholders cannot and will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.
The Delaware Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision may impose additional litigation costs on stockholders in pursuing the claims identified above, particularly if the stockholders do not reside in or near the State of Delaware. Additionally, the Delaware Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits. In addition, while the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in March 2020 that federal forum selection provisions purporting to require claims under the Securities Act be brought in federal court are “facially valid” under Delaware law, there is uncertainty as to whether other courts will enforce our Federal Forum Provision. If the Federal Forum Provision is found to be unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such an action. The Federal Forum Provision may also impose additional litigation costs on stockholders who assert that the provision is not enforceable or invalid. The Chancery Court or the federal district courts of the United States of America may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments may be more or less favorable to us than our stockholders.
Risks Related to Our Separation From bluebird bio
We have a limited history of operating as an independent company and we expect to incur increased administrative and other costs following the separation by virtue of our status as an independent public company. Our historical financial information is not necessarily representative of the results that we would have achieved as a separate, publicly traded company and should not be relied upon as an indicator of our future results.
For periods prior to our separation from bluebird bio, our historical information provided in this report refers to our business as operated by and integrated with bluebird bio. Our historical financial information included in this report for periods prior to our separation from bluebird bio has been derived from the consolidated financial statements and accounting records of bluebird bio. Accordingly, the historical financial information included in this report may not reflect the operating results, financial condition or cash flows that we would have achieved as a separate, publicly traded company during the periods presented, or the financial results we will achieve in the future. In particular, our future financial results may vary from the historical financial information included in this report as a result of the following factors, among others:
•for periods prior to the separation, our historical financial data reflects expense allocations for certain support functions that are provided on a centralized basis within bluebird bio, such as expenses for corporate administrative services, including information technology, research and development, finance, legal, insurance, compliance and human resources activities, that may be lower than the comparable expenses we would have actually incurred, or will incur in the future, as a stand-alone company;
•our cost of debt and our capital structure will be different from that reflected in our historical combined financial statements for periods prior to the separation;
•significant increases may occur in our cost structure as a result of becoming a stand-alone public company, including costs related to public company reporting, investor relations and compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and
•the separation may have a material effect on our relationships with our suppliers, collaborators and other business relationships.
Our financial condition and future results of operations, after giving effect to the separation, will be materially different from amounts reflected in our historical financial statements included elsewhere in this report. As a result of the separation, it may be difficult for investors to compare our future results to historical results or to evaluate our relative performance or trends in our business.
If the distribution, together with certain related transactions, does not qualify as a transaction that is generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes, bluebird bio and its stockholders could be subject to significant tax liabilities, and we could be required to indemnify bluebird bio for material taxes pursuant to indemnification obligations under the tax matters agreement.
In connection with the separation and distribution, bluebird bio received a favorable private letter ruling from Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, relating to the U.S. federal income tax treatment of the distribution. Consistent with the IRS's ruling guidelines, the IRS private letter ruling does not cover all of the issues that are relevant to determining whether the distribution is generally tax free for U.S. federal income tax purposes, including whether the distribution (i) satisfies the business purpose requirement in Section 1.355-2(b) of the Treasury Regulations, (ii) is used principally as a device for the distribution of our earnings and profits or the earnings and profits of bluebird bio or both or (iii) is part of a plan (or series of related transactions) pursuant to which one or more persons will acquire directly or indirectly stock representing a 50% or greater interest in bluebird bio or us. Accordingly, as a condition to the distribution, bluebird bio received an opinion of Goodwin Procter LLP, satisfactory to bluebird bio’s board of directors, confirming that the distribution, together with certain related transactions, generally was tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) of Internal Revenue Code, or the Code. The opinion of Goodwin Procter LLP delivered to bluebird bio and the IRS private letter ruling were based, among other things, on various facts and assumptions, as well as certain representations, statements and undertakings from us and bluebird bio (including those relating to the past and future conduct of us and bluebird bio). If any of these facts, assumptions, representations, statements or undertakings is, or becomes, inaccurate or incomplete, or if we or bluebird bio breach any of our respective covenants relating to the separation, the IRS private letter ruling and/or the opinion of Goodwin Procter LLP may be invalid. Accordingly, notwithstanding receipt of the favorable IRS private letter ruling and the opinion of Goodwin Procter LLP delivered to bluebird bio, the IRS could determine that the distribution and certain related transactions should be treated as taxable transactions for U.S. federal income tax purposes if it determines that any of the facts, assumptions, representations, statements or undertakings that were
included in the request for the IRS private letter ruling or on which the opinion of Goodwin Procter LLP was based is inaccurate or incomplete or has been violated. In addition, the opinion of Goodwin Procter LLP delivered to bluebird bio represents the judgment of Goodwin Procter LLP, which is not binding on the IRS or any court. Accordingly, notwithstanding receipt by bluebird bio of the tax opinion and the favorable IRS private letter ruling referred to above, the IRS could assert that the distribution and/or certain related transactions did not qualify for tax-free treatment for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
If the distribution, together with certain related transactions, were to fail to qualify as a transaction that is generally tax-free under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) of the Code, in general, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, bluebird bio would recognize taxable gain as if it has sold our distributed common stock in a taxable sale for its fair market value and bluebird bio stockholders who received shares of our common stock in the distribution would be subject to tax as if they had received a taxable distribution equal to the fair market value of such shares.
In connection with the distribution, we and bluebird bio entered into a tax matters agreement pursuant to which we are responsible for certain liabilities and obligations following the distribution. In general, under the terms of the tax matters agreement, if the distribution, together with certain related transactions, were to fail to qualify as a transaction that is generally tax-free, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) of the Code, and if and to the extent that such failure results from a prohibited change of control in bluebird bio under Section 355(e) of the Code or an acquisition of bluebird bio stock or assets or certain actions, omissions or failures to act, by bluebird bio, then bluebird bio will bear any resulting taxes, interest, penalties and other costs. If and to the extent that such failure results from a prohibited change of control in 2seventy bio under Section 355(e) of the Code or an acquisition of our stock or assets or certain actions by us, then we will indemnify bluebird bio for any resulting taxes, interest, penalties and other costs, including any reductions in bluebird bio’s net operating loss carryforwards or other tax assets. If such failure does not result from a prohibited change of control in bluebird bio or 2seventy bio under Section 355(e) of the Code and both we and bluebird bio are responsible for such failure, liability will be shared according to relative fault. If neither we nor bluebird bio is responsible for such failure, bluebird bio will bear any resulting taxes, interest, penalties and other costs. For a discussion of the tax matters agreement, see the section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 titled “Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions—Agreements with bluebird bio —Tax Matters Agreement.” Our indemnification obligations to bluebird bio under the tax matters agreement are not expected to be limited in amount or subject to any cap. If we are required to pay any taxes or indemnify bluebird bio and its subsidiaries and their respective officers and directors under the circumstances set forth in the tax matters agreement, we may be subject to substantial liabilities.
We may not be able to engage in attractive strategic or capital-raising transactions.
To preserve the tax-free treatment of the separation and the distribution for U.S. federal income tax purposes, for the four-year period beginning two years before and ending two years after the distribution, we are prohibited under the tax matters agreement, except in specific circumstances, from: (i) entering into or approving any transaction involving the acquisition of outstanding or newly issued 2seventy bio equity that, when combined with other non-excepted changes in ownership of our capital stock, results in a change in ownership of 30% or more; (ii) liquidating or partially liquidating, or merging or consolidating (unless we are the survivor); (iii) making or changing any entity classification election; (iv) ceasing to be engaged in an active trade or business, or selling, transferring or disposing of 25% or more of the assets of any active trade or business; (v) amending any of our organizational documents or taking any action affecting the voting rights of our capital stock; (vi) redeeming or otherwise repurchasing any of our outstanding stock or options; or (vii) taking or failing to take any other action that would prevent the distribution and certain related transactions from qualifying as a transaction that is generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1) (D) of the Code. These restrictions may limit for a period of time our ability to pursue certain strategic transactions, equity issuances or repurchases or other transactions that we may believe to be in the best interests of our stockholders or that might increase the value of our business. For more information, see the section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 titled “Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions—Agreements with bluebird bio—Tax Matters Agreement.”
In connection with the separation, we assumed and agreed to indemnify bluebird bio for certain liabilities. If we are required to make payments pursuant to these indemnities to bluebird bio, we may need to divert cash to meet those obligations and our financial results could be harmed.
Pursuant to the separation agreement and certain other agreements we entered into with bluebird bio, we assumed and agreed to indemnify bluebird bio for certain liabilities for uncapped amounts, which may include, among other items, associated defense costs, settlement amounts and judgments, as discussed further in "Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions—Agreements with bluebird bio" and "Index to Financial Statements—Audited Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements—Notes to Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements." Payments pursuant to these indemnities may be significant and could harm our business, particularly indemnities relating to our actions that could impact the tax-free nature of the distribution and certain related transactions. Third parties could also seek to hold us responsible for any of the liabilities of the bluebird bio business. bluebird bio has agreed to indemnify us for liabilities of the bluebird bio business, but such indemnity from bluebird bio may not be sufficient to protect us against the full amount of such liabilities, and bluebird bio may not fully satisfy its indemnification obligations. Moreover, even if we ultimately succeed in recovering from bluebird bio any amounts for which we are held liable, we may be temporarily required to bear these losses ourselves. Each of these risks could harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
Our agreements with bluebird bio may not reflect terms that would have resulted from negotiations with unaffiliated third parties.
The agreements related to the separation, including, among others, the separation agreement, the employment matters agreement, the tax matters agreement, the intellectual property license agreement and the transition services agreements, were entered into while we were still controlled by bluebird bio. As a result, the terms may not reflect those that would have resulted from negotiations between unaffiliated third parties. For a more detailed description, see "Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions—Agreements with bluebird bio."
Changes in tax law could adversely affect our business and financial condition.
The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. Future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. It cannot be predicted whether, when, in what form, or with what effective dates, new tax laws may be enacted, or regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or issued under existing or new tax laws, which could result in an increase in our or our stockholders’ tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of changes in tax law or in the interpretation thereof. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of potential changes in tax laws on an investment in our common stock.
If the estimates we make, or the assumptions on which we rely, in preparing our consolidated and combined financial statements are incorrect, our actual results may vary from those reflected in our projections and accruals.
Our consolidated and combined financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or GAAP. The preparation of these consolidated and combined financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of our assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. We cannot assure you, however, that our estimates, or the assumptions underlying them, will be correct.
Further, from time to time we issue financial guidance relating to our expectations for our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities available for operations, which guidance is based on estimates and the judgment of management. If, for any reason, our expenses differ materially from our guidance or we utilize our cash more quickly than anticipated, we may have to adjust our publicly announced financial guidance. If we fail to meet, or if we are required to change or update any element of, our publicly disclosed financial guidance or other expectations about our business, our stock price could decline.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
Item 2. Properties
Below is a summary of our material owned and leased properties as of December 31, 2022:
Our corporate headquarters is located at 60 Binney Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts where we occupy approximately 253,108 rentable square feet of office and laboratory space under a lease that was assigned to us by bluebird bio in October 2021 and will continue until March 31, 2034, unless terminated sooner. We have the option to extend the 60 Binney Street lease for two successive five-year terms.
We lease office and laboratory space at 188 East Blaine Street Suite 300, Seattle, Washington, totaling approximately 58,314 square feet. The lease was assigned to us by bluebird bio in October 2021 and will continue through April 2028. We have the option to extend the lease for one five-year term.
We believe that our existing facilities are adequate for our current needs and that suitable additional space will be available as and when needed.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
From time to time, we may become involved in litigation or other legal proceedings. We are not currently a party to any litigation or legal proceedings that, in the opinion of our management, are probable to have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Our common stock trades under the symbol “TSVT” on The Nasdaq Global Market and has been publicly traded since November 5, 2021. Prior to this time, there was no public market for our common stock.
Set forth below is a graph comparing the total returns of our company, the NASDAQ Composite Index, and the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index. The graph assumes $100 is invested on November 5, 2021 in our common stock and each of the indices. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Holders of Our Common Stock
As of March 8, 2023 there were approximately 13 holders of record of our common stock. This number does not include beneficial owners whose shares are held by nominees in street name.
We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings, if any, to fund the development and expansion of our business and we do not
anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to pay dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on various factors, including applicable laws, our results of operations, financial condition, future prospects and any other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
The information required by Item 5 of Form 10-K regarding equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Recent Sales of Unregistered Equity Securities
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers
We did not purchase any of our registered equity securities during the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Item 6. Reserved
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, or this Annual Report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business and related financing, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, including those factors set forth in the section entitled “Risk Factors,” our actual results could differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis. You should carefully read the section entitled “Risk Factors” to gain an understanding of the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements. Please also see the section entitled “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
We are a cell and gene therapy company focused on the research, development, and commercialization of transformative treatments for cancer. We are led by an accomplished team with significant expertise and experience in this field, from discovery through clinical development to regulatory approval of Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel, or ide-cel), the first chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, T cell therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for multiple myeloma. Our approach combines our expertise in T cell engineering technology and lentiviral vector gene delivery approaches, experience in research, development, and manufacturing of cell therapies and a suite of technologies that can be selectively deployed to develop highly innovative, targeted cellular therapies for patients with cancer. We are advancing multiple clinical programs, including SC-DARIC33, for the treatment of pediatric patients with relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia and bbT369, for the treatment of patients with B-cell non-Hodgkins lymphoma, as well as multiple preclinical programs, i