UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

OR

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 001-38503

Iterum Therapeutics plc

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Ireland	98-1283148
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

Fitzwilliam Court, 1st Floor,

Leeson Close,

Dublin 2, Ireland

(Address of principal executive offices)

Not applicable

(Zip Code)

(+353) 1 669-4820

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
Ordinary Shares, $0.01 par value per share	ITRM	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, 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. Yes ☐ No ☒.

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 Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the Registrant’s ordinary shares, $0.01 par value per share, on the Nasdaq Capital Market on June 30, 2023, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was $13.7 million.

The number of shares of Registrant’s ordinary shares outstanding as of February 29, 2024 was 16,426,784.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K incorporates by reference information from the definitive proxy statement for the Registrant’s 2024 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the Registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.

Table of Contents

		Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	41
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	101
Item IC.	Cybersecurity	101
Item 2.	Properties	102
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	102
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	102
PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	103
Item 6.	[Reserved]	103
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	104
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	121
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	122
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	155
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	155
Item 9B.	Other Information	155
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	156
PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	157
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	157
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters	157
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	157
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	157
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	158
Item 16	Form 10-K Summary	163

i

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AND INDUSTRY DATA

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. 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 words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these words or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

•our use of cash reserves;

•our ability to continue as a going concern;

•the design, initiation, timing, progress and results of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and our research and development programs;

•our ability to resolve the issues set forth in the Complete Response Letter (CRL) received from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in July 2021 in connection with our New Drug Application (NDA) for oral sulopenem and resubmit our NDA;

•our ability to retain the continued service of our key professionals and to identify, hire and retain additional qualified professionals;

•our ability to advance product candidates into, and successfully complete, clinical trials;

•the potential advantages of our product candidates;

•the timing or likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals, including with respect to the potential resubmission of our NDA for oral sulopenem;

•the commercialization of our product candidates, if approved;

•our manufacturing plans;

•our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and strategy;

•market acceptance of any product we successfully commercialize;

•the pricing, coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved;

•the implementation of our business model, strategic plans for our business and product candidates;

•the scope of protection we are able to establish and maintain for intellectual property rights covering our product candidates and our ability to defend and enforce any such intellectual property rights;

•our ability to enter into strategic arrangements, collaborations and/or commercial partnerships in the United States and other territories and the potential benefits of such arrangements;

•our estimates regarding expenses, capital requirements and needs for additional financing;

•our expectations regarding how far into the future our cash on hand will fund our ongoing operations;

•our financial performance;

•developments relating to our competitors and our industry;

•our ability to maintain compliance with listing requirements of the Nasdaq Capital Market;

•the impact of general economic conditions, including inflation; and

•our strategic process to sell, license, or otherwise dispose of our rights to oral sulopenem to maximise value for our stakeholders and the outcome, impact, effects and results of our pursuit of strategic alternatives, including the terms, timing, structure, value, benefits and costs of any strategic process and our ability to complete one at all.

These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described in “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the

ii

forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this Annual Report may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.

You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, levels of activity, performance or events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this Annual Report to conform these statements to new information, actual results or to changes in our expectations, except as required by law.

You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as exhibits to this Annual Report with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance, and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.

This Annual Report also contains industry, market and competitive position data from our own internal estimates and research as well as industry and general publications and research surveys and studies conducted by third parties. Industry publications, studies, and surveys generally state that they have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. Our internal data and estimates are based upon information obtained from trade and business organizations and other contacts in the markets in which we operate and our management’s understanding of industry conditions. While we believe that each of these studies and publications is reliable, we have not independently verified market and industry data from third-party sources. While we believe our internal company research is reliable and the market definitions are appropriate, neither such research nor these definitions have been verified by any independent source. The industry in which we operate is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risks due to various factors, including those described in the section titled “Summary of Risk Factors” and “Risk Factors.”

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

iii

SUMMARY OF RISK FACTORS

Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in our ordinary shares speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other filings with the SEC before making investment decisions regarding our ordinary shares. These risks include the following:

•We have identified conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As of December 31, 2023, we had $23.9 million of cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. Based on our available cash resources, including amounts raised subsequent to the year end under the "at-the-market” agreement, as disclosed in Note 17 to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we do not believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will enable us to fund our operating expenses for the next 12 months from the date of filing this Annual Report on Form 10-K including through repayment of the 6.500% Exchangeable Senior Subordinated Notes due in January 2025 (Exchangeable Notes).

•We will require additional capital to fund our operations and may be unable to obtain financing when needed or on acceptable terms. Additionally, in the event we are not able to obtain shareholder approval for the disapplication of pre-emption rights over our ordinary shares at a general meeting of the shareholders, our ability to raise additional capital through the issue of new shares for cash will be severely limited. Additional capital will also be required in order to repay the Exchangeable Notes when they become due. We may not have enough available cash or be able to obtain financing at that time. Our failure to make repayments when due would constitute a default under the indenture governing the Exchangeable Notes. A default under that indenture could also lead to a default under any agreements governing our future indebtedness.

•We have incurred net losses in each year since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses unless we successfully commercialize our sulopenem program. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $461.3 million.

•In July 2021, we received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding our new drug application (“NDA”) for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen. In the CRL, the FDA determined that additional data are necessary to support approval for the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone. The FDA recommended that we conduct at least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial, potentially using a different comparator drug. In July 2022 we reached an agreement with the FDA under the SPA process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REASSURE, in October 2022. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the Augmentin® susceptible population. In October 2023, we completed enrollment in the REASSURE clinical trial, enrolling 2,222 patients. In January 2024, we announced that sulopenem met the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority to Augmentin® in the Augmentin® susceptible population, and demonstrated statistically significant superiority versus Augmentin® in the Augmentin® susceptible population, in the REASSURE clinical trial. Additionally, though not an approvability issue, the FDA recommended in its CRL that we conduct additional non-clinical PK/PD studies to support dose selection for the proposed treatment indication(s). We have also completed the additional non-clinical PK/PD investigations, as recommended by the FDA, which we believe support the dosing regimen selected for oral sulopenem. We expect to resubmit our NDA to the FDA in the second quarter of 2024. Provided that the resubmitted NDA addresses all of the deficiencies identified in the CRL we received from the FDA in July 2021, we expect that the FDA will complete its review and take action six months from the date the FDA receives the resubmitted NDA (or during the fourth quarter of 2024). There can be no assurance that we will be in a position to resolve the matters set forth in the CRL or that the data generated by the REASSURE clinical trial and/or the additional PK/PD data will be adequate to support resubmission or approval of our NDA.

•We are heavily dependent on the success of our sulopenem program, and our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize oral sulopenem and sulopenem. If we are unable to obtain marketing approvals for oral sulopenem or sulopenem, or if thereafter we fail to commercialize oral sulopenem or sulopenem or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

•Our company has no experience in obtaining regulatory approval for a drug. If clinical trials of oral sulopenem, sulopenem or any other product candidate that we may advance to clinical trials fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or do not otherwise produce favorable results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of oral sulopenem, sulopenem or any other product candidate.

iv

•Serious adverse events or undesirable side effects or other unexpected properties of oral sulopenem, sulopenem or any other product candidate may be identified during development or after approval that could delay, prevent or cause the withdrawal of regulatory approval, limit the commercial potential, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval.

•Even if a product candidate does obtain regulatory approval, it may never achieve the market acceptance by physicians, patients, hospitals, third-party payors and others in the medical community that is necessary for commercial success, and the market opportunity may be smaller than we estimate.

•We currently have no commercial organization. If we are unable to establish and maintain sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, enter into sales, marketing and distribution agreements with third parties, or enter into a strategic transaction with a partner that has established commercial capabilities in the U.S., sulopenem or any other product candidate may not be successfully commercialized, if such product candidate is approved.

•Our exploration and pursuit of strategic alternatives may not be successful.

•We cannot predict whether bacteria may develop resistance to oral sulopenem or sulopenem, which could affect their revenue potential.

•We contract with third parties for the manufacture of preclinical and clinical supplies and expect to continue to do so in connection with any future commercialization and for any future clinical trials and commercialization of our product candidates and potential product candidates. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

•We rely heavily on the exclusive license agreement with Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, for the patent rights and know-how required to develop and commercialize sulopenem etzadroxil and the know-how required to develop the IV formulation of sulopenem. If we fail to comply with our obligations in our agreement with Pfizer, we could lose such rights that are important to our business.

•If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection or other intellectual property rights for oral sulopenem or our other technology and product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection or intellectual property rights we obtain is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to successfully develop or commercialize oral sulopenem or any other product candidates or technology or otherwise compete effectively in our markets.

•The volatility of our shares and shareholder base may hinder or prevent us from engaging in beneficial corporate initiatives. As our shareholder base is comprised of a large number of retail (or non-institutional) investors, this creates more volatility since shares change hands frequently. As a result, there can be a significant turnover of shareholders between the record date and the meeting date which makes it harder to get shareholders to vote. Failure to secure sufficient votes on a particular matter may impede our ability to move forward with initiatives that are intended to grow the business and create shareholder value or prevent us from engaging in such initiatives at all. For example, we asked our shareholders to approve the disapplication of statutory pre-emption rights over the increased authorized share capital that was approved by our shareholders at our annual general meeting of shareholders in May 2023 (the 2023 Annual Meeting). However, we did not receive the affirmative vote of at least 75% of the votes cast as required under Irish law for the passing of such resolutions at the 2023 Annual Meeting or at subsequent extraordinary general meetings of shareholders held in August 2023 and January 2024. As a result, our ability to raise additional capital to finance our business through the issue of new shares for cash is severely limited.

v

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company dedicated to developing and commercializing sulopenem to be potentially the first oral penem available in the United States and the first and only oral and intravenous (IV) branded penem available globally. Penems, including thiopenems and carbapenems, belong to a class of antibiotics more broadly defined as ß-lactam antibiotics, the original example of which was penicillin, but which now also includes cephalosporins. Sulopenem is a potent, thiopenem antibiotic delivered intravenously which is active against bacteria that belong to the group of organisms known as gram-negatives and cause urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections. We have also successfully developed sulopenem in an oral tablet formulation, sulopenem etzadroxil-probenecid, which we refer to as oral sulopenem. We believe that sulopenem and oral sulopenem have the potential to be important new treatment alternatives to address growing concerns related to antibacterial resistance without the known toxicities of some of the most widely used antibiotics, specifically fluoroquinolones.

During the third quarter of 2018, we initiated three clinical trials in our Phase 3 development program which included: a Phase 3 uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) clinical trial, known as Sulopenem for Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (SURE) 1, comparing oral sulopenem to oral ciprofloxacin in women with uUTI, a Phase 3 complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) clinical trial known as SURE 2, comparing IV sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem to IV ertapenem followed by oral ciprofloxacin in adults with cUTI and a Phase 3 complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) clinical trial known as SURE 3, comparing IV sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem to IV ertapenem followed by a combination of oral ciprofloxacin and oral metronidazole in adults with cIAI. We designed one Phase 3 clinical trial in each indication based on our end of Phase 2 meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and feedback from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We conducted the Phase 3 clinical trials under Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) agreements from the FDA. In December 2019, we announced that sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapy for the cIAI trial (SURE 3). In the second quarter of 2020, we announced the results of our Phase 3 clinical trials in cUTI (SURE 2) and uUTI (SURE 1). In the cUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapies with the difference in response rates driven almost entirely by higher rates of asymptomatic bacteriuria on the sulopenem IV to oral sulopenem arm relative to the ertapenem IV to oral ciprofloxacin arm, only evident at the test of cure visit. The rates of patients receiving additional antibiotics or with residual cUTI symptoms were similar between therapies. Similarly, in the uUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to ciprofloxacin in the population of patients with baseline pathogens susceptible to ciprofloxacin driven to a large degree by a greater amount of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem treated patients at the test of cure visit relative to those receiving ciprofloxacin. However, in the uUTI trial, in the population of patients with baseline pathogens resistant to quinolones, sulopenem achieved the related primary endpoint by demonstrating statistical significance in the overall response rate by treatment arm in the ciprofloxacin-resistant population, providing evidence of a treatment effect in patients with uUTI. Based on discussions with the FDA at a pre-New Drug Application (NDA) meeting in September 2020 and previous correspondence with the FDA, we submitted an NDA for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the FDA accepted the application for review in January 2021. We received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA on July 23, 2021 in respect of our NDA. The CRL provided that the FDA had completed its review of the NDA and had determined that it could not approve the NDA in its present form. The CRL further provided that additional data are necessary to support approval of oral sulopenem for the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone and recommended that we conduct at least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial, potentially using a different comparator drug. In July 2022 we reached an agreement with the FDA under the SPA process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REnewed ASsessment of Sulopenem in uUTI caused by Resistant Enterobacterales (REASSURE), in October 2022. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the Augmentin® susceptible population. In October 2023, we completed enrollment in the REASSURE clinical trial, enrolling 2,222 patients. In January 2024, we announced that sulopenem met the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority to Augmentin® in the Augmentin® susceptible population, and demonstrated statistically significant superiority versus Augmentin® in the Augmentin® susceptible population, in the REASSURE clinical trial. Additionally, though not an approvability issue, the FDA recommended in its CRL that we conduct additional non-clinical PK/PD studies to support dose selection for the proposed treatment indication(s). We have also completed the additional non-clinical PK/PD investigations, as recommended by the FDA, which we believe support the dosing regimen selected for oral sulopenem. We expect to resubmit our NDA to the FDA in the second quarter of 2024. Provided that the resubmitted NDA addresses all of the deficiencies identified in the CRL we received from the FDA in July 2021, we expect that the FDA will complete its review and take action six months from the date the FDA receives the resubmitted NDA (or during the fourth quarter of 2024). After receiving positive data from our REASSURE trial our board of directors determined that we should focus on a strategic process to sell, license, or otherwise dispose of our rights to sulopenem with the goal of maximizing shareholder value. In connection with this strategic process, we have engaged a financial advisor to assist management and the board in evaluating strategic alternatives.

1

In November 2015, we acquired an exclusive, worldwide license under certain patents and know-how to develop and commercialize sulopenem and its oral prodrug, sulopenem etzadroxil, from Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer). Pfizer conducted Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials of sulopenem delivered intravenously in Japan in over 1,450 patients with a variety of hospital and community acquired infections. These clinical trials documented a treatment effect in the indications studied and provided preliminary insights into the safety profile for sulopenem, which will continue to be assessed with additional clinical trials. Pfizer subsequently developed sulopenem into a prodrug formulation, sulopenem etzadroxil, to enable oral delivery. Once this prodrug is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract, the etzadroxil ester is immediately cleaved off and the active moiety, sulopenem, is released into the bloodstream. We have further enhanced this prodrug formulation with the addition of probenecid to extend sulopenem’s half-life and enhance its antibacterial potential. Probenecid is a pharmacokinetic enhancer that has been safely and extensively used globally for decades. The oral dose of sulopenem etzadroxil-probenecid has been combined in a single bilayer tablet, which we refer to as oral sulopenem. We refer to sulopenem delivered intravenously as sulopenem and, together with oral sulopenem, as our sulopenem program.

The treatment of urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections has become more challenging because of the development of resistance by pathogens responsible for these diseases. There are approximately 15 million emergency room and office visits for symptoms of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and approximately 33 million uUTIs in the United States annually, with approximately 30% of those infections caused by a quinolone non-susceptible organism, and approximately 1% of infections are caused by pathogens that are resistant to all commonly available classes of oral antibiotics. Based on market research, physicians estimated that approximately 35% of these patients are at elevated risk for treatment failure. Proper antibiotic treatment of drug-resistant infections in this group is particularly important due to the risks associated with treatment failure. Elevated risk patients were defined in the research as patients with recurrent UTIs, elderly patients, patients who have a suspected or confirmed drug-resistant infection, patients with comorbidities (e.g., Diabetes mellitus) or that are immunocompromised, patients that have had a recent hospitalization, patients with a history of prior antibiotic failure and patients in a long-term care setting. Treatment failures pose significant clinical and economic challenges to the healthcare system. In 2022, a retrospective database analysis of 5,395 evaluable outpatient UTI episodes revealed that 22% of patients received an antibiotic to which the pathogen was resistant in vitro, and those patients were almost twice as likely to require a second prescription (34% versus 19%) or be hospitalized (15% versus 8%) within 28 days of the initial prescription fill compared to patients who received an antibiotic to which the pathogen was susceptible. There are also approximately 3.6 million patients with cUTI and approximately 350,000 patients with cIAI that require antibiotic therapy every year in the United States.

Growing antibiotic resistance to E. coli, the primary cause of UTIs, has complicated the choice of treatment alternatives in both the community and hospital settings, reducing effective treatment choices for physicians. In addition, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases recommend against empiric use, or prescribing without results from a bacterial culture, of fluoroquinolones for uUTIs in their 2010 Update to the International Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Cystitis and Pyelonephritis in Women. Similarly, the FDA in its November 2015 Advisory Committee meeting stated that the risk of serious side effects caused by fluoroquinolones generally outweighs the benefits for patients with uUTIs and other uncomplicated infections. Subsequently, the FDA mandated labeling modifications for fluoroquinolone antibiotics directing healthcare professionals to reserve fluoroquinolones for patients with no other treatment alternatives. In December 2018, the FDA further warned that fluoroquinolone antibiotics could cause aortic aneurysm and dissection in certain patients, especially older persons. In October 2018, the EMA’s pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee recommended restrictions on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, fluoroquinolones and quinolones, following a review of side effects that were reported to be “disabling and potentially long-lasting.” The committee further stated that fluoroquinolones and quinolones should only be used to treat infections where an antibiotic is essential, and others cannot be used.

None of the most commonly used oral antibiotics for treatment of uUTIs were initially approved by the FDA within the last two decades. We believe oral sulopenem will be an important treatment option for elevated risk uUTI patients because of its potency against resistant pathogens, as well as its spectrum of antibacterial activity. In addition, oral sulopenem will allow patients who develop an infection with a resistant pathogen but are stable enough to be treated in the community, to avoid the need for an IV catheter and even hospitalization.

In the hospital setting, the lack of effective oral stepdown options results in the potential for lengthy hospital stays or insertion of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) to facilitate administration of IV antibiotics, even for some patients with relatively straightforward infections. Our sulopenem program may enable faster discharges, providing cost-saving advantages for the hospital and mitigating the risk of catheter-related infection for patients. Based on potency, safety and formulation advantages, we believe our sulopenem program is uniquely positioned to address unmet medical needs for patients suffering from uncomplicated and complicated infections in both the community and hospital settings.

If approved, and in the event our strategic process to sell, license, or otherwise dispose of our rights to oral sulopenem to maximise value for our stakeholders, does not result in any type of transaction, we would plan to commercialize our sulopenem program in the United States with a commercial partner and/or on our own with a targeted sales force in the community setting. Data from an ongoing epidemiology study to quantify quinolone resistance by zip code, in addition to data from our clinical trials and

2

available prescriber data, would inform our initial targeted sales force as to where the medical need for a new, effective therapy for UTIs is highest in the community setting. Outside of the United States, we are evaluating our options to maximize the value of our sulopenem program.

We expect to register two suppliers and have validated one supplier for the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for oral sulopenem at the time of a potential resubmission of our NDA. We will initially rely on a single third-party facility to manufacture all of our sulopenem tablets. In the future, given the importance of oral sulopenem to our potential commercial results, we will consider establishing additional sources.

As of February 29, 2024, we exclusively license from Pfizer two U.S. patents and three foreign patents, including one U.S. patent directed to composition of matter of sulopenem etzadroxil, which is projected to expire in 2029, subject to potential extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Act, to 2034, and three foreign patents related to sulopenem etzadroxil. We also own two U.S. patents, one Japanese patent, one Korean patent and one Australian patent, with one U.S. Patent, the Japanese patent, the Korean patent and the Australian patent directed to the composition of the bilayer tablet of oral sulopenem and its related preparations and/or uses, and the other U.S. patent directed to the method of use of oral sulopenem in treating multiple diseases, including uUTIs. The patents owned by us are scheduled to expire no earlier than 2039, excluding any additional term for patent adjustments or patent term extensions. We also own three pending U.S. patent applications, and twenty four pending foreign patent applications, which collectively cover uses of sulopenem and probenecid and bilayer tablets of sulopenem etzadroxil and probenecid. Any U.S. or foreign patents issuing from the pending applications are projected to expire between 2039 and 2041, excluding any additional term for patent adjustments or patent term extensions. In addition, the FDA has designated sulopenem and oral sulopenem as Qualified Infectious Disease Products (QIDP) for the indications of uUTI, cUTI, cIAI, community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, acute bacterial prostatitis, gonococcal urethritis, and pelvic inflammatory disease pursuant to the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now Act (the GAIN Act). Fast track designation for these seven indications in both the oral and intravenous formulations has also been granted. QIDP status makes sulopenem and oral sulopenem eligible to benefit from certain incentives for the development of new antibiotics provided under the GAIN Act. Further, QIDP status could add five years to any regulatory exclusivity period that we may be granted. QIDP status for other indications is also possible given the coverage of gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria by sulopenem, pending submission of additional documentation and acceptance by the FDA. Fast track status provides an opportunity for more frequent meetings with the FDA, more frequent written communication related to the clinical trials, eligibility for accelerated approval and priority review and the potential for a rolling review. None of our licensed patents cover the IV formulation of sulopenem.

Sulopenem Program, Clinical and Regulatory Status

We pursued three initial indications for oral sulopenem and sulopenem in three Phase 3 clinical trials. We designed these Phase 3 clinical trials based on extensive in vitro microbiologic surveillance data, Phase 1 pharmacokinetic data from healthy volunteers as well as population pharmacokinetic data from patients, animal models in relevant disease settings, Phase 2 data from a program performed with sulopenem by Pfizer in Japan in the early 1990s, and regulatory feedback from the FDA at our end-of-Phase 2 meeting, all supported by an advanced commercial manufacturing program which provided clinical supplies.

During the third quarter of 2018, we initiated three clinical trials in our Phase 3 development program, being the SURE 1 trial, the SURE 2 trial and the SURE 3 trial. We designed one Phase 3 clinical trial in each indication based on our end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA and feedback from the EMA. We conducted the Phase 3 clinical trials under SPA agreements from the FDA. In December 2019, we announced that sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapy for the cIAI trial (SURE 3). In the second quarter of 2020, we announced the results of our Phase 3 clinical trials in cUTI (SURE 2) and uUTI (SURE 1). In the cUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapies with the difference in response rates driven almost entirely by higher rates of asymptomatic bacteriuria on the sulopenem IV to oral sulopenem arm relative to the ertapenem IV to oral ciprofloxacin arm, only evident at the test of cure visit. The rates of patients receiving additional antibiotics or with residual cUTI symptoms were similar between therapies. Similarly, in the uUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to ciprofloxacin in the population of patients with baseline pathogens susceptible to ciprofloxacin driven to a large degree by a greater amount of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem treated patients at the test of cure visit relative to those receiving ciprofloxacin. However, in the uUTI trial, in the population of patients with baseline pathogens resistant to quinolones, sulopenem achieved the related primary endpoint by demonstrating statistical significance in the overall response rate by treatment arm in the ciprofloxacin-resistant population, providing evidence of a treatment effect in patients with uUTI. Based on discussions with the FDA at a pre-NDA meeting in September 2020 and previous correspondence with the FDA, we submitted an NDA for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the FDA accepted the application for review in January 2021. We received a CRL from the FDA on July 23, 2021 in respect of our NDA. The CRL provided that the FDA had completed its review of the NDA and had determined that it could not approve the NDA in its present form. The CRL further provided that additional data are necessary to support approval of oral sulopenem for the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone, and recommended that we conduct at least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial, potentially using a different comparator drug. In July 2022 we reached an agreement with the FDA under the SPA process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral

3

sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REASSURE, in October 2022. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the Augmentin® susceptible population. In October 2023 we completed enrollment in the REASSURE clinical trial, enrolling 2,222 patients. In January 2024, we announced that sulopenem met the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority to Augmentin® in the Augmentin®-susceptible population, and demonstrated statistically significant superiority versus Augmentin® in the Augmentin® susceptible population, in the REASSURE clinical trial. Additionally, though not an approvability issue, the FDA recommended in its CRL that we conduct additional non-clinical PK/PD studies to support dose selection for the proposed treatment indication(s). We have also completed the additional non-clinical PK/PD investigations, as recommended by the FDA, which we believe support the dosing regimen selected for oral sulopenem. We expect to resubmit our NDA to the FDA in the second quarter of 2024. Provided that the resubmitted NDA addresses all of the deficiencies identified in the CRL we received from the FDA in July 2021, we expect that the FDA will complete its review and take action six months from the date the FDA receives the resubmitted NDA (or during the fourth quarter of 2024).

Our Strategy

Since inception, our strategy has been to develop and commercialize our sulopenem program for multiple indications, and in the long term to build a market-leading anti-infective business. We are now focused on a strategic process to sell, license, or otherwise dispose of our rights to sulopenem with the goal of maximizing stakeholder value and have engaged a financial advisor to assist management and the board in evaluating strategic alternatives. We cannot provide any commitment regarding when or if this strategic process will result in any type of transaction however, and no assurance can be given that we will determine to pursue a potential sale, licensing arrangement or other disposition of its rights to sulopenem. Pending the outcome of such strategic process, the key elements of our strategy continue to include the following:

•Obtain regulatory approval for oral sulopenem in the United States. Resubmit our NDA to the FDA for oral sulopenem which is expected in the second quarter of 2024.

•Consider regulatory strategy outside the United States. We are considering the timing of a potential submission of a Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) to the EMA.

In the event our strategic process does not result in any type of transaction, and subject to our ability to raise sufficient capital to fund operations, our strategy may include some or all of the following elements:

•Maximize commercial potential of our sulopenem program. If approved by the FDA, we may seek a commercial partner and/or directly commercialize oral sulopenem in the United States with a targeted sales force in the community setting. Outside of the United States, we continue to evaluate the options to maximize the value of our sulopenem program.

•Pursue the development of oral sulopenem and sulopenem in additional indications. In the future, we may also pursue development of our sulopenem program in additional indications in adults and children, including cUTIs, community acquired bacterial pneumonia, non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease, cIAIs, bacterial prostatitis, gonorrhea, diabetic foot infection and bone and joint infection, as well as new formulations to support these indications.

•Build a portfolio of differentiated anti-infective products. We may seek to enhance our product pipeline through strategically in-licensing or acquiring clinical stage product candidates or approved products for the community and/or hospital and acute care markets. We believe that our focus on acute care in both the community and hospital markets will make us an attractive partner for companies seeking to out-license products or product candidates in our areas of focus.

The Medical Need

Urinary Tract and Intra-Abdominal Infections

UTIs are among the most common bacterial infections encountered in the ambulatory setting. A UTI occurs when one or more parts of the urinary system (kidneys, ureters, bladder or urethra) become infected with a pathogen (most frequently, bacteria). While many UTIs are not considered life-threatening, if the infection reaches the kidneys, serious illness, and even death, can occur. UTI diagnoses are stratified between either complicated or uncomplicated infections. uUTI refers to the invasion of a structurally and functionally normal urinary tract by a nonresident infectious organism (e.g., acute cystitis), and is diagnosed and commonly treated in an outpatient setting with an oral agent. Conversely, cUTIs, including acute pyelonephritis, are defined as a UTI ascending from the bladder accompanied by local and systemic signs and symptoms, including fever, chills, malaise, flank pain, back pain, and/or costo-vertebral angle pain or tenderness, that occur in the presence of a functional or anatomical abnormality of the urinary tract or in the presence of catheterization, with treatment typically initiated by IV therapy in a hospital setting.

cIAIs have similar challenges to those of cUTIs. These complicated infections extend from a gastrointestinal source, such as the appendix or the colon, into the peritoneal space and can be associated with abscess formation.

4

Antimicrobial Resistance is Increasing

E. coli is growing increasingly resistant to many classes of antibiotics, which is especially problematic for patients suffering from UTIs because E. coli is the primary cause of those infections. The market-leading antibiotics, fluoroquinolones (e.g., Cipro, Levaquin) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (e.g., Bactrim, Septra), currently have E. coli resistance rates over 20% nationally. In 2019, approximately 40% of oral prescriptions for UTIs written in the United States were for fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. In hospitals, fluoroquinolones have greater than 30% resistance to E. coli in approximately half the states in the United States, and have greater than 25% resistance rates in nearly 80% of the states. According to national data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fluoroquinolones had greater than 33% resistance to E. coli in the United States in 2019 in hospitalized patients, and in 2020, the national resistance rate of E. coli to fluoroquinolones increased to 35.2%. Further, the national resistance rate of E. coli to cephalosporins, which is a common marker for extended spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBL)-producing E. coli, was estimated to be approximately 13% for the combined years of 2011 to 2015, and in 2020, and the resistance rate to cephalosporins was reported to be 24.7% by the CDC. Between 2000 and 2009 the prevalence of extended spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBL)-producing E. coli and ESBL-producing K. pneumoniae more than doubled from 3.3% to 8.0% and from 9.1% to 18.6%, respectively. During the same timeframe, hospitalizations caused by ESBL-producing organisms increased by about 300%. In a 2022 special report from the CDC describing the U.S. impact of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance, rates of ESBL cases increased an estimated 10% from 2019 through 2020, primarily driven by a 32% increase in hospital-onset versus 7% increase in community-onset infections. Data reported by the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net) in Europe demonstrate that in 2022, the prevalence of quinolone resistant E. coli and E. coli resistant to third generation cephalosporins is 22% (EU/EEA country range 9.9-46.4%) and 14.3% (EU/EEA country range 5.8-40.2%), respectively. The prevalence of E. coli with combined resistance to third generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, and aminoglycosides is 5.1% (EU/EEA country range 1.5-14.2%).

We have further delineated the prevalence of bacterial resistance to antibiotics used to treat UTIs in the United States. Based on urine culture results obtained at the zip code level from outpatient UTIs, we concluded that the prevalence of resistance of Enterobacteriaceae to quinolone antibiotics is over 20% in a significant portion of the country. In addition, in 2015, 25 states identified as high prevalence for E. coli resistance produced approximately 75% of all UTI prescriptions in the United States.

Geographic prevalence of quinolone non-susceptible Enterobacteriaceae by zip code in outpatient
urine cultures.

Numbers represent hospital centers from which data were derived

As antibiotic resistance leads to increased costs of treatment and increased morbidity, as well as increased mortality, there is an urgent unmet medical need for antimicrobial agents that can be utilized in community and hospital infections. A recent nationwide database study that evaluated trends in antibiotic resistance in urinary Enterobacterales isolates from ambulatory patients in the United States revealed that antimicrobial resistance was common in urinary Enterobacterales isolates. Isolates with an ESBL-producing phenotype increased by about 30% between 2011 and 2020, and significant increases were also observed in nitrofurantoin non-susceptible Enterobacterales isolates. Resistance rates for all four antibiotic classes (fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole, nitrofurantoin and β-lactams), were higher than thresholds recommended for use as empiric therapy. The antimicrobial class of penems has the potential to address many of the relevant resistance issues associated with ß-lactam antibiotics

5

because of a targeted spectrum of antibacterial activity and intrinsic stability against hydrolytic attack by many ß-lactamases, including ESBL and AmpC enzymes.

There is a Significant Population at Risk

There are approximately 15 million emergency room and office visits for symptoms of UTIs and approximately 33 million uUTIs in the United States annually with approximately 30% of those infections caused by a quinolone non-susceptible organism, and approximately 1% of infections are caused by pathogens that are resistant to all commonly available classes of oral antibiotics. Based on market research, physicians estimated that approximately 35% of these patients are at elevated risk for treatment failure. Proper antibiotic treatment of drug-resistant infections in this group is particularly important due to the consequences associated with treatment failure. Elevated risk patients were defined in the research as patients with recurrent UTIs, elderly patients, patients who have a suspected or confirmed drug-resistant infection, patients with comorbidities (e.g., Diabetes mellitus) or that are immunocompromised, patients that have had a recent hospitalization, patients with a history of prior antibiotic failure and patients in a long-term care setting.

There are also approximately 3.6 million patients with cUTI and approximately 350,000 patients with cIAI that require antibiotic therapy every year in the United States.

Limited Treatment Options

In addition to worsening antibiotic resistance, many of the antibiotics currently used for first-line empiric oral treatment of uUTIs, such as nitrofurantoin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, suffer from significant safety and tolerability concerns. Pulmonary fibrosis and diffuse interstitial pneumonitis have been observed in patients treated with nitrofurantoin, which is contraindicated in pregnant women after 38 weeks of gestation and newborn children due to hemolytic anemia and in patients with poor renal function. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is associated with fatal hypersensitivity reactions, embryofetal toxicity, hyperkalemia, gastrointestinal disturbances and rashes, including rare cases of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. In addition, some antibiotics, such as nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin, have poor tissue penetration. While fluoroquinolones are now the most widely used antibiotic class in treating community and hospital gram-negative infections, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases now recommend against empiric use of fluoroquinolones for uUTIs in their 2010 Update to the International Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Cystitis and Pyelonephritis in Women as they “have a propensity for collateral damage and should be reserved for important uses other than acute cystitis and thus should be considered alternative antimicrobials for acute cystitis.” Similarly, the FDA in its November 2015 Advisory Committee meeting stated that the risk of serious side effects caused by fluoroquinolones generally outweighs the benefits for patients with uUTIs and other uncomplicated infections. Serious side effects associated with fluoroquinolones include tendon rupture, tendinitis, and worsening symptoms of myasthenia gravis and peripheral neuropathy. Subsequently, the FDA mandated labeling modifications for fluoroquinolones antibiotics directing healthcare professionals to reserve fluoroquinolones for patients with no other treatment alternatives. In December 2018 the FDA further warned that fluoroquinolone antibiotics could cause aortic aneurysm and dissection in certain patients, especially older persons. In October 2018, the EMA’s pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee recommended restrictions on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, fluoroquinolones and quinolones, following a review of side effects that were reported to be “disabling and potentially long-lasting”. The committee further stated that fluoroquinolones and quinolones should only be used to treat infections where an antibiotic is essential, and others cannot be used.

The limited oral antibiotic treatment options for patients with uUTIs can sometimes result in hospitalization to facilitate administration of IV antibiotics for patients whose infection progresses. In addition, some patients whose uUTI remains uncomplicated may require hospital admission for IV therapy. For patients with cUTIs, the lack of effective oral stepdown options, and the paucity of new treatment options, which is demonstrated by the fact that none of the most commonly used oral agents were initially approved by the FDA in the last two decades, results in the potential for lengthy hospital stays or insertion of a PICC to facilitate administration of IV antibiotics, even for some patients with relatively straightforward infections. Therefore, based both on the epidemiology described above and recent discussions with practicing clinicians and pharmacists, we believe there is a pressing need for a novel oral antibacterial therapy for UTI, both complicated and uncomplicated, that has potent activity against ESBL producing and quinolone resistant gram-negative organisms.

The Challenge of Developing Antibiotics

Antibiotics work by targeting a critical function of the bacteria and rendering it non-functional. These critical functions include the ability to make proteins, to replicate further, and to build protective envelopes against the harsh external environment. These functions are coded in the bacteria’s DNA, which is copied over to each generation. Occasionally errors are made in the copying; typically, these errors kill off the progeny but can sometimes actually help them survive under specific circumstances, namely when threatened by an antibiotic.

Bacterial mutations, these changes in DNA coding, allow the organism to adapt their protein structures so as to prevent target-specific antibiotics from working. Over time, subsequent generations of bacteria retain these mutations and even develop additional

6

mutations making them resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics and generating what is known as multi-drug resistant (MDR) pathogens. Furthermore, bacteria have also developed mechanisms that allow them to pass these genetic mutations directly to other nearby bacteria, even those from a different species. As there are a limited number of antibiotic classes available today, there is a concern that eventually we will not have any antibiotics to treat patients who develop an infection caused by these MDR bacteria. We continue to need new antibiotics that stay one step ahead of these mutating bacteria in order to protect against the infections that they cause.

The Solution to Rising Resistance

The solution to the problem of resistance is based on strategies to use those antibiotics only when patients really need them, limiting the number of opportunities for the bacteria to develop these mutations, and to continue efforts aimed at the discovery and development of new and effective antibacterial agents.

These new agents will need to:

•kill the organisms responsible for the actual infection;

•target a specific bacterial function and overcome the existing resistance mechanisms around that function;

•be powerful enough to require a minimal amount of drug to kill the organism at the site of infection; and

•be delivered to a patient in a manner which is safe, tolerable and convenient.

For the last thirty years, the penem class of antibiotics, including carbapenems such as imipenem, meropenem, doripenem and ertapenem, have been potent and reliable therapeutic options for patients with serious infections. Their spectrum of activity includes those pathogens responsible for infections such as those in the intra-abdominal space, urinary tract, and respiratory tract with a potency as good or better than any other antibiotic class, targeting the cell wall of bacteria, a critical element of bacterial defense. Resistance to the class, generally caused by organisms which have acquired a carbapenemase, is rarely, if ever, seen in the community setting and is primarily localized to patients with substantial healthcare exposures, particularly recent hospitalizations. These drugs are generally very well tolerated. Their limitation is the requirement to be delivered intravenously, restricting their utility to hospitalized patients.

Our Sulopenem Program

Our sulopenem program has the potential to offer a solution to the problem of antibiotic resistance and the limitations of existing agents. Sulopenem has in vitro activity against gram-negative organisms with resistance to one or more established antibiotics and can be delivered in an oral formulation. If a UTI occurs in the community setting, oral sulopenem can be provided as a tablet, offering an option for care of those with a culture proven or suspected MDR pathogen, potentially avoiding the need for hospitalization. If a patient requires hospitalization for an infection due to a resistant organism, treatment can be initiated intravenously with sulopenem and once the infection begins to improve, stepped down to oral sulopenem, potentially enabling the patient to leave the hospital.

Potential Advantages of Oral Sulopenem and Sulopenem

We are developing our sulopenem program to offer patients and clinical care providers a new option to treat drug-resistant gram-negative infections with confidence in its antimicrobial activity, and the flexibility to treat patients in the community while getting those hospitalized back home.

Sulopenem’s differentiating characteristics include:

•Activity as an oral agent and favorable pharmacokinetic profile. Sulopenem is the active moiety with antibacterial activity. Oral sulopenem is a prodrug specifically selected among many other prodrug candidates because it enables the absorption of sulopenem from the gastrointestinal tract. It is this oral agent, sulopenem etzadroxil, combined with probenecid that we believe meets an urgent medical need to allow patients with resistant pathogens to be treated safely in the community, as well as allowing hospitalized patients to continue their treatment at home. Oral sulopenem is sufficiently absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract to allow the parent compound, sulopenem, to achieve adequate exposure in the tissues and, as demonstrated in animal models, to significantly reduce the burden of offending pathogens. Based on pharmacokinetic modeling we believe dosing of the oral agent twice daily will provide tissue exposure sufficient to resolve clinical infection.

•Targeted spectrum of activity against relevant pathogens without pressure on other incidental gram-negative organisms. Sulopenem is active against the pathogens that are most likely to cause infection of the urinary and gastrointestinal tract, including E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. mirabilis and B. fragilis. Like ertapenem, sulopenem is not active against certain gram-negative organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. These organisms are not typically seen in community UTIs and are infrequently identified in UTIs in the hospital, except when patients have had an indwelling

7

urinary catheter for an extended duration. As a result, we believe the targeted spectrum of sulopenem is less likely to put pressure on those pathogens which could otherwise have led to carbapenem resistance.

•Activity against multidrug resistant pathogens. Bacteria are accumulating resistance mechanisms to multiple classes of antibiotics within the same organism, and, as a consequence, physicians are losing confidence in existing antibiotics as empiric therapy before culture results become available. Sulopenem is active against organisms that have multiple resistance mechanisms and can help avoid some of the consequences of ineffective antibiotic therapy.

•Documented safety and tolerability profile. In our completed Phase 3 program, sulopenem IV and oral sulopenem were well tolerated. In the cIAI clinical trial, among the 668 patients treated, treatment-related adverse events were observed in 6.0% and 5.1% of patients on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively, with the most commonly reported drug-related adverse event being diarrhea, which was observed in 4.5% and 2.4% of patients on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively. Discontinuations from treatment were uncommon for both regimens, occurring in 1.5% of patients on sulopenem and 2.1% of patients on ertapenem. Serious adverse events unrelated to study treatment were seen in 7.5% of patients on sulopenem and 3.6% of patients on ertapenem. In the cUTI trial, patients received either sulopenem IV followed by sulopenem etzadroxil, if eligible for oral therapy, or ertapenem IV followed by ciprofloxacin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, if eligible for oral therapy. Among 1,392 treated patients, treatment-related adverse events were observed in 6.0% and 9.2% of patients on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively, with the most commonly reported adverse events being headache (3.0% and 2.2%), diarrhea (2.7% and 3.0%) and nausea (1.3% and 1.6%), on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively. Discontinuations from treatment were uncommon for both regimens, occurring in 0.4% of patients on sulopenem and 0.6% of patients on ertapenem. Serious adverse events unrelated to study treatment were seen in 2.0% of patients on sulopenem and 0.9% of patients on ertapenem. In the uUTI trial (SURE 1), patients received either oral sulopenem or ciprofloxacin. Among 1,660 treated patients, treatment related adverse events were observed in 17.0% and 6.2% of patients on sulopenem and ciprofloxacin, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea (12.4% and 2.5%), nausea (3.7% and 3.6%), and headache (2.2% and 2.2%), for sulopenem and ciprofloxacin patients, respectively. The difference in adverse events was driven by diarrhea which, in the majority of patients, was mild and self-limited. Overall discontinuations due to adverse events were uncommon on both regimens and were seen in 1.6% of patients on sulopenem and 1.0% of patients on ciprofloxacin. Serious adverse events were seen in 0.7% of patients on sulopenem with one drug-related serious adverse event due to transient angioedema and 0.2% of patients on ciprofloxacin with no drug-related serious adverse event. In the recently completed uUTI trial, REASSURE, patients received either oral sulopenem or Augmentin®. Among 2,214 treated patients, treatment related adverse events were observed in 18.9% and 12.3% of patients on sulopenem and Augmentin®, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea (8.1% and 4.1%), nausea (4.3% and 2.9%), and headache (2.2% and 1.5%), for sulopenem and Augmentin® patients, respectively. The difference in adverse events was driven by diarrhea which, in the majority of patients, was mild and self-limited. Overall discontinuations due to adverse events were uncommon on both regimens and were seen in 0.7% of patients on sulopenem and 0.4% of patients on Augmentin®. Serious adverse events were seen in 0.0% of patients on sulopenem and 0.5% of patients on Augmentin® with no drug-related serious adverse event.

•Availability of an IV formulation. Patients sick enough to require hospitalization may not be good candidates for initial oral therapy given potential uncertainties around the ability to absorb drugs due to diminished gastrointestinal and target tissue perfusion in patients with compromised cardiovascular status associated with sepsis or reduced gastrointestinal motility. An IV and oral formulation will enable the conduct of clinical registration trials in a manner consistent with typical clinical practice, allow for confidence in the initiation of therapy in seriously ill patients and, if approved, offer both important formulations as therapeutic options.

•Advanced manufacturing program. The synthetic pathway for sulopenem, initially defined in the 1980s, has now evolved through its third iteration, incorporating improvements in yield and scalability. We plan to register two different contract manufacturing organizations to manufacture the API for oral sulopenem. One manufacturer has completed process validation for oral sulopenem to date providing sufficient API for clinical supplies and commercial launch if oral sulopenem is approved for marketing. We will initially rely on a single third-party facility to manufacture all of our sulopenem tablets. In the future, given the importance of sulopenem to our potential commercial results, we will consider establishing additional sources.

Market Opportunity for Oral Sulopenem and Sulopenem

Based upon the clinical evidence to date in eradicating key pathogens, coupled with unmet medical need, if approved, we expect the commercial opportunity for oral sulopenem to be substantial with initial focus on the treatment of uUTIs in elevated risk patients caused by drug-resistant pathogens in the community. We estimate that approximately 30% of uUTIs in the United States are caused by quinolone non-susceptible pathogens, and approximately 1% of infections are caused by pathogens that are resistant to all commonly available classes of oral antibiotics.

Acute cystitis remains one of the most common indications for prescribing antimicrobials to otherwise healthy women, resulting in as many as 15 million office or emergency room visits in the United States annually, according to a review published in 2015. Up to

8

50% of all women experience one episode by 32 years of age. In addition, there are approximately 3.6 million patients a year in the United States for the more serious cases of cUTI.

In the United States, E. coli resistance presently exceeds 20% for fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and ampicillin. Our market research indicated that physicians identified the lack of effective oral agents for these more difficult drug-resistant infections as a key unmet need in their practice. Physicians are particularly concerned by drug-resistant infections in the 35% of patients considered to be at elevated risk for treatment failure, as they pose significant potential clinical and economic challenges to the healthcare system when initial therapy is unsuccessful.

Given the growing prevalence of bacterial resistance that has rendered existing oral therapies ineffective, coupled with the FDA mandating new safety labeling changes to enhance warnings limiting fluoroquinolone use in uncomplicated infections due to the association with disabling and potentially permanent side effects, physicians are seeking new alternatives to safely and effectively treat their patients.

We believe oral sulopenem’s value proposition will aid physicians in the community setting to address the unmet need for a safe and effective oral uUTI therapy to treat the growing number of patients with suspected or confirmed resistant pathogen(s). In addition, we believe our sulopenem program will offer a compelling value proposition to hospitals by enabling the transition of patients from IV therapy in the inpatient setting to an oral therapy in the community.

Oral Sulopenem and Sulopenem Clinical Development Program

The objective of our sulopenem program is to deliver to patients an oral and IV formulation of sulopenem approved in the United States and Europe for the treatment of infections due to resistant gram-negative pathogens. Sulopenem’s spectrum of activity, the availability of an oral agent delivered in a convenient dosing schedule and the evolving safety profile supported its further development for the target indications of uUTI, cUTI and cIAI. Oral sulopenem is the oral prodrug metabolized to sulopenem, its therapeutically active form, combined with probenecid.

Both sulopenem and oral sulopenem have received QIDP designation status for the indications of uUTI, cUTI and cIAI as well as for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, acute bacterial prostatitis, gonococcal urethritis, and pelvic inflammatory disease. Fast track designation for these seven indications in both the oral and intravenous formulations has also been granted. QIDP designation status for other indications is also possible given the coverage of gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria by sulopenem, pending submission of additional documentation and acceptance by the FDA. We had received feedback on the development program in an end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA, which provided guidance on the size of the safety database, the non-clinical study requirements, the design of the Phase 1 and Phase 3 clinical trials, the pediatric development plan, as well as support for the proposed chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) development activities through production of commercial supplies. The Phase 3 clinical trials for treatment of cIAI, cUTI and uUTI received SPA agreements with the FDA. All three Phase 3 clinical trials were initiated in the third quarter of 2018 and completed enrollment by the end of 2019. In December 2019, we announced that sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapy for the cIAI trial. EMA Scientific Advice received by us, consistent with the existing guidance for this indication, supports an endpoint assessed earlier than the primary study endpoint and a non-inferiority margin of -12.5%. In the second quarter of 2020, we announced the results of our Phase 3 clinical trials in cUTI and uUTI. In the cUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapies, with the difference in response rates driven almost entirely by higher rates of asymptomatic bacteriuria on the sulopenem IV to oral sulopenem arm relative to the ertapenem IV to oral ciprofloxacin arm, only evident at the test of cure visit. The rates of patients receiving additional antibiotics or with residual cUTI symptoms were similar between therapies. Similarly, in the uUTI trial, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to ciprofloxacin in the population of patients with baseline pathogens susceptible to ciprofloxacin, driven to a large degree by a greater amount of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem treated patients at the test of cure visit relative to those receiving ciprofloxacin. However, in the uUTI trial, in the population of patients with baseline pathogens resistant to quinolones, sulopenem achieved the related primary endpoint by demonstrating superiority to ciprofloxacin, providing evidence of a treatment effect in patients with uUTI. Notwithstanding failure to meet the endpoints described above, in all three Phase 3 clinical trials, at all timepoints measured, the clinical response to sulopenem and/or oral sulopenem was similar to the comparator regimen (non-inferior), except in the instance of the quinolone non-susceptible population in the Phase 3 uUTI trial in which oral sulopenem was statistically superior. Further, we believe the secondary supporting analyses and safety data support the potential of sulopenem in the treatment of multi-drug resistant infections. Based on discussions with the FDA at a pre-NDA meeting in September 2020 and previous correspondence with the FDA, we submitted an NDA for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the FDA accepted the application for review in January 2021. As described above, we received a CRL from the FDA on July 23, 2021 in respect of our NDA. The CRL provided that the FDA had completed its review of the NDA and had determined that it could not approve the NDA in its present form. The CRL further provided that additional data are necessary to support approval of oral sulopenem for the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone and recommended that we conduct at least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial, potentially using a different comparator drug. In July 2022 we reached an agreement with the FDA under the SPA

9

process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REASSURE, in October 2022. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the Augmentin® susceptible population. In October 2023 we completed enrollment in the REASSURE clinical trial, enrolling 2,222 patients. In January 2024, we announced that sulopenem met the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority to Augmentin® in the Augmentin®-susceptible population, and demonstrated statistically significant superiority versus Augmentin® in the Augmentin® susceptible population, in the REASSURE clinical trial. Additionally, though not an approvability issue, the FDA recommended in its CRL that we conduct additional non-clinical PK/PD studies to support dose selection for the proposed treatment indication(s). We have also completed the additional non-clinical PK/PD investigations, as recommended by the FDA, which we believe support the dosing regimen selected for oral sulopenem. We expect to resubmit our NDA to the FDA in the second quarter of 2024. Provided that the resubmitted NDA addresses all of the deficiencies identified in the CRL we received from the FDA in July 2021, we expect that the FDA will complete its review and take action six months from the date the FDA receives the resubmitted NDA (or during the fourth quarter of 2024).

Microbiology Surveillance Data

Sulopenem has demonstrated potent in vitro activity, as defined by its minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), against nearly all genera of Enterobacteriaceae, in anaerobes such as Bacteroides, Prevotella, Porphyromonas, Fusobacterium and Peptostreptococcus, gram-positive organisms including methicillin-susceptible staphylococci, Streptococcus pyogenes and Streptococcus pneumoniae, as well as other community respiratory pathogens such as Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis. The MIC is a measure used to describe the results of an in vitro assay in which a fixed number of a strain of bacteria are added to a 96-well plate and increasing concentrations of antibiotic are sequentially added to the wells. The concentration of antibiotic which inhibits growth of the bacteria in a well is considered the MIC. When looking across a collection of many strains of a species of bacteria, the MIC90 is the lowest concentration of antibiotic at which 90% of the strains are inhibited. Sulopenem lacks in vitro activity (MIC90 ≥ 16 µg/mL) against the oxidative non-fermenting pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumanii, Burkholderia cepacia, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Given its lack of potency against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, its use in treatment of infections caused by pathogenic Enterobacteriaceae should not select for pseudomonas resistant to carbapenems, as can occur with imipenem and meropenem. For various species of enterococci, the MIC90 values were 4 to ≥ 64 µg/mL. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci also have high MIC values.

The table below highlights the MIC50 and MIC90 of key target pathogens collected by JMI Laboratories in 2019 responsible for the infections studied in our Phase 3 program.

Organism Class	N	MIC50	MIC90
		(µg/mL)	(µg/mL)
E. coli	983	0.03	0.03
ESBL negative	813	0.03	0.03
ESBL positive	170	0.03	0.06
Klebsiella spp.	347	0.03	0.12
ESBL negative	224	0.03	0.06
ESBL positive	49	0.06	1
P. mirabilis	91	0.25	0.25
E. cloacae species complex	110	0.12	0.5
C. koseri	9	0.03	-
S. marcescens	36	0.5	2
Gram-negative anaerobes	287	0.12	1

A comparison of the in vitro activity of sulopenem relative to other carbapenems, as well as to currently prescribed oral agents for UTI, is provided below. The activity of sulopenem at slightly higher doses was very similar to that of ertapenem and meropenem, which are currently commercially available. In addition, sulopenem is noted to have potent in vitro activity against relevant organisms that are resistant to fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and are ESBL positive. The prevalence of resistance for the

10

existing generic antibiotics, now exceeding 20% for many pathogens, underscores the challenge of treating patients with uUTI in an outpatient setting or releasing patients from the hospital with a cUTI or cIAI on a reliable stepdown oral therapy.

	E. coli		K. pneumoniae		P. mirabilis
	N = 983		N = 273		N = 91
Penem Class:	MIC90 (μg/mL)	%S*	MIC90 (μg/mL)	%S*	MIC90 (μg/mL)	%S*
Sulopenem	0.03	-	0.06	-	0.25	-
Ertapenem	0.03	99.7	0.06	97.1	0.015	100
Imipenem	<0.12	99.9	0.5	98.5	2	38.5
Meropenem	0.03	99.9	0.03	98.5	0.12	100
Oral Agents Currently on Market:
Nitrofurantoin	32	96	>64	23.1	>64	2.2
Ciprofloxacin	>16	70.3	4	78.3	>16	74.7
Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole	>16	65.9	>16	80.2	>16	80
Amoxicillin-Clavulanate	16	80.3	16	85.3	2	97.8

N = bacterial samples; each product candidate was tested using the same sample size

% S = percentage susceptible, meaning the proportion of the number of isolates tested that had a MIC below the FDA defined susceptibility breakpoint; boxed values signify a percentage susceptible below 80%, which is the threshold for concern for use of an antibiotic before a culture is available

* Susceptibility breakpoints are established by the FDA and documented in product labeling based on the antibacterial agent treatment efficacy in Phase 3 clinical trials associated with a specific MIC. As such, susceptibility breakpoints have not yet been determined for sulopenem.

Animal Models

Sulopenem reduced the bacterial burden in the bladder and tissues of infected animals in a uUTI model in both diabetic and normal C3H/HeN mice using a MDR ST131 E. coli, a strain which is ESBL positive and resistant to fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Sulopenem was highly efficacious and remarkably robust in its reduction in bacterial burden, leading to complete resolution of bacteriuria in all or most of the animals in both study arms with the high dose treatment regimen also reducing bacterial burden in bladder tissue and the kidney.

Non-clinical Pharmacology

Metabolic clearance is primarily characterized by hydrolysis of the ß-lactam ring. Sulopenem does not inhibit the major cytochrome P450 isoforms suggesting a low potential for drug interactions at therapeutic concentrations. It is predominantly excreted in the urine. Plasma protein binding for sulopenem is low at approximately 11%.

Phase 1 Program

The table below outlines the Phase 1 clinical trials that have been conducted with sulopenem etzadroxil and sulopenem.

Protocol	Year	Dose (mg), other medication	Subjects on sulopenem or sulopenem etzadroxil	Treatment (Days)
Sulopenem (CP-70,429)—Phase 1 Single Dose Clinical Trials
A109001	1987	1000 mg	6	1
Japanese PK		250 mg, 500 mg, 1000 mg	18	1
A7371007	2007	400 mg, 800 mg, 1600 mg, 2400 mg, 2800 mg, placebo	24	1
IT001-105	2018	366 mg IV	34	1
Sulopenem (CP-70,429)—Phase 1 Multiple Dose Clinical Trials
Japanese PK		500 mg, 1000 mg	12	5
Japanese PK		1000 mg	6	5
A1091001	2009	800 mg, 1200 mg, 1600 mg, 2000 mg, placebo	40	14
IT001-103	2019	1000 mg	15	2

11

Protocol	Year	Dose (mg), other medication	Subjects on sulopenem or sulopenem etzadroxil	Treatment (Days)
IT001-104	2019	1000 mg	10	3
IT001-105	2018	1000 mg	12	3
Sulopenem etzadroxil (PF-03709270)—Phase 1 Single Dose Clinical Trials
A8811001	2007	400 mg, 600 mg, 1000 mg, 2000 mg, placebo	9	1
A8811006	2008	2000 mg	4	1
A8811007	2007	600 mg, probenecid	4	1
A8811008	2008	1200 mg, probenecid	24	1
A8811018	2008	1000 mg, 1200 mg, probenecid, aluminum hydroxide, pantoprazole	17	1
A8811003	2008	2000 mg, 4000 mg, 6000 mg, 8000 mg, placebo	11	1
IT001-101	2017	500 mg, 1000 mg, probenecid	48	1
IT001-102	2017	500 mg, probenecid	13	1
Sulopenem etzadroxil (PF-03709270)—Phase 1 Multiple Dose Clinical Trials
A8811003	2008	2000 mg, 1200 mg, probenecid, placebo	18	10
A8811015	2009	500 mg, 1000 mg, 1500 mg, probenecid, placebo, Augmentin	48	7
IT001-101	2017	500 mg, probenecid	64	7
IT001-103	2019	Bilayer tablet, 500 mg	47	2
IT001-104	2019	Bilayer tablet, 500 mg	19	3
IT001-105	2018	500 mg, bilayer tablet	34	2
Sulopenem (CP-70,429), Sulopenem etzadroxil (PF-03709270)—Phase 1 Renal Impairment Clinical Trial
A8811009	2010	200mg, 800 mg sulopenem or 1000 mg sulopenem etzadroxil	29	1
		Total	566

Note: Total number reflects the sum of patients exposed to a specific formulation and dosing duration and will overestimate the number of subjects exposed as some subjects received more than one formulation in a study.

Oral Sulopenem

We have designed oral sulopenem to include probenecid, a pharmacokinetic enhancer that delays the excretion through the kidneys of sulopenem and other ß-lactam antibiotics and has been extensively used for this purpose and the treatment of gout. It enables us to maximize the antibacterial potential of any given dose of oral sulopenem.

We conducted three Phase 1 clinical trials, IT001-101, IT001-102 and IT001-105, in healthy volunteers, in part to select the prodrug and explore various doses of probenecid combined with 500 mg of sulopenem etzadroxil. Findings from these clinical trials are consistent with those from other pharmacokinetic studies that employed different total doses of sulopenem etzadroxil. Specifically, the AUC (area under the curve, a measure of total exposure) and Cmax (maximum plasma concentration) are generally dose-proportional, and the concomitant use of probenecid increases the plasma exposure of sulopenem with any dose with which it was studied.

The mean total sulopenem exposures in the urine after a single 500 mg dose in IT001-101 exceeded the MIC90 for the entire twice-daily dosing interval in the 32 healthy volunteers who received 500 mg of sulopenem etzadroxil, as illustrated in the graph below. In a urine antibacterial assay, urine collected at two hours post-dose was bactericidal for numerous strains of E. coli and K. pneumoniae, including a strain of K. pneumoniae that was resistant to meropenem and imipenem, with a sulopenem MIC of 16 µg/mL.

12

Mean total sulopenem exposure in urine after single 500 mg dose of sulopenem etzadroxil with or without probenecid

 

In IT001-102, we evaluated sulopenem etzadroxil administered with and without probenecid in a randomized cross-over trial in healthy volunteers in a fasted state. Subjects receiving sulopenem etzadroxil in a powder-in-a-bottle formulation co-administered with a separate tablet of probenecid demonstrated an increase in the time over MIC (of a 12 hour dosing interval) and AUC of sulopenem, as shown in the table below.

			Sulopenem Parameter (Day 1)
Treatment	N	Descriptive Statistic	Cmax (ng/mL)	AUC0-¥ (hr*ng/mL)	T>MIC (0.5 µg/mL) [hr]	T>MIC (0.5 µg/mL) [%]
500 mg Sulopenem etzadroxil	10	Mean	1928	3871	2.8	23.3
500 mg Sulopenem etzadroxil + 500 mg probenecid	11	Mean	1929	4964	3.6	30.2

N = number of subjects; Cmax = maximum plasma concentration; AUC0- = area under the curve from the initiation of dosing extrapolated through infinite time

In addition, results from IT001-101 demonstrated that food increases the mean AUC and mean time over MIC (0.5 µg/mL) of 500 mg sulopenem etzadroxil dosed with 500 mg probenecid on Day 1 by 62% and 68%, respectively.

In IT001-105 we studied the bioavailability of sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid in our planned commercial formulation of a bilayer tablet. The absolute bioavailability of the bilayer tablet was approximately 40% in a fasted state and 64% in the fed state. A graph of the sulopenem plasma concentrations in the patients in this trial is provided below.

13

 

A Phase 1 drug interaction study with itraconazole demonstrated no interaction. An additional Phase 1 drug interaction study with valproic acid was also conducted which showed that IV sulopenem decreased the AUC and Cmax of valproic acid by approximately 33% and 28%, respectively, and oral sulopenem etzadroxil tablet without probenecid decreased valproic acid AUC and Cmax by approximately 25% and 19%, respectively, relative to valproic acid alone. These results are consistent with reports in the literature for other penem antibiotics co-administered with valproic acid. In contrast, multiple doses of sulopenem etzadroxil as the bilayer tablet had no effect on valproic acid AUC and Cmax relative to administration of valproic acid alone.

Sulopenem, IV Formulation

Doses of sulopenem up to 2800 mg as a single IV dose and 2000 mg BID, or twice daily, of sulopenem as IV over fourteen days were studied in three Phase 1 clinical trials in healthy adults, one study in patients with renal insufficiency in the United States and two Phase 1 clinical trials in Japan. Results from these pharmacokinetic studies with various IV doses of sulopenem delivered over various durations established dose proportionality among the regimens with regard to AUC and maximal plasma concentrations (Cmax). A representative analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters, a subset of study A1091001, is described in the table below.

	N	Dose (mg)	Infusion duration (h)	Cmax (µg/mL)	AUC 0-¥ (µg hr/mL)	T1/2 (h)	CLtotal (mL/min/kg)
Day 1	8	800	3	7.27	22.4	0.83
	8	1200	1	32.5	42.3	1.04
	8	1200	2.5	16.6	41.9	1.12
Day 14	5	800	3	8.97	26.5	0.89	15.4
	6	1200	1	30.7	41.4	1.05	14.7
	6	1200	2.5	13.5	34.6	1.01	18.8

N = number of subjects; Cmax = maximum plasma concentration; AUC0-¥ = area under the curve from the initiation of dosing extrapolated through infinite time; T½ = half-life; CLtotal = clearance (only measured on Day 14)

14

A single dose cross-over design study of 1000 mg of sulopenem infused over 3 hours was given to fasting healthy adults in our IT001-105 Phase 1 clinical trial. Pharmacokinetic parameters observed in this trial are described in the table below.

	N	Dose (mg)	Infusion duration (h)	Cmax (µg/mL)	AUC 0- (µg hr/mL)	T1/2 (h)
Day 1	12	1000	3	9.15	28.9	1.65

 

Modeling and Dose Selection

Based on in vitro susceptibility data from surveillance studies, pharmacokinetics gathered from Phase 1 clinical trials, and population pharmacokinetic data from patients, we performed modeling to help choose the doses for the Phase 3 program. The MIC90 for all Enterobacteriaceae potentially involved in the target indications was 0.25 µg/mL and for the weighted distribution of pathogens most likely to be associated with the indication was 0.06 µg/mL. We have performed modeling both for the weighted distribution of MICs expected in the clinical trials as well as at a fixed MIC of 0.5 µg/mL. Data obtained from animal experiments confirmed that, similar to carbapenems and lower than that for other ß-lactams, the %Tfree >MIC required for bacteriostasis is approximately 10–19%, depending on the dosing regimen; we have used 17% in our models. Based on the outputs from those models, the IV dose of sulopenem studied in the Phase 3 clinical trials was 1000 mg sulopenem delivered over 3 hours once a day. The oral dose studied was 500 mg of sulopenem etzadroxil given with 500 mg of probenecid in a single bilayer tablet twice daily. In vitro dose fractionation and hollow-fiber infection model studies conducted subsequently were also supportive of the selected dose regimen.

Phase 2 Clinical Trial with sulopenem and sulopenem etzadroxil

In 2009, Pfizer initiated a Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial in hospitalized patients with CAP comparing two regimens of IV sulopenem followed by sulopenem etzadroxil to ceftriaxone IV followed by amoxicillin-clavulanate. The sulopenem regimens were a single 600 mg IV dose of sulopenem followed by 1000 mg BID of sulopenem etzadroxil or a 600 mg of sulopenem for a minimum of four doses followed by 1000 mg BID of sulopenem etzadroxil. The clinical trial was terminated early for business reasons after 33 of 250 planned total patients were enrolled and treated. Clinical response rates at the test-of-cure visit (7–14 days after end of therapy) of the ITT patients were similar on each regimen (9/10, 9/11 and 7/12, on sulopenem single IV dose, sulopenem multidose IV and ceftriaxone, respectively). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in six subjects each in the sulopenem groups and eight subjects in the ceftriaxone group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was diarrhea, reported by a total of six subjects (two in each treatment group). Treatment related diarrhea was reported by one subject following

15

sulopenem single dose IV, and by a further two subjects following ceftriaxone. There was one treatment-related serious adverse event in the ceftriaxone group. There were no deaths reported in this clinical trial.

Phase 3 Clinical Trials - Completed

Based on FDA Guidance from February 2015 (Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections: Developing Drugs for Treatment. Guidance for Industry; Complicated Urinary Tract Infections: Developing Drugs for Treatment. Guidance for Industry) and on studies conducted by other sponsors, we negotiated SPA agreements for cUTI, cIAI and uUTI. All three Phase 3 clinical trials were initiated in the third quarter of 2018, and completed enrollment by the end of 2019. Oral sulopenem alone was studied for the treatment of outpatients with a uUTI. Oral sulopenem and sulopenem were studied for the treatment of cIAI and cUTI. A brief overview of the comparator agents, sample size, timing of efficacy assessments and duration of oral and IV dosing is provided in the graphic below. Non-inferiority in these clinical trials was defined by the lower limit of the confidence interval in the treatment difference of no more than -10%. The uUTI clinical trial also tested for superiority in the subset of patients with ciprofloxacin resistant pathogens at baseline. An open-label noncomparative treatment study of oral ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily for three days in uUTI patients was conducted to help characterize certain sample size assumptions as well as enable study logistics for this Phase 3 clinical trial. Patients in the cUTI and cIAI clinical trials received five days of sulopenem IV or comparator and then stepped down to two to five additional days of oral treatment with either oral sulopenem or ciprofloxacin. In the cIAI study, metronidazole was added to ciprofloxacin in the oral stepdown regimen.

Patients with an organism resistant to ciprofloxacin in the cUTI and cIAI clinical trials were allowed to substitute amoxicillin-clavulanate for the stepdown oral therapy. Patients who received oral sulopenem were encouraged, but not required, to dose with food.

 

In the uUTI trial (SURE 1), clinical outcome at the test-of-cure visit was noted as cure for those patients who are alive, who demonstrate resolution of the symptoms of uUTI present at trial entry (and no new symptoms) such that no new antibiotics are required, as well as the demonstration that the bacterial pathogen(s) found at trial entry are reduced to <103 CFU/mL on urine culture on Day 12. The primary endpoint was clinical and microbiologic response on Day 12 in the micro-MITT population. The micro-MITT population consists of those randomized patients who received a dose of study drug and had a gram-negative organism isolated in their urine. Two independent populations were prespecified and tested for an overall response of success at the test of cure (TOC) (Day 12): a) Superiority (286 patients): quinolone non-susceptible population assessed for superiority, defined as a p value <0.05, and b) Non-inferiority (785 patients): quinolone-susceptible population tested for non-inferiority, based on lower limit of 95% confidence interval for difference in microbiologic-modified intent to treat population being less than -10%.

16

Micro-MITT population		Sulopenem n/N (%)	Ciprofloxacin n/N (%)	Difference (95% CI)	P value
Quinolone Non-Susceptible Population	Overall Response (TOC)	92/147 (62.6%)	50/139 (36.0%)	26.6% (15.1, 37.4)	< 0.001
	Reason for Failure: ASB	27 (18.4%)	38 (27.3%)
	Clinical Response (TOC)	122/147 (83.0%)	87/139 (62.6%)	20.4% (10.2, 30.4)	< 0.001
	Overall Response (EOT)	95/147 (64.6%)	42/139 (30.2%)	34.4% (23.1, 44.8)	< 0.001
Quinolone Susceptible Population	Overall Response (TOC)	247/370 (66.8%)	326/415 (78.6%)	-11.8% (-18.0, -5.6)
	Reason for Failure: ASB	47 (12.7%)	16 (3.9%)
	Clinical Response (TOC)	300/370 (81.1%)	349/415 (84.1%)	-3.0% (-8.4, 2.3)
	Overall Response (EOT)	240/370 (64.9%)	271/415 (65.3%)	-0.4% (-7.1, 6.2)
Combined (Quinolone Susceptible and Quinolone Non-Susceptible Populations)	Overall Response (TOC)	339/517 (65.6%)	376/554 (67.9%)	-2.3% (-7.9, 3.3)
	Reason for Failure: ASB	74 (14.3%)	54 (9.7%)
	Clinical Response (TOC)	422/517 (81.6%)	436/554 (78.7%)	2.9% (-1.9, 7.7)
	Overall Response (EOT)	335/517 (64.8%)	313/554 (56.5%)	8.3% (2.4, 14.1)	0.006

ASB = asymptomatic bacteriuria; EOT = end of trial; TOC = test of cure

In the quinolone non-susceptible population, sulopenem is superior to ciprofloxacin. In the Combined TOC (quinolone susceptible and quinolone non-susceptible populations), sulopenem is non-inferior to ciprofloxacin; however, in the quinolone susceptible population only, sulopenem is not non-inferior due primarily to asymptomatic bacteriuria at TOC (at end of treatment, results are similar between arms).

In the Phase 3 cUTI trial, clinical outcome at the test-of-cure visit was noted as cure for those patients who are alive, who demonstrate resolution of the symptoms of cUTI present at trial entry (and no new symptoms) such that no new antibiotics are required, as well as the demonstration that the bacterial pathogen(s) found at trial entry are reduced to <103 CFU/mL on urine culture on Day 21. The primary endpoint was clinical and microbiologic response on Day 21 in the micro-MITT population. The micro-MITT population consists of those randomized patients who received a dose of study drug and had a gram-negative organism isolated in their urine. In this population, the difference in outcomes was 6.1% with a 95% confidence interval on that difference of -12.0% to -0.1%. Non-inferiority for the primary endpoint required that the lower limit of the difference in the outcome rates be >-10%.

	Sulopenem	Ertapenem	Difference (95% Confidence Interval)
Test of Cure
microMITT	67.80%	73.90%	-6.1% (-12.0, -0.1)
Clinically Evaluable	89.4%	88.4%	1.0% (-3.1, 5.1)
End of Treatment
Overall Response	86.70%	88.90%	-2.2% (-6.5, 2.2)

17

In the Phase 3 cIAI trial, clinical outcome at the test-of-cure visit was noted as cure for those patients who are alive, have resolution in signs and symptoms of the index infection and for whom no new antibiotics or interventions for treatment failure were required. The primary endpoint was clinical response on Day 28 in the micro-MITT population. The micro-MITT population consists of those randomized patients who received a dose of study drug and had a gram-negative organism isolated from their infection site. In this population, the difference in outcomes was 4.7% with a 95% confidence interval on that difference of -10.3% to 1.0%. Non-inferiority for the primary endpoint required that the lower limit of the difference in the outcome rates be >-10%:

	Sulopenem	Ertapenem	Difference (95% Confidence Interval)
Test of Cure
microMITT	85.5%	90.2%	-4.7% (-10.3, 1.0)
MITT	87.2%	90.0%	-2.9% (- 7.7, 2.0)
Clinically Evaluable	93.6%	95.7%	-2.0% (-5.7, 1.7)
Microbiologically Evaluable	92.5%	95.5%	-3.0% (-7.5, 1.4)
End of Treatment
microMITT	83.5%	85.3%	-1.8% (- 8.1, 4.5)
MITT	83.7%	85.4%	-1.7% (-7.1, 3.8)
Clinically Evaluable	89.4%	90.0%	-0.7% (-5.6, 4.3)
Microbiologically Evaluable	88.5%	88.9%	-0.4% (-6.3, 5.4)

Safety Profile of Oral Sulopenem and Sulopenem

Sulopenem is a thiopenem and a member of the class of ß-lactam antibiotics, a class from which numerous safe and well tolerated antibiotics have been available for over thirty years.

In the cIAI trial, among 668 treated patients, treatment-related adverse events were observed in 6.0% and 5.1% of patients on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively, with the most commonly reported drug-related adverse event being diarrhea, which was observed in 4.5% and 2.4% of patients on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively. Discontinuations from treatment were uncommon for both regimens, occurring in 1.5% of patients on sulopenem and 2.1% of patients on ertapenem. Serious adverse events unrelated to study treatment were seen in 7.5% of patients on sulopenem and 3.6% of patients on ertapenem. In the cUTI trial, patients received either sulopenem IV followed by sulopenem etzadroxil, if eligible for oral therapy, or ertapenem IV followed by ciprofloxacin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, if eligible for oral therapy. Among 1,392 treated patients, treatment-related adverse events were observed in 6.0% and 9.2% of patients on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively, with the most commonly reported adverse events being headache (3.0% and 2.2%), diarrhea (2.7% and 3.0%) and nausea (1.3% and 1.6%), on sulopenem and ertapenem, respectively. Discontinuations from treatment were uncommon for both regimens, occurring in 0.4% of patients on sulopenem and 0.6% of patients on ertapenem. Serious adverse events unrelated to study treatment were seen in 2.0% of patients on sulopenem and 0.9% of patients on ertapenem. In the uUTI trial (SURE 1), patients received either oral sulopenem or ciprofloxacin. Among 1,660 treated patients, treatment related adverse events were observed in 17.0% and 6.2% of patients on sulopenem and ciprofloxacin, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea (12.4% and 2.5%), nausea (3.7% and 3.6%), and headache (2.2% and 2.2%), for sulopenem and ciprofloxacin patients, respectively. The difference in adverse events was driven by diarrhea which, in the majority of patients, was mild and self-limited. Overall discontinuations due to adverse events were uncommon on both regimens and were seen in 1.6% of patients on sulopenem and 1.0% of patients on ciprofloxacin. Serious adverse events were seen in 0.7% of patients on sulopenem with one drug-related serious adverse event due to transient angioedema and 0.2% of patients on ciprofloxacin with no drug-related serious adverse event. In the recently completed uUTI trial, REASSURE, patients received either oral sulopenem or Augmentin®. Among 2,214 treated patients, treatment related adverse events were observed in 18.9% and 12.3% of patients on sulopenem and Augmentin®, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea (8.1% and 4.1%), nausea (4.3% and 2.9%), and headache (2.2% and 1.5%), for sulopenem and Augmentin® patients, respectively. The difference in adverse events was driven by diarrhea which, in the majority of patients, was mild and self-limited. Overall discontinuations due to adverse events were uncommon on both regimens and were seen in 0.7% of patients on sulopenem and 0.4% of patients on Augmentin®. Serious adverse events were seen in 0.0% of patients on sulopenem and 0.5% of patients on Augmentin® with no drug-related serious adverse event.

Data is also available for the oral formulation collected in healthy volunteers in the Phase 1 program conducted by Pfizer and Iterum that is consistent with the adverse event profile observed above. An additional adverse event of interest identified with the oral prodrug, as further assessed in detail in clinical trial IT001-101, is loose stool/diarrhea, which was considered of mild severity and self-limited, as seen with other broad spectrum oral antibiotics with activity against the anaerobic flora of the gastrointestinal tract. During the seven-day dosing interval, the incidence of diarrhea, defined as having three or more episodes of loose stool in one day or having two or more episodes of loose stool per day for two consecutive days, peaked at 13% on Day 3 and fell to 2% by Day 7, with no patient discontinuing their dosing due to this event. For patients who took their dose with food, the peak incidence was 9%,

18

dropping again to 3% by Day 4, similar to placebo. Some patients also identified a mild change in the odor of their urine after dosing with either the oral or IV formulations, as can be seen with other ß-lactam antibiotics.

We have received a waiver from the FDA for the requirement of performing a thorough QT interval study given the lack both of any significant preclinical findings and signals in Phase 1 clinical trials during which intensive electrocardiogram monitoring was performed. The EMA in written scientific advice also agreed that a QT interval study is not warranted. A preclinical study of the hydrolysis product of etzadroxil (2-ethylbutyric acid) has been performed in which no effect on plasma carnitine in rats was identified, while a significant effect of a different prodrug moiety, pivoxil, was observed. No reports of seizures, seen with some members of the carbapenem class, were noted in preclinical studies or clinical trials.

Phase 3 Clinical Trial – REASSURE

 

In July 2022, we reached an agreement with the FDA under the SPA process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REASSURE, in October 2022. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the Augmentin® susceptible population. In October 2023 we completed enrollment in the REASSURE clinical trial, enrolling 2,222 patients. In January 2024, we announced that sulopenem met the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority to Augmentin® in the Augmentin®-susceptible population, and demonstrated statistically significant superiority versus Augmentin® in the Augmentin® susceptible population, in the REASSURE clinical trial. A brief overview of the comparator agent, sample size, timing of efficacy assessment and duration of oral dosing is provided in the graphic above. Non-inferiority in this clinical trial is defined by the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference of no more than -10%. We expect to resubmit our NDA to the FDA in the second quarter of 2024.

The table below summarizes the key efficacy data for REASSURE at the TOC visit:

	Sulopenem/probenecid 500 mg/500 mg BID N=480 n (%)	Augmentin® (Amoxicillin/clavulanate)875 mg/125 mg BID N=442 n (%)	Treatment Differencei   (95% CI)
Overall Responseii	296 (61.7)	243 (55.0)	6.7 (0.3, 13.0)
Clinical Successiii	371 (77.3)	339 (76.7)	0.6 (-4.8, 6.1)
Microbiological Successiv	361 (75.2)	295 (66.7)	8.5 (2.6, 14.3)

[i] Difference in oral sulopenem versus Augmentin®in the m-MITTS population

[ii] Combined clinical and microbiological success (primary endpoint)

[iii] Clinical success at TOC = symptom resolution + no new uUTI symptoms

[iv] Eradication of qualifying uropathogen to <103 CFU/mL at TOC visit

19

Pfizer License Agreement

In November 2015, we and our wholly owned subsidiary, Iterum Therapeutics International Limited, entered into a license agreement with Pfizer (the Pfizer License), pursuant to which we acquired from Pfizer an exclusive, royalty-bearing license under certain patent rights and know-how to develop, manufacture and commercialize sulopenem and related compounds, including, among others, sulopenem etzadroxil and three other sulopenem prodrugs, globally for the treatment, diagnosis and prevention of infectious diseases and infections in humans. The licensed patents include two U.S. patents, one of which covers the composition of matter of sulopenem etzadroxil, one patent in Japan, one patent in Hong Kong and one patent in Mexico. None of the licensed patents cover the IV formulation of sulopenem. All patents directed to the compound sulopenem expired prior to us entering into the Pfizer License. Pursuant to the Pfizer License, our exclusive license from Pfizer includes certain know-how, data and regulatory documents that will support the development of sulopenem. We have the right to grant development or commercialization sublicenses to third parties, provided that we (1) obtain Pfizer’s prior written consent in connection with such sublicense, (2) enter into a written sublicense agreement consistent with the terms and conditions of the Pfizer License and (3) include Pfizer as a third-party beneficiary under such sublicense. As between Pfizer and us, we own all right, title and interest in any intellectual property rights that are developed by us or our sublicensees in connection with the Pfizer License.

Under the Pfizer License, we have sole responsibility for and control over the development, regulatory approval, manufacture and commercialization of licensed products worldwide, including bearing all costs and expenses associated therewith. We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and seek regulatory approval for one licensed product in the United States and in at least one country out of any of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain or the United Kingdom (Major Market Countries) and, if deemed appropriate by us in our exercise of commercially reasonable efforts, for a second licensed product in the United States or at least one Major Market Country. In addition, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize a licensed product in the United States and each Major Market Country in which we have received regulatory approval for such product.

Under the Pfizer License, we have paid Pfizer a one-time nonrefundable upfront fee of $5.0 million and a total of $15.0 million in clinical milestones based on first patient dosed in our Phase 3 clinical trials with sulopenem etzadroxil and sulopenem IV and are obligated to pay Pfizer potential future regulatory milestone payments, as well as potential sales milestones upon achievement of net sales ranging from $250.0 million to $1.0 billion for each product type (sulopenem etzadroxil and other prodrugs, and sulopenem and other non-prodrugs). We are obligated to pay Pfizer royalties ranging from a single-digit to mid-teens percentage of marginal net sales of each licensed product. Pfizer also received 381,922 of our Series A preferred shares (which converted to 25,461 ordinary shares in connection with our initial public offering) at a value of $15.71 per share as additional payment for the licensed rights. In addition, if we sublicense or assign any of our rights to any licensed products to a third party, and we receive in connection with such transaction a threshold amount of at least a low nine figure dollar amount over a specified period of time, we will be obligated to pay Pfizer an additional one-time payment of a low eight figure dollar amount.

At our cost and expense, we are responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents worldwide, using specific legal counsel in various jurisdictions as set forth in the Pfizer License. If we elect to forgo prosecution or maintenance of a licensed patent, we must notify Pfizer and Pfizer has the right to continue prosecution and maintenance of such licensed patent and the exclusive license granted to us under such licensed patent will become a non-exclusive and non-sublicensable license. Subject to certain consultation rights granted to Pfizer, we have the first right, but not the obligation, to enforce the licensed patents at our cost and expense. If we elect to enforce any licensed patent, we may not enter into a settlement agreement that would: (1) adversely affect the validity, enforceability or scope of any of the licensed patents, (2) give rise to any liability for Pfizer, (3) admit non-infringement of any of the licensed patents or (4) otherwise impair Pfizer’s rights in any of the licensed patents or licensed know-how without the prior written consent of Pfizer.

The Pfizer License continues in effect until the expiration of all royalty terms thereunder, unless earlier terminated. Upon such expiration, the Pfizer License shall become non-exclusive, fully-paid, royalty free, perpetual and irrevocable. The royalty term for each licensed product in each country begins as of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country and lasts until the later of (1) the expiration of the applicable licensed patents in such country, (2) the expiration of regulatory or data exclusivity for such licensed product in such country and (3) fifteen years after the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country. Pursuant to the terms of the Pfizer License, each party has the right to terminate the Pfizer License upon the other party’s (1) material breach of the Pfizer License that remains uncured after 60 days (or, if the breach cannot be cured in 60 days, up to 150 days) of receipt of notice or (2) insolvency. In addition, we have the unilateral right to terminate the Pfizer License for convenience by providing 90 days’ written notice to Pfizer.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, including seeking and maintaining rights in patents intended to cover our product candidates and compositions, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture and any other inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business.

20

We own two U.S. patents, one Japanese patent, one Korean patent and one Australian patent, with one U.S. Patent, the Japanese patent, the Korean patent and the Australian patent directed to the composition of the bilayer tablet of oral sulopenem and its related preparations and/or uses, and the other U.S. patent directed to the method of use of oral sulopenem in treating multiple diseases, including uUTIs. We also own three pending U.S. patent applications, and twenty four pending foreign patent applications, which collectively cover uses of sulopenem and probenecid and bilayer tablets of sulopenem etzadroxil and probenecid. In addition to patents owned by us, we also rely on the Pfizer License for intellectual property rights that are important or necessary for the development of sulopenem etzadroxil and the IV formulation of sulopenem. We do not however license any patent rights that cover the IV formulation of sulopenem and all patent rights covering the compound sulopenem expired prior to us entering into the Pfizer License. We also rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Our success will significantly depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology and inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our in-licensed patents and patents we may own in the future, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

Intellectual Property Relating to Oral Sulopenem

As of February 29, 2024, we exclusively license from Pfizer two U.S. patents and three foreign patents, including one U.S. patent directed to composition of matter of sulopenem etzadroxil, which is projected to expire in 2029, subject to potential extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Act, to 2034, and three foreign patents related to sulopenem etzadroxil. We also own two U.S. patents, one Japanese patent, one Korean patent and one Australian patent, with one U.S. Patent, the Japanese patent, the Korean patent and the Australian patent directed to the composition of the bilayer tablet of oral sulopenem and its related preparations and/or uses, and the other U.S. patent directed to the method of use of oral sulopenem in treating multiple diseases, including uUTIs. The patents owned by us are scheduled to expire no earlier than 2039, excluding any additional term for patent adjustments or patent term extensions. We also own three pending U.S. patent applications, and 24 pending foreign patent applications, which collectively cover uses of sulopenem and probenecid and bilayer tablets of sulopenem etzadroxil and probenecid. Any U.S. or foreign patents issuing from the pending applications are projected to expire between 2039 and 2041, excluding any additional term for patent adjustments or patent term extensions.

Patent Term and Patent Term Extensions

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent 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 United States Patent and Trademark Office in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug, biological product or medical device approved pursuant to a pre-market approval may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date set for the patent. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be granted an extension and only those claims reading on the approved drug are extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug.

Trade Secrets

We rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our unpatented technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our trade secrets and proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, suppliers, contractors and other 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 our trade secrets and other proprietary information may be disclosed. We may not have adequate remedies for any breach and could lose our trade secrets and other proprietary information through such a breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting trade secrets, know-how and inventions. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property.”

21

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and generic drug companies. Many of our potential competitors have greater financial, technical and human resources than we do, as well as greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our potential competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining FDA approved drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Finally, the development of new treatment methods for the diseases we are targeting could render our product candidates non-competitive or obsolete.

We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of oral sulopenem and sulopenem, if approved, will be efficacy, coverage of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience of oral dosing, price, availability of reimbursement from governmental and other third-party payors and susceptibility to drug resistance.

If approved, oral sulopenem could compete with a few oral antibiotics currently in late-stage clinical development to treat uUTIs, including gepotidacin from GlaxoSmithKline and pivmecillinam from Utility Therapeutics Limited. If our competitors obtain marketing approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for their product candidates more rapidly than us, it could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

We also expect that oral sulopenem, if approved, would compete with future and current generic versions of marketed oral antibiotics such as levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, nitrofurantoin, fosfomycin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, cephalexin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. If approved, we believe that oral sulopenem would compete effectively against these compounds on the basis of sulopenem’s potential:

•broad range of activity against a wide variety of resistant and MDR gram-negative bacteria;

•low probability of drug resistance;

•favorable safety and tolerability profile;

•convenient oral dosing regimen and opportunity to step down from IV-administered therapy; and

•use as a monotherapy treatment for resistant and MDR gram-negative infections.

There are several IV-administered products marketed for the treatment of infections resistant to first-line therapy for gram-negative infections, including Avycaz from AbbVie Inc. and Pfizer, Vabomere from Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., Zerbaxa from Merck & Co., Zemdri from Cipla, Xerava from Innoviva, Recarbrio from Merck & Co, and Fetroja from Shionogi & Co., Ltd.

If approved, we believe that sulopenem would compete effectively and potentially occupy an earlier place in treatment against these compounds on the basis of sulopenem’s potential, including that sulopenem:

•allows physicians to stay in the same molecule with stepdown therapy to oral sulopenem;

•has a convenient once a day dosing over a three-hour infusion period;

•has a broad spectrum activity against a wide variety of resistant and MDR gram-negative bacteria;

•has a low probability of drug resistance; and

•has a favorable safety and tolerability profile.

QIDP Status

As noted above, the FDA has designated sulopenem and oral sulopenem as QIDPs for the indications of uUTI, cUTI and cIAI as well as community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, acute bacterial prostatitis, gonococcal urethritis, and pelvic inflammatory disease. Fast track designation for these seven indications in both the oral and intravenous formulations has also been granted. QIDP status makes sulopenem eligible to benefit from certain incentives for the development of new antibiotics provided under the GAIN Act. Further, QIDP status could add five years to any other regulatory exclusivity period that may be granted. QIDP status for other indications is also possible given the coverage of gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria by sulopenem, pending submission of additional documentation and acceptance by the FDA. Fast track status provides an opportunity for more frequent meetings with the

22

FDA, more frequent written communication related to the clinical trials, eligibility for accelerated approval and priority review and the potential for a rolling review.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union (EU), extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, clinical trials, testing, manufacture, including any manufacturing changes, authorization, pharmacovigilance, adverse event reporting, recalls, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, sales, import and export of pharmaceutical products and product candidates such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in other countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

United States Government Regulation

In the United States, the FDA regulates drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products, and for their regulatory approval, is typically referred to as a sponsor.

The process required by the FDA before a drug product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with good laboratory practices (GLP) regulations;

•design of a clinical protocol and submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug (IND) application which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

•approval by an independent institutional review board (IRB) at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated;

•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practices (GCPs) to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each indication;

•submission to the FDA of an NDA;

•satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;

•satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices (cGMP), and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•satisfactory completion of FDA audits of clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of clinical data;

•payment of user fees and securing FDA review and approval of the NDA; and

•commitment to comply with any post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) and the potential requirement to conduct post-approval studies.

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Preclinical tests intended for submission to the FDA to support the safety of a product candidate must be conducted in compliance with GLP regulations and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act. A drug sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Such studies are typically referred to as IND-enabling studies. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted.

The IND and IRB Processes

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. Beyond reviewing an IND to assure the

23

safety and rights of patients, the FDA's review also focuses on the quality of the investigation and whether it will be adequate to permit an evaluation of the drug's effectiveness and safety. If there are any outstanding questions, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve them before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. Clinical holds are imposed by the FDA whenever there is concern for patient safety and may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical trials, non-clinical studies, and/or CMC. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol or part of a protocol is not allowed to proceed, while other protocols may do so. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed.

In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must continue to review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB, which must operate in compliance with FDA regulations, must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects and must monitor the trial until completed. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board (DSMB) or data monitoring committee (DMC). This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated checkpoints based on review of available data from the study, to which only the DSMB or DMC maintains access. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of a clinical trial can occur if the DSMB or DMC determines that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or for other reasons.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial along with the requirement to ensure that the data and results reported from the clinical trials are credible and accurate. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the criteria for determining subject eligibility, the dosing plan, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, the procedure for timely reporting of adverse events, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

Phase 1: The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or patients with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. During Phase 1 clinical trials, sufficient information about the investigational drug’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.

Phase 2: The drug is administered to a larger, but still limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted indications and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. Phase 2 clinical trials are typically well-controlled and closely monitored.

Phase 3: The drug is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. Phase 3 clinical trials usually involve a larger number of participants than a Phase 2 clinical trial.

In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such trials, typically referred to as post-approval clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. Moreover, a clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA.

24

In December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA), Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans. In January 2024, the FDA issued draft guidance setting out its policies for the collection of race and ethnicity data in clinical trials.

In June 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance with updated recommendations for GCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The draft guidance is adopted from the International Council for Harmonisation’s (ICH) recently updated E6(R3) draft guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise. In addition, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining recommendations for the implementation of decentralized clinical trials.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Results from one trial may not be predictive of results from subsequent trials. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Sponsors of clinical trials are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Although the FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to the long delay of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the FDA has issued several pre-notices for voluntary corrective action and several notices of non-compliance during the past two years. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues.

Clinical Studies Outside the United States in Support of FDA Approval

In connection with our clinical development program, we may conduct trials at sites outside the United States. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical studies, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.

The acceptance by the FDA of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States in support of US approval may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials are subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted.

Interactions with FDA during the clinical development program

Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. Specifically, sponsors may meet with the FDA prior to the submission of

25

an IND (Pre-IND meeting), at the end of Phase 2 clinical trial (EOP2 meeting) and before a biologics license application (BLA) is submitted (Pre-BLA meeting). Meetings at other times may also be requested. There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND and pre-BLA meetings, as well as end of phase meetings such as EOP2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product, including for example meetings to facilitate early consultations on the use of a biomarker as a new surrogate endpoint that has never been previously used as the primary basis for product approval in the proposed context of use. A Type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues, which should be limited to no more than two focused topics, and should not require input from more than three disciplines or divisions. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product. The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. Nonetheless, from a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure.

Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new drug products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational drugs for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational drugs under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the drug under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application. Our Expanded Access Program for oral sulopenem for the treatment of cUTIs due to quinolone non-susceptible uropathogens after an initial course of effective intravenous therapy became available in December 2020.

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, as required by the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, passed in 2016, sponsors are required to make policies for evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access for patients publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trial, or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

In addition, 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 I 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 drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

Pediatric Studies

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, a biologics license application or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the 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. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The sponsor, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the sponsor may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The law requires the FDA to send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. The FDA maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation, although FDA has taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA. In May 2023, the FDA issued new draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under PREA.

26

Manufacturing and other regulatory requirements

Concurrent with clinical trials, sponsors usually complete additional animal safety studies, develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing commercial quantities of the product candidate in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other criteria, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the finished product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Specifically, the FDA’s regulations require that pharmaceutical products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved pharmaceuticals are required to register their establishments with the FDA and some state agencies, and they are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with cGMPs and other requirements. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States.

Inspections must follow a “risk-based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated. Changes to the manufacturing process, specifications or container closure system for an approved product are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. The FDA’s regulations also require, among other things, the investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and the imposition of reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers involved in producing the approved product.

Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of products must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Both domestic and foreign manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Any product manufactured by or imported from a facility that has not registered, whether foreign or domestic, is deemed misbranded under the FDCA. The manufacturing facilities may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other laws. If a manufacturing facility is not in substantial compliance with the applicable regulations and requirements imposed when the product was approved, regulatory enforcement action may be taken, which may include a warning letter or an injunction against shipment of products from the facility and/or recall of products previously shipped.

Submission and Review of an NDA

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s CMC and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. In most cases, the submission of an NDA is subject to a substantial application user fee. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2024 is $4,048,695 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2024 is $416,734. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission. Despite these review goals, it is not uncommon for FDA review of an application to extend beyond the PDUFA goal date.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit its filing and substantive review. In pertinent part, the FDA’s regulations state that an application “shall not be considered as filed until all pertinent information and data have been received” by the FDA. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information, and it will also be 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. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facilities in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meet standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity.

27

In connection with its review of an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP. The FDA generally accepts data from foreign clinical trials in support of an NDA if the trials were conducted under an IND. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified the FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspections of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to the FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides 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.

The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) plan to mitigate any identified or suspected serious risks. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools.

Decisions on an NDA

The FDA reviews an application to determine whether the product is safe and whether it is effective for its intended use(s), with the latter determination being made on the basis of substantial evidence. The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional information may satisfy this standard. Ultimately, the FDA will determine whether the expected benefits of the drug product outweigh its potential risks to patients. This assessment is informed by the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA will issue either a Complete Response Letter (CRL), or an approval letter. A CRL generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met before the NDA may be resubmitted and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for FDA to reconsider the application. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the sponsor an additional six month extension to respond. The FDA has committed to reviewing resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. For those seeking to challenge the FDA’s CRL decision, the agency has indicated that sponsors may request a formal hearing on the CRL or they may file a request for reconsideration or a request for a formal dispute resolution.

An approval letter, on the other hand, authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, post-approval clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. In addition, none of these expedited programs changes the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.

28

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need, or if the drug qualifies as a QIDP under the GAIN Act. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides additional opportunities for interaction with the FDA’s review team and may allow for rolling review of NDA components before the completed application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. The FDA may decide to rescind the fast track designation if it determines that the qualifying criteria no longer apply.

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that offer major advances in treatment for a serious condition or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. Most products that are eligible for fast track designation are also likely to be considered appropriate to receive a priority review. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines. These six and ten month review periods are measured from the “filing” date for NDAs for new molecular entities. The FDA will automatically give a priority review designation for the first application submitted in respect of a product for which a QIDP designation was granted.

Limited Population Drug Pathway

With passage of the Cures Act, Congress also authorized the FDA to approve an antibacterial or antifungal drug product, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, as a “limited population drug.” To qualify for this approval, or LPAD, pathway, the drug product must be intended to treat a serious or life‑threatening infection in a limited population of patients with unmet needs; the standards for approval of drugs under the FDCA must be satisfied; and FDA must receive a written request from the sponsor to approve the drug as a limited population drug pursuant to this provision. The FDA’s determination of safety and effectiveness for such a product must reflect the benefit‑risk profile of such drug in the intended limited population, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the infection the drug is intended to treat and the availability or lack of alternative treatment in such a limited population. Accordingly, the FDA expects that development programs for drugs eligible for approval under the LPAD pathway will follow streamlined approaches to clinical development such as smaller, shorter or fewer clinical trials.

Any drug product approved under this pathway must be labeled with the statement “Limited Population” in a prominent manner and adjacent to the proprietary name of the drug product. The prescribing information must also state that the drug is indicated for use in a limited and specific population of patients and copies of all promotional materials relating to the drug must be submitted to the FDA at least 30 days prior to dissemination of the materials. If the FDA subsequently approves the drug for a broader indication, the agency may remove any post‑marketing conditions applicable to the product, including requirements with respect to labeling and review of promotional materials. Nothing in this pathway to approval of a limited population drug prevents sponsors of such products from seeking designation or approval under other provisions of the FDCA, such as accelerated approval.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product label, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including post-approval clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products that are placed on the market. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved, and approved drugs may generally be promoted only for their approved indications. Promotional claims must also be consistent with the product’s FDA-approved label, including claims related to safety and effectiveness. The FDA and other federal agencies also closely regulate the promotion of drugs in specific contexts such as direct-to-consumer advertising, industry-sponsored scientific and education activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet

29

and social media. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product.

If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes products, as well as adverse public relations and reputational harm. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion, and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. In addition, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences of regulatory non-compliance include, among other things:

•restrictions on, or suspensions of, the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

•interruption of production processes, including the shutdown of manufacturing facilities or production lines or the imposition of new manufacturing requirements;

•fines, warning letters or other enforcement letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;

•refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;

•product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or

•injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to a variety of federal and state laws. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) was the first federal law to set minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states and to regulate the distribution of drug samples. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. In November 2013, the federal Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) became effective in the United States, mandating an industry-wide, electronic, interoperable system to trace prescription drugs through the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain with a ten-year phase-in process. Manufacturers were required by November 2023 to have such systems and processes in place but, in August 2023, the FDA set a one-year period in which it would exercise its enforcement discretion with respect to these requirements.

Exclusivity and Approval of Competing Products

Hatch-Waxman Exclusivity

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA. To obtain approval of a generic drug, a sponsor must submit an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug (RLD). In addition, Congress authorized the FDA to approve a 505(b)(2) NDA for a drug for which the investigations made to show whether or not the drug is safe for use and effective in use and relied upon by the sponsor for approval of the application “were not conducted by or for

30

the sponsor and for which the sponsor has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted.”

Market and data exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications for competing products. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first sponsor to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the activity of the drug substance. This interpretation was confirmed with enactment of the Ensuring Innovation Act in April 2021. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), or a 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company that references the previously approved drug. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

The FDCA also provides three years of data exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA or 505(b)(2) NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant, are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application or supplement. Three-year exclusivity may be awarded for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosages, strengths or dosage forms of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Qualified Infectious Disease Product Exclusivity

Under the GAIN Act, the FDA may designate a product as a QIDP. In order to receive this designation, a drug must qualify as an antibiotic or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by either (i) an antibiotic or antifungal resistant pathogen, including novel or emerging infectious pathogens, or (ii) a so-called “qualifying pathogen” found on a list of potentially dangerous, drug-resistant organisms established and maintained by the FDA. A sponsor must request such designation before submitting a marketing application.

Upon approving an application for a QIDP, the FDA will extend by an additional five years any regulatory exclusivity period awarded, such as a five-year exclusivity period awarded for a new molecular entity. This extension is in addition to any pediatric exclusivity extension awarded, and the extension will be awarded only to a drug first approved on or after the date of enactment.

The GAIN Act provisions prohibit the grant of an exclusivity extension where the application is a supplement to an application for which an extension is in effect or has expired, is a subsequent application for a specified change to an approved product or is an application for a product that does not meet the definition of QIDP based on the uses for which it is ultimately approved.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of regulatory exclusivity to the term of any existing patent or non-patent regulatory exclusivity, including orphan exclusivity, for drug products. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data does not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

31

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the IND and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Federal and state data privacy laws

There are multiple privacy and data security laws that may impact our business activities, in the United States and in other countries where we conduct trials or where we may do business in the future. These laws are evolving and may increase both our obligations and our regulatory risks in the future. In the health care industry generally, under HIPAA, the HHS has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information, or PHI, used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. HIPAA may apply to us in certain circumstances and may also apply to our business partners in ways that may impact our relationships with them. Our clinical trials are regulated by the Common Rule, which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that may be applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.

At the state level, California has enacted legislation that has been dubbed the first “GDPR-like” law in the United States. Known as the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, it creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020 and requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers, provide such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information, and allow for a new cause of action for data breaches. Additionally, effective starting on January 1, 2023, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, significantly modified the CCPA, including by expanding consumers’ rights with respect to certain sensitive personal information. The CPRA also creates a new state agency that will be vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. The CCPA and CPRA could impact our business activities depending on how it is interpreted and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to not only cyber threats but also the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and individually identifiable health information. These provisions may apply to some of our business activities.

In addition to California, eleven other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data, which includes health data in some cases. Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering or have already passed comprehensive privacy laws during the 2024 legislative sessions that will go into effect in 2025 and beyond. Other states will be considering similar laws in the future, and Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, the State of Washington passed the My Health My Data Act in 2023 which specifically regulated health information that is not otherwise regulated by the HIPAA rules, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data, and more states are considering such legislation in 2024. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.

Regulation Outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products outside of the United States. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of other countries or economic areas, such as the European Union, before we may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product authorization, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

32

Clinical Trials

On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (CTR) became effective in the EU and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the EU. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one EU Member State will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public.

Beyond streamlining the process, the new regulation includes 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 into two parts. Part I is assessed 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). 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 new regulation did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the applicable ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion.

The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. Clinical trials for which an application was submitted (i) prior to January 31, 2022 under the Clinical Trials Directive, or (ii) between January 31, 2022 and January 31, 2023 and for which the sponsor has opted for the application of the Clinical Trials Directive remain governed by said Directive until January 31, 2025. After this date, all clinical trials (including those which are ongoing) will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.

Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the European Union at the EU Clinical Trials Registry.

Marketing Authorization

Under European Union regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by biotechnology or those medicinal products containing new active substances for specific indications such as the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases and designated orphan medicines, and optional for other medicines which are highly innovative. Under the centralized procedure, a marketing application is submitted to the EMA where it will be evaluated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and a favorable opinion typically results in the grant by the European Commission of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all European Union member states within 67 days of receipt of the opinion. The initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more “concerned” member states based on an assessment of an application performed by one member state, known as the “reference” member state. Under the decentralized approval procedure, a sponsor submits an application, or dossier, and related materials to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a member state does not recognize the marketing authorization, the disputed points are eventually referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states.

Conditional approval

In particular circumstances, EU legislation (Article 14–a Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/5 and Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use) enables sponsors to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full MA. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products) if (1) the product candidate is intended for the treatment, prevention or medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases; (2) the product candidate is intended to meet unmet medical needs of patients; (3) a marketing authorization may be granted prior to submission of comprehensive clinical data provided that the benefit of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required; (4) the risk-benefit

33

balance of the product candidate is positive, and (5) it is likely that the sponsor will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data. A conditional MA may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new clinical trials and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional MAs are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional MA.

Regulatory requirements after marketing authorization

As in the United States, both marketing authorization holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA and the competent authorities of the individual EU Member States both before and after grant of the manufacturing and marketing authorizations. The holder of an EU marketing authorization for a medicinal product must, for example, comply with EU pharmacovigilance legislation and its related regulations and guidelines which entail many requirements for conducting pharmacovigilance, or the assessment and monitoring of the safety of medicinal products. The manufacturing process for medicinal products in the European Union is also highly regulated and regulators may shut down manufacturing facilities that they believe do not comply with regulations. Manufacturing requires a manufacturing authorization, and the manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, including compliance with EU cGMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and active pharmaceutical ingredients.

In the European Union, the advertising and promotion of approved products are subject to EU Member States’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with clinicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. In addition, other legislation adopted by individual EU Member States 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 Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, as approved by the competent authorities. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion, which is prohibited in the European Union.

Reimbursement and pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals

In the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. Member States may approve a specific price for a product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the EU have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage health care expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. 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 Member States, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced Member States, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union took place on January 31, 2020. The European Union and the United Kingdom reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (Agreement), which was applied provisionally beginning on January 1, 2021 and which entered into force on May 1, 2021. The Agreement focuses primarily on free trade by ensuring no tariffs or quotas on trade in goods, including healthcare products such as medicinal products. Thereafter, the European Union and the United Kingdom will form two separate markets governed by two distinct regulatory and legal regimes. As such, the Agreement seeks to minimize barriers to trade in goods while accepting that border checks will become inevitable as a consequence that the United Kingdom is no longer part of the single market. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law whereas Northern Ireland continues to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol.

34

General Data Protection Regulation

The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.

In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the European Economic Area (EEA) to the United States. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for transfers of personal data from the EEA to the United States. Following the CJEU decision, in October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-US Privacy Shield. The European Commission initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework in December 2022 and the European Commission adopted the adequacy decision on July 10, 2023. The adequacy decision will permit U.S. companies who self-certify to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the EU to the U.S. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms. The uncertainty around this issue has the potential to impact our business at the international level.

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the U.K. voted in favor of leaving the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. As with other issues related to Brexit, there are open questions about how personal data will be protected in the U.K. and whether personal information can transfer from the EU to the U.K. Following the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU, the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the U.K. and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. While the Data Protection Act of 2018 in the U.K. that “implements” and complements the GDPR has achieved Royal Assent on May 23, 2018 and is now effective in the U.K., it is unclear whether transfer of data from the EEA to the U.K. will remain lawful under the GDPR, although these transfers currently are permitted by an adequacy decision from the European Commission. The U.K. government has already determined that it considers all European Union 27 and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the U.K. to the EU/EEA remain unaffected. In addition, a recent decision from the European Commission appears to deem the U.K. as being “essentially adequate” for purposes of data transfer from the EU to the U.K., although this decision may be re-evaluated in the future. The U.K. and the U.S. have also agreed to a U.S.-UK “Data Bridge,” which functions similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and provides an additional legal mechanism for companies to transfer data from the U.K. to the United States. In addition to the U.K., Switzerland is also in the process of approving an adequacy decision in relation to the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (which would function similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the U.S.-UK Data Bridge in relation to data transfers from Switzerland to the United States). Any changes or updates to these developments have the potential to impact our business.

Pharmaceutical Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of drug products depend, in part, on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors, such as government health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a drug product from third-party payors is a time-consuming and costly process that can require the provision of supporting scientific, clinical and cost effectiveness data for the use of drug products to the payor. There may be significant delays in obtaining such coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drug products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug product is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers operating costs, including research, development, intellectual property, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drug products and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved drug products. In the United States, third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own

35

reimbursement policies, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare coverage and reimbursement determinations. It is difficult to predict what third-party payors will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for new drug products. An inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from third-party payors for any approved drug products could have a material adverse effect on a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s operating results, ability to raise capital needed to commercialize drug products and overall financial condition.

Reimbursement may impact the demand for, and/or the price of, any drug product which obtains marketing approval. Even if coverage is obtained for a given drug product by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions, and their prescribing physicians, generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with those medications. Patients are unlikely to use a drug product, and physicians may be less likely to prescribe a drug product, unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover all or a significant portion of the cost of the drug product. Therefore, coverage and adequate reimbursement is critical to new drug product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic drug products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s net revenue and results.

In addition, it is expected that the increased emphasis on managed care and cost containment measures in the United States by third-party payors will continue and place further pressure on pharmaceutical pricing and coverage. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more drug products that gain regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, in the EU, the sole legal instrument at the EU level governing the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products is Council Directive 89/105/EEC (the Price Transparency Directive). The aim of the Price Transparency Directive is to ensure that pricing and reimbursement mechanisms established in the EU Member States are transparent and objective, do not hinder the free movement of and trade in medicinal products in the EU, and do not hinder, prevent or distort competition on the market. The Price Transparency Directive does not provide any guidance concerning the specific criteria on the basis of which pricing and reimbursement decisions are to be made in individual EU Member States, nor does it have any direct consequence for pricing or reimbursement levels in individual EU Member States. The EU Member States are free to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and/or reimbursement levels of medicinal products for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the medicinal product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the medicinal product on the market, including volume-based arrangements, caps and reference pricing mechanisms.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Sweden. The HTA process in the EU Member States is governed by the national laws of these countries. HTA is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact, and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. HTA generally focuses on the clinical efficacy and effectiveness, safety, cost, and cost-effectiveness of individual medicinal products as well as their potential implications for the healthcare system. Those elements of medicinal products are compared with other treatment options available on the market. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product vary between EU Member States. A negative HTA of one of our products by a leading and recognized HTA body, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom, could not only undermine our ability to obtain reimbursement for such product in the EU Member State in which such negative assessment was issued, but also in other EU Member States. For example, EU Member States that have not yet developed HTA mechanisms could rely to some extent on the HTA performed in countries with a developed HTA framework, such as the United Kingdom, when adopting decisions concerning the pricing and reimbursement of a specific medicinal product.

Other Healthcare Laws

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug product candidates which obtain marketing approval. In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, pharmaceutical manufacturers are exposed, directly, or indirectly, through customers, to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other

36

healthcare laws and regulations that may affect the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which a pharmaceutical manufacturer can market, sell and distribute drug products. Such laws include, without limitation the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; the federal false claims and civil monetary penalty laws, including the federal False Claims Act; the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA); HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology and Clinical Health Act of 2009, and its implementing regulations; the federal physician payment transparency requirements, sometimes referred to as the “Physician Payments Sunshine Act,” and its implementing regulations; and state and foreign law equivalents of each of the aforementioned federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of their exceptions and safe harbors, it is possible that business activities can be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. 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 business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations is costly and time consuming. If business operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other applicable governmental regulations a pharmaceutical manufacturer may be subject to penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from governmental funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment or restructuring of operations, any of which could adversely affect a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s ability to operate its business and the results of its operations.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States, there have been, and continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to the healthcare system that could affect the future results of pharmaceutical manufacturers’ operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs.

In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for drug products under government health care programs. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The Consolidated Appropriations Act’s health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the TCJA, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Further, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the PPACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the PPACA. Litigation and legislation over the PPACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the

37

implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden issued a new executive order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care, and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this executive order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

Pharmaceutical Prices

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries’ access to evidence-based care.

In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation.

Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized 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, 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 pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, further delayed implementation of this rule to January 1, 2032.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. To address these costs, the executive order directs the HHS to create a plan within 45 days to combat “excessive pricing of prescription drugs and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the federal government for such drugs, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging.” Thereafter, on September 9, 2021, HHS released its plan to reduce drug prices. The key features of that plan are to: (a) make drug prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting drug price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription drug industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (c) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments.

On August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare beginning in 2026, with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation first due in 2023; and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program beginning in 2025. The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in

38

2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least nine years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year.

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological 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. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, and wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional health care organizations 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 health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. 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.

Commercialization Strategy and Organization

After receiving positive data from our REASSURE trial, our board of directors determined that we should focus on a strategic process to sell, license, or otherwise dispose of our rights to sulopenem with the goal of maximizing shareholder value. In connection with this strategic process, we have engaged a financial advisor to assist management and the board in evaluating strategic alternatives.

Given our stage of development, we have not yet established a commercial organization or distribution capabilities for our initial indication. In the event our strategic process does not result in any type of transaction, and subject to our ability to raise sufficient capital to fund operations, we may commercialize our sulopenem program in the United States with a commercial partner and/or on our own with a targeted sales force in the community setting.

Prior to receiving marketing approval, and subject to the outcome of our strategic process, we may build an awareness program to familiarize physicians in the community setting with the rising rate of resistance of pathogens to the current oral therapies for uUTI, and in particular, the resistance rate of E. coli to quinolones in the specific areas those physicians are practicing. Additionally, prior to approval, and subject to the outcome of our strategic process, we may develop marketing, sales and training materials as well as begin interacting with physicians to discuss the uUTI disease state and challenges that the existing treatments are facing. Some pre-commercialization activities including research and planning were undertaken in early 2021 which can be built on if and when we are in a position to resume commercialization activities.

If the FDA approves oral sulopenem, subject to the outcome of our strategic process, we may build a commercial infrastructure to launch oral sulopenem in the United States. We would plan that the commercial infrastructure would be led operationally by highly experienced management personnel and would be comprised of a sales force, marketing team, health resource group and a managed markets group focused on reimbursement and access with third-party payors. We would also plan to have in place a patient and healthcare practitioner support group to assist with information requests, reimbursement logistics and assistance, and provide educational materials where appropriate.

In the event we were to build a commercial infrastructure ourselves, we would expect our sales team would focus its efforts on the physicians in the community and we would plan to segment these physicians into priority targets based on three key variables: the rate of resistance in a physician’s territory, the number of prescriptions generated by an individual physician for uUTI and the commercial payor coverage in that territory. With these target physicians, we would plan to deploy our commercial resources to highlight the patient profiles that would be appropriate for oral sulopenem, including patients with suspected or known quinolone resistant pathogens. We expect our commercial teams would work with physicians in the infectious disease field to answer questions regarding sulopenem’s clinical results and its pharmacokinetic profile, conduct medical education events regarding the emerging science and build awareness of sulopenem. To the extent access for, and awareness of, our sulopenem program was to increase, we

39

would plan to broaden our target audience and geography by increasing the number of sales representatives to capture a larger percentage of the market.

In the event our strategic process does not result in any type of transaction, and subject to our ability to raise sufficient capital to fund operations, we may focus our initial commercial efforts on the U.S. market, which we believe represents the largest market opportunity for our sulopenem program. We are currently evaluating a potential commercialization strategy outside the United States and believe that Europe and Asia represent significant opportunities because of rising rates of ESBL and quinolone resistance in these geographies, which in many countries exceeds the United States’ resistance rate.

Manufacturing

We do not currently own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of any of our product candidates. We currently rely on a small number of third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, drug substance, and finished drug product for our preclinical research and clinical trials. As of February 29, 2024, we had a 3-person team dedicated to managing the relationships with these manufacturers and the manufacturing process. Due to the complex and critical nature of drug manufacturing, we have employed a dual sourcing strategy in order to register two suppliers and validate one supplier for sulopenem etzadroxil API, with each supplier capable of producing commercial scale quantities under cGMP conditions. We also intend to have a third-party manufacturer produce the oral sulopenem bilayer tablets. In the future, given the importance of our oral formulation, we plan to pursue additional sources to manufacture tablets.

Employees and Human Capital

As of February 29, 2024, we had 14 full-time employees, including a total of three employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. We are also supported by consultants and contractors in most areas of the business, including clinical, regulatory, CMC, Quality Assurance and finance and business and operations support. Eight of our employees were primarily engaged in research and development activities, with the rest providing administrative, business and operations support. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our employee relations to be good. We may need to increase our workforce to support additional clinical activities, and, if we pursue additional clinical work related to other indications, we may increase our research and development headcount.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing employees and additional employees that may be hired. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of share-based compensation awards.

Our Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Ireland in June 2015 as a limited company and re-registered as a public limited company on March 20, 2018. Our principal executive offices are located at Fitzwilliam Court, 1st Floor, Leeson Close, Dublin 2, D02 YW24, Ireland, and our telephone number is (+353) 1 669-4820.

Available Information

We maintain a website with the address www.iterumtx.com. We make available free of charge through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. You can review our electronically filed reports, proxy and information statements and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% shareholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

40

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Careful consideration should be given to the following risk factors, in addition to the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in other documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, in evaluating our company and our business. Investing in our ordinary shares involves a high degree of risk. If any of the events described in the following Risk Factors and the risks described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K actually occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In these circumstances, the market price of our ordinary shares could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We have identified conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We may be forced to delay or reduce the scope of our development programs and/or limit or cease our operations if we are unable to obtain additional funding to support our current operating plan. We have identified conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As of December 31, 2023, we had $23.9 million of cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. Based on our available cash resources, including amounts raised subsequent to the year end under the “at-the-market” agreement, as disclosed in Note 17 to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we do not believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will enable us to fund our operating expenses for the next 12 months from the date of filing this Annual Report on Form 10-K including through repayment of the 6.500% Exchangeable Senior Subordinated Notes due in January 2025 (Exchangeable Notes).

This condition raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date the financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are issued. Management’s plans in this regard are described in Note 1 of the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. However, although Management intends to pursue plans to obtain additional funding to finance its operations, and the Company has successfully raised capital in the past, there is no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining sufficient funding on terms acceptable to us to fund continuing operations, if at all. In addition, our ability to raise additional capital through the issue of new shares for cash is limited to issuing only 1.8 million ordinary shares (or rights to acquire such shares) for cash, based on the amount of authorized ordinary shares unissued or unreserved and free from any statutory rights of pre-emption, and therefore available for issuance as of February 29, 2024. While shareholders approved an increase of an additional 60,000,000 ordinary shares at our annual general meeting in May 2023 (the “Additional Shares”), we did not receive approval for the disapplication of statutory pre-emption rights over such shares. Absent shareholder approval of the dis-application of statutory pre-emption rights with respect to the Additional Shares, any Additional Shares that we propose to issue for cash will first have to be offered to all of our existing shareholders on the same or more favorable terms on a pro-rata basis. As a result of this limitation, we are currently severely limited in the amount of ordinary shares we may sell for cash in any capital raising transaction, and where we propose to issue shares for cash consideration, we may be required to first offer those shares to all of our existing shareholders in a time-consuming pro-rata rights offering. Furthermore, while the statutory pre-emption right applies only to share issuances for cash consideration and it does not apply where we issue shares for non-cash consideration (such as in a share exchange transaction or in any transaction in which property other than cash is received by us in payment for shares), any such transaction would likely be time-consuming and complex to execute. In the event that these plans cannot be effectively realized, there can be no assurance that we will be able to continue as a going concern.

We have incurred net losses in each year since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses unless we successfully commercialize our sulopenem program.

We are a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We have not generated any product revenue and have incurred net losses in each year since our inception in 2015. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $461.3 million, cash and cash equivalents of $6.1 million and short-term investments of $17.9 million. Our product candidates, oral sulopenem and sulopenem (together, the sulopenem program), are in clinical development, and have not been approved for sale and we may never have our product candidates approved for commercialization. We submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted the application for review in January 2021. We received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA on July 23, 2021, in respect of our NDA. The CRL provided that the FDA had completed its review of the NDA and had determined that it could not approve the NDA in its present form. The CRL further provided that additional data are necessary to support approval of oral sulopenem for the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone and recommended that we conduct at least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial, potentially using a different comparator drug. In July 2022 we reached an agreement with the FDA under the special protocol assessment (SPA) process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REnewed ASsessment of Sulopenem in uUTI caused by Resistant Enterobacterales (REASSURE), in October 2022. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the

41

Augmentin® susceptible population. In October 2023 we completed enrollment in the REASSURE clinical trial, enrolling 2,222 patients. In January 2024, we announced that sulopenem met the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority to Augmentin® in the Augmentin®-susceptible population, and demonstrated statistically significant superiority versus Augmentin® in the Augmentin® susceptible population, in the REASSURE clinical trial. Additionally, though not an approvability issue, the FDA recommended in its CRL that we conduct additional non-clinical PK/PD studies to support dose selection for the proposed treatment indication(s). We have also completed the additional non-clinical PK/PD investigations, as recommended by the FDA, which we believe support the dosing regimen selected for oral sulopenem. We expect to resubmit our NDA to the FDA in the second quarter of 2024. Provided that the resubmitted NDA addresses all of the deficiencies identified in the CRL we received from the FDA in July 2021, we expect that the FDA will complete its review and take action six months from the date the FDA receives the resubmitted NDA (or during the fourth quarter of 2024).

We have financed our operations to date primarily with the issuance of ordinary shares and convertible preferred shares, pre-funded warrants and warrants, debt raised under a financing arrangement with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), a sub-award from the Trustees of Boston University under the Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator (CARB-X) program and the proceeds of a private placement which closed in January 2020 (the Private Placement) and a subsequent rights offering (the Rights Offering) pursuant to which our wholly owned subsidiary, Iterum Therapeutics Bermuda Limited (Iterum Bermuda), sold units (Units) consisting of (i) Exchangeable Notes; and (ii) Limited Recourse Royalty-Linked Subordinated Notes (RLNs and, together with the Exchangeable Notes, the Securities), to certain existing and new investors. In April 2018, we entered into a secured credit facility with SVB and made an initial drawdown of $15.0 million pursuant to a loan and security agreement. In April 2020, we entered into a note (PPP loan) with SVB of $0.7 million under the Paycheck Protection Program. In early June 2020, we issued and sold, in a registered direct offering (June 3, 2020 Offering), ordinary shares for aggregate gross proceeds to us of $5.0 million and net proceeds of $4.3 million after deducting fees payable to the placement agent and other offering expenses payable by us. In late June 2020, we issued and sold, in a registered direct offering (June 30, 2020 Offering), ordinary shares for aggregate gross proceeds to us of $5.0 million and net proceeds of $4.2 million after deducting fees payable to the placement agent and other offering expenses payable by us. In October 2020, we issued and sold, in a registered public offering (October 2020 Offering), ordinary shares and pre-funded warrants exercisable for ordinary shares, each offered together with warrants exercisable for ordinary shares, for aggregate gross proceeds to us of $17.4 million and net proceeds of $15.5 million after deducting fees payable to the placement agent and other offering expenses payable by us. On February 8 and February 10, 2021, we issued and sold, pursuant to an underwritten agreement and including the underwriter’s exercise in full of its option to purchase additional ordinary shares (February 2021 Underwritten Offering), ordinary shares for aggregate gross proceeds to us of $46.0 million and net proceeds of $42.1 million after deducting fees payable to the underwriter and other offering expenses payable by us. On February 12, 2021, we issued and sold, in a registered public offering (February 2021 Registered Direct Offering), ordinary shares for aggregate gross proceeds to us of $35.0 million and net proceeds of $32.2 million after deducting fees payable to the placement agent and other offering expenses payable by us. On October 7, 2022, we entered into an at the market offering agreement (the Sales Agreement) with H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC (HC Wainwright), as agent, pursuant to which we may offer and sell ordinary shares, nominal value $0.01 per share for aggregate gross sales proceeds of up to $16.0 million (subject to the availability of ordinary shares), from time to time through HC Wainwright by any method permitted that is deemed to be an “at the market offering” as defined in Rule 415(a)(4) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. During the year ended December 31, 2023, we sold 639,825 ordinary shares under the Sales Agreement at an average price of $1.68 per share for net proceeds of $1.0 million. As of December 31, 2023, net proceeds of $16.2 million have been received from the exercise of certain warrants issued as part of the June 30, 2020 Offering, October 2020 Offering and February 2021 Underwritten Offering. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including preclinical and clinical development, for our sulopenem program.

Following receipt of the CRL, in order to reduce operating expenses and conserve cash resources, we halted any remaining pre-commercial activities for oral sulopenem and plan to limit spending to essential costs required in connection with the potential resubmission of the NDA.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses as we conduct clinical trials of oral sulopenem and sulopenem, seek marketing approval for oral sulopenem if clinical trials are successful, engage in pre-commercialization activities and pursue the development of our sulopenem program in additional indications, including through preclinical and clinical development. Our expenses will also increase substantially if and as we:

•complete work to support a potential resubmission of our NDA for oral sulopenem;

•initiate other studies as part of our sulopenem program, some of which may be required for regulatory approval of our product candidates and/or may be conducted in response to the CRL;

•establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities either directly or through a third-party, to commercialize oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem in the United States if we obtain marketing approval from the FDA;

•establish manufacturing and supply chain capacity sufficient to provide commercial quantities of oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem, if we obtain marketing approval and undertake commercialization activities;

42

•pursue the development of our sulopenem program in additional indications;

•maintain, expand, defend and protect our intellectual property portfolio;

•hire additional clinical, scientific and commercial personnel;

•add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our product development and planned future commercialization efforts; and

•acquire or in-license other product candidates or technologies.

43

We will require additional capital to fund our operations. If we fail to obtain financing when needed or on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

Developing pharmaceutical products is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses as we conduct clinical trials of oral sulopenem and sulopenem, seek marketing approval for oral sulopenem if clinical trials are successful, engage in pre-commercialization activities, and pursue the development of our sulopenem program in additional indications, including through preclinical and clinical development. If we obtain marketing approval for oral sulopenem, sulopenem or any future product candidate and undertake commercialization activities, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, distribution and manufacturing. Some of these expenses may be incurred in advance of marketing approval, and could be substantial. Additionally, principal and interest on the outstanding Exchangeable Notes become due on January 31, 2025.

We will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Although we have successfully raised capital in the past, there is no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining sufficient funding on terms acceptable to us to fund continuing operations, if at all.

Furthermore, under Irish law, our directors may issue new ordinary or preferred shares up to a maximum amount equal to the authorized but unissued share capital once authorized to do so by our Articles of Association or by a resolution approved by not less than 50% of the votes cast at a general meeting of our shareholders. Additionally, subject to specified exceptions, Irish law grants statutory pre-emption rights to existing shareholders where shares are being issued for cash consideration but allows shareholders to disapply such statutory pre-emption rights either in our Articles of Association or by way of a resolution approved by not less than 75% of the votes cast at a general meeting of our shareholders. Such disapplication can either be generally applicable or be in respect of a particular allotment of shares. We asked our shareholders to renew the authorization of our board of directors to issue shares and the disapplication of statutory pre-emption rights at the 2023 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders (the 2023 Annual Meeting) and to extend that authorization to the increase in authorized share capital that was approved by our shareholders at the 2023 Annual Meeting. Our shareholders renewed the authorization of our board of directors to issue shares; however, we did not receive approval on the disapplication of statutory pre-emption rights. We asked our shareholders to renew the disapplication of statutory pre-emption rights over the authorized but unissued share capital at an extraordinary general meeting of the Company on August 1, 2023; however, although we received over 62% support of the votes cast on renewing the pre-emption rights opt-out authority at that meeting, we did not receive the affirmative vote of at least 75% of the votes cast as required under Irish law for the passing of special resolutions. We asked our shareholders again to approve the disapplication of statutory pre-emption rights over 5,000,000 authorized but unissued ordinary shares at an extraordinary general meeting of the Company on January 30, 2024 (the January EGM) however, again, we did not receive the affirmative vote of at least 75% of the votes cast as required under Irish law for the passing of special resolutions.

If our shareholders do not approve the dis-application of statutory pre-emption rights, our board of director’s existing authority to opt out of the statutory pre-emption right up to the amount of our authorized but unissued share capital (excluding the increase in authorized share capital that was approved at the 2023 Annual Meeting) will continue to apply only until January 26, 2026. This would limit us to having the ability to issue for cash only 1.8 million ordinary shares, based on the amount of authorized ordinary shares unissued or unreserved and therefore available for issuance as of February 29, 2024 (excluding the increase in authorized share capital that was approved at the 2023 Annual Meeting), up to January 26, 2026. Furthermore, absent shareholder approval of the dis-application of statutory pre-emption rights, the additional authorized but unissued shares that were approved at the 2023 Annual Meeting that we propose to issue for cash will first have to be offered to all of our existing shareholders on the same or more favorable terms on a pro-rata basis. As a result of this limitation, we are currently severely limited in the amount of ordinary shares we may sell for cash in any capital raising transaction, and where we propose to issue shares for cash consideration, we may be required to first offer those shares to all of our existing shareholders in a time-consuming pro-rata rights offering. Furthermore, while the statutory pre-emption right applies only to share issuances for cash consideration and it does not apply where we issue shares for non-cash consideration (such as in a share exchange transaction or in any transaction in which property other than cash is received by us in payment for shares), any such transaction would likely be time-consuming and complex to execute. While we may seek the approval of our shareholders to disapply the statutory pre-emption rights generally in the future, there is no guarantee that such approval will be forthcoming. In the event we are not able to obtain such shareholder approval of the disapplication of pre-emption rights at a future general meeting of the shareholders, we will continue to be limited in the amount of ordinary shares we may sell for cash in any capital raising transaction without first offering those shares to all of our existing shareholders.

Additional capital will be required in order to repay the Exchangeable Notes when they become due. We may not have enough available cash or be able to obtain financing at that time. Our failure to make repayments when due would constitute a default under the indenture governing the Exchangeable Notes. A default under that indenture could also lead to a default under any agreements governing our future indebtedness.

We expect that additional capital will be required to complete our sulopenem development program and file with regulatory agencies and commercialize oral sulopenem, if regulatory approval is received. If we receive regulatory approval for oral sulopenem, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution. Our

44

failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative effect on our financial condition and our ability to develop and commercialize our sulopenem program and otherwise pursue our business strategy. If we fail to obtain financing when needed or on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts, which would have a negative effect on our financial condition and our ability to develop and commercialize our sulopenem program and otherwise pursue our business strategy and we may be unable to continue as a going concern

Changing circumstances could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. Our future funding requirements, both short-term and long-term, will depend on many factors, including:

•the timing and costs of our clinical trials of oral sulopenem and sulopenem, including any clinical trials or non-clinical studies which may be required for regulatory approval of our product candidates;

•any other activities that may be required in connection with the potential resubmission of the NDA for oral sulopenem;

•the timing of regulatory filings including a potential resubmission of the NDA for oral sulopenem;

•the timing of regulatory review and potential approval of any product candidates, including oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTI;

•the initiation, progress, timing, costs and results of preclinical studies and clinical trials of other potential product candidates and of our current product candidates in additional indications;

•the amount of funding that we receive under government awards that we may apply for in the future;

•the number and characteristics of product candidates that we pursue;

•the outcome, timing and costs of seeking regulatory approvals;

•the costs of commercialization activities for oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem and other product candidates if we receive marketing approval, including the costs and timing of establishing product sales, marketing, distribution and manufacturing capabilities;

•the receipt of marketing approval and revenue received from any potential commercial sales of oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem;

•the terms and timing of any future collaborations, licensing or other arrangements that we may establish;

•the amount and timing of any payments we may be required to make, or that we may receive, in connection with the licensing, filing, prosecution, defense and enforcement of any patents or other intellectual property rights, including milestone and royalty payments and patent prosecution fees that we are obligated to pay pursuant to an exclusive license agreement with Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) (the Pfizer License) or other future license agreements;

•the amount and timing of any payments we may be required to make in connection with the RLNs and the repayment of the Exchangeable Notes;

•the costs of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and protecting our intellectual property rights and defending against any intellectual property related claims;

•the costs of operating as a public company;

•the extent to which we in-license or acquire other products and technologies; and

•the outcome, impact, effects and results of our evaluation of corporate, strategic, financial and financing alternatives, including the terms, timing, structure, value, benefits and costs of any corporate, strategic, financial or financing alternative and our ability to complete one at all.

Our financial statements include substantial non-operating gains or losses resulting from required quarterly revaluation under generally accepted accounting principles of our outstanding derivative instruments.

Generally accepted accounting principles in the United States require that we report the value of certain derivatives in instruments we have issued as liabilities on our balance sheet and report changes in the value of these derivatives as non-operating gains or losses on our statement of operations. The value of the derivatives is required to be recalculated (and resulting non-operating gains or losses reflected in our statement of operations and resulting adjustments to the associated liability amounts reflected on our balance sheet) on a quarterly basis. The valuations are based upon a number of factors and estimates, including estimates based upon management's judgment. Certain of the derivative values are directly correlated to the value of our ordinary shares. Due to the nature of the required calculations and the large number of ordinary shares involved in such calculations, changes in our share price and/or

45

changes in management's assumptions may result in significant changes in the value of the derivatives and resulting gains and losses on our statement of operations.

Provisions in the EN Indenture and RLN Indenture may deter or prevent us from raising additional capital to fund our operations or entering into a strategic transaction to sell, license, or otherwise dispose of our rights to sulopenem.

Provisions in the agreements we entered into in connection with our financings may deter or prevent us from raising additional capital to fund our operations as and when needed. For example, the indenture governing the Exchangeable Notes (the EN Indenture) contains negative covenants prohibiting our wholly owned subsidiary, Iterum Therapeutics Bermuda Limited (Iterum Bermuda), as well as us and our wholly owned subsidiaries and their subsidiaries (the Guarantors), who guaranteed Iterum Bermuda’s obligations under the Exchangeable Notes, from, among other things, incurring any indebtedness that is not permitted by the EN Indenture and entering into transactions with significant shareholders (as defined in the EN Indenture). In addition, the indenture governing the RLNs (the RLN Indenture) contains negative covenants prohibiting Iterum Bermuda and the Guarantors from, among other things, selling, transferring or assigning certain assets and taking other actions outside the ordinary course of business that would reasonably be expected to reduce the amount of payments under the RLNs.

These provisions could deter or prevent us from raising additional capital or entering into a strategic transaction to sell, license, or otherwise dispose of our rights to sulopenem. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative effect on our financial condition and our ability to develop and commercialize our sulopenem program and otherwise pursue our business strategy. Furthermore, our inability to consummate a strategic transaction to sell, license, or otherwise dispose of our rights to sulopenem could impact our ability to maximize stakeholder value.

We are heavily dependent on the success of our sulopenem program, and our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize oral sulopenem and sulopenem. If we are unable to achieve and sustain profitability, the market value of our ordinary shares will likely decline.

Our ability to become and remain profitable depends on our ability to generate revenue. To date, we have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the development of oral sulopenem and sulopenem, which are currently our two product candidates in development. Our prospects, including our ability to finance our operations and generate revenue from product sales, currently depend entirely on the development and commercialization of our sulopenem program.

We do not expect to generate significant revenue unless and until we obtain marketing approval for, and commercialize, oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem. Our ability to generate future revenue from product sales will require us to be successful in a range of challenging clinical and commercial activities, including:

•resolving the matters set out in the CRL received in July 2021 in connection with our NDA for oral sulopenem;

•enrolling and successfully completing any clinical trials that may be required for regulatory approval of our product candidates;

•applying for and obtaining marketing approval for oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem;

•protecting and maintaining our rights to our intellectual property portfolio related to our sulopenem program;

•establishing and maintaining supply and manufacturing relationships with third parties that can support clinical development and can provide adequate commercial quantities of oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem, if approved;

•establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities either directly or through a third-party, to commercialize oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem or entering into collaboration arrangements for the commercialization of oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem where we choose not to commercialize directly ourselves; and

•obtaining market acceptance of oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem as viable treatment options.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when, or if, we will become profitable. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant or large enough to achieve profitability. Our expenses could increase if we are required by the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or any comparable foreign regulatory authority, to perform different studies or studies in addition to those currently expected, including in response to the CRL received in July 2021, or if there are any delays in completing such studies or with the development of our sulopenem program or any future product candidates. Even if oral sulopenem or sulopenem are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with the commercial launch of oral sulopenem and/or sulopenem. Where we enter into collaboration arrangements with third-party collaborators for commercialization of product candidates, our product revenues or the profitability of these product revenues to us would likely be lower than if we were to directly market and sell products in those markets.

46

Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could cause our shareholders to lose all or part of their investment.

Our indebtedness imposes certain operating and other restrictions on us and could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital.

The EN Indenture and the RLN Indenture each contain affirmative and negative covenants which impose operating and other restrictions on us, including, among other things, incurring any indebtedness that is not permitted by the EN Indenture or amending the terms of any subordinated indebtedness, entering into strategic transactions or transferring any material assets and undergoing a change of control transaction (subject to certain exceptions, including in the case of a change of control transaction, a transaction in which each holder of an outstanding Exchangeable Note receives cash consideration of at least 300% of the outstanding principal amount of such Exchangeable Notes). For example, pursuant to the EN Indenture, we are required to obtain the consent of a portion of the holders of the Exchangeable Notes prior to entering into collaboration agreements, exclusive selling arrangements or similar partnerships including a definitive agreement for commercialization services in the United States. Failure to comply with these terms could result in an event of default which could lead, among other things, to an acceleration of amounts due under the EN Indenture and the obligation to pay default interest. Moreover, obtaining a consent to a waiver of these terms is subject to a veto right of the holders of 30% of the outstanding Exchangeable Notes, in the case of the EN Indenture, and 30% of the outstanding RLNs, in the case of the RLN Indenture, and must include Sarissa Capital Offshore Master Fund LP, Sarissa Capital Catapult Fund LLC and Sarissa Capital Hawkeye Fund LP (collectively with their affiliates, Sarissa) so long as Sarissa and its affiliates own at least 10% of the outstanding RLNs. This veto right could make it more difficult for us to obtain a waiver than would otherwise be the case. In addition, the rate at which the Exchangeable Notes are exchangeable for our ordinary shares is subject to adjustment, including pursuant to anti-dilution protections. For example, following the sales made under an at the market offering (ATM) pursuant to the Sales Agreement entered into with HC Wainwright, as agent, on October 7, 2022, the exchange rate of the Exchangeable Notes increased and, as of December 31, 2023, the exchange price of the Exchangeable Notes was $11.123 per ordinary share (at an adjusted exchange rate of 89.9035 shares per $1,000 of principal and interest on the Exchangeable Notes). As of December 31, 2023, $11,117 aggregate principal amount of Exchangeable Notes remained outstanding.

Depending on the public offering prices, the number of shares that we sell pursuant to our Sales Agreement with HC Wainwright as agent and any potential increase to the exchange rate of the Exchangeable Notes, we may not have sufficient authorized share capital or share issuance authorities to convert all of the Exchangeable Notes into ordinary shares following any sales of shares pursuant to the Sales Agreement and could be required to settle any exchanges with cash to the extent we do not have available authorized shares. If we elect to settle any exchanges in cash, or we do not have authorized and available ordinary shares needed to satisfy physical exchange of the Exchangeable Notes, our liquidity could be adversely affected and/or we may not have sufficient cash available at that time to satisfy such cash settlement. In addition, in the event we elect to settle exchanges of Exchangeable Notes with ordinary shares, we would be limited in our ability to issue equity for other purposes which could adversely affect our shareholders and our ability to raise additional capital. During the year ended December 31, 2023, we sold 639,825 ordinary shares under the Sales Agreement at an average price of $1.68 per share for net proceeds of $1.0 million.

In addition, the exercise price and the number of shares issuable under our outstanding warrants are subject to adjustment pursuant to the terms of the applicable warrant. This indebtedness could make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital to fund our operations.

Servicing our indebtedness will require a significant amount of cash, and we may not have sufficient cash flow from our business to pay our indebtedness.

Our ability to make payments of the principal of, to pay interest and special interest on the Exchangeable Notes, or to make cash payments, if we so elect, in connection with any exchange of Exchangeable Notes depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not generate cash flow sufficient to service the Exchangeable Notes or other indebtedness and make necessary capital expenditures. If we are unable to generate such cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring indebtedness or obtaining additional equity capital on terms that may be onerous or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations.

Additionally, in the event we are not able to obtain shareholder approval for the disapplication of pre-emption rights over our ordinary shares at a general meeting of the shareholders, we may not be able to efficiently and cost effectively engage in equity-capital raising prior to January 31, 2025, when principal and interest on the outstanding Exchangeable Notes become due.

47

We may incur substantially more debt or take other actions that would intensify the risks discussed above.

We and our subsidiaries may be able to incur substantial additional debt in the future, subject to the restrictions contained in our current and future debt instruments, some of which may be secured debt. While the EN Indenture restricts our ability to incur additional indebtedness, it allows for certain additional indebtedness and any such restrictions may be waived. If new debt is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we now face could intensify.

We may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to settle exchanges of the Exchangeable Notes in cash or to repurchase the Exchangeable Notes upon a fundamental change, and our future debt may limit our ability to pay cash upon exchange or repurchase of the Exchangeable Notes.

Holders of the Exchangeable Notes will have the right to require us to repurchase all or a portion of their Exchangeable Notes upon the occurrence of a fundamental change at specified repurchase prices. In addition, upon exchange of the Exchangeable Notes, unless we elect to deliver solely ordinary shares to settle such exchange (other than paying cash in lieu of delivering any fractional share), we would be required to make specified cash payments in respect of the Exchangeable Notes being exchanged. However, we may not have enough available cash or be able to obtain financing at the time we are required to make repurchases of Exchangeable Notes surrendered therefor or to pay cash with respect to Exchangeable Notes being exchanged. Additionally, in the event we are not able to obtain shareholder approval for the disapplication of pre-emption rights over our ordinary shares at a general meeting of the shareholders, we may not be able to efficiently and cost effectively engage in equity-capital raising prior to January 31, 2025, when principal and interest on the outstanding Exchangeable Notes become due. Our ability to repurchase or to pay cash upon exchange of the Exchangeable Notes may also be limited by law, regulatory authority, and future indebtedness.

Our failure to repurchase Exchangeable Notes at a time when the repurchase is required by the EN Indenture or to pay cash upon exchange of the Exchangeable Notes as required by the EN Indenture would constitute a default under the EN Indenture. A default under the EN Indenture or a fundamental change itself could also lead to a default under agreements governing our future indebtedness. If the payment of the related indebtedness were to be accelerated after any applicable notice or grace periods, we may not have sufficient funds to repay the indebtedness and any accrued and unpaid interest and repurchase the Exchangeable Notes or to pay cash upon exchange of the Exchangeable Notes. As of December 31, 2023, $11,117 aggregate principal amount of Exchangeable Notes remained outstanding.

The exchange feature of the Exchangeable Notes may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.

Beginning January 21, 2021 and prior to the earlier of (i) the close of business on the scheduled trading day immediately preceding a mandatory exchange notice for the Exchangeable Notes, which would be triggered by the occurrence of any of certain mandatory exchange trigger events specified in the EN Indenture, and (ii) the close of business on the second scheduled trading day immediately preceding the interest record date, holders of Exchangeable Notes are entitled to exchange the Exchangeable Notes at any time at their option. If holders continue to elect to exchange their Exchangeable Notes, unless we elect to satisfy our exchange obligation by delivering solely ordinary shares (other than paying cash in lieu of delivering any fractional share), we would be required to settle a portion or all of our exchange obligation in cash, which could adversely affect our liquidity. The relevant accounting rules require that we recognize liabilities which appropriately reflect our obligations specified in the EN Indenture. Therefore, even if holders do not elect to exchange their Exchangeable Notes, our liabilities and statement of operations could be significantly impacted.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Unless and until we can generate a substantial amount of revenue from our sulopenem program or future product candidates, we expect to finance our future cash needs through equity offerings, debt financings, collaboration agreements, other third-party funding, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements, marketing and distribution arrangements or government funding.

We may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

On October 7, 2022, we filed a universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 with the SEC, which was declared effective on October 17, 2022 (File No. 333-267795), and pursuant to which we registered for sale up to $100.0 million of any combination of our debt securities, ordinary shares, preferred shares, subscription rights, purchase contracts, units and/or warrants from time to time and at prices and on terms that we may determine. The extent to which we are able to utilize a shelf registration statement as a source of funding will depend on a number of factors, including the prevailing market price of our ordinary shares, general market conditions and applicability of restrictions on our ability to utilize the shelf registration statement to sell more than one-third of the market value of our public float, meaning the aggregate market value of voting and non-voting ordinary shares held by non-affiliates, in any trailing 12-month period.

48

On October 7, 2022, we entered into the Sales Agreement with HC Wainwright, as agent, pursuant to which we may offer and sell ordinary shares, nominal value $0.01 per share for aggregate gross sales proceeds of up to $16.0 million (not to exceed 4,478,180), from time to time through HC Wainwright, by any method permitted that is deemed to be an "at the market offering" as defined in Rule 415(a)(4) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Our issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our ordinary shares to decline, and our shareholders may not agree with our financing plans or the terms of such financings. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of ordinary shares, convertible securities or other equity securities, the ownership interests of our then existing shareholders may be materially diluted, and the terms of these securities could include liquidation or other preferences and antidilution protections that could adversely affect the rights of our then existing shareholders. Further debt financing, if available, would result in increased fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends, which could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business. In addition, securing additional financing would require a substantial amount of time and attention from our management and may divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our management’s ability to oversee the development of our product candidates.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial resources, we initially focused our sulopenem development program on the specific indications of uUTI, complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI), all of which are focused on what we believe to be the most pressing near-term medical needs, in terms of both their potential for marketing approval and commercialization. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other potential product candidates or developing our sulopenem program in other indications that may prove to have greater commercial potential. For example, while we believe that sulopenem has the potential to treat cIAIs and cUTIs in humans based on the results of prior preclinical studies and clinical trials, sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the control therapy in our Phase 3 cIAI and cUTI clinical trials. While we believe the secondary supporting analyses and safety data in all three prior Phase 3 clinical trials support the potential of sulopenem in the treatment of multi-drug resistant infections, we cannot guarantee that these supporting analyses are indicative of efficacy of sulopenem in treating cIAIs or cUTIs. Similarly, while we believe that sulopenem has the potential to treat uUTIs in humans based on the results of prior preclinical studies and clinical trials, oral sulopenem did not meet the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to ciprofloxacin in the population of patients with baseline pathogens susceptible to ciprofloxacin in our prior Phase 3 uUTI clinical trial. However, in the uUTI clinical trial, in the population of patients with baseline pathogens resistant to quinolones, sulopenem achieved the related primary endpoint by demonstrating statistical significance in the overall response rate by treatment arm in the ciprofloxacin-resistant population, providing evidence of a treatment effect in patients with uUTI. Based on discussions with the FDA at a pre-NDA meeting in September 2020 and previous correspondence with the FDA, we submitted an NDA for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the FDA accepted the application for review in January 2021. We received a CRL from the FDA on July 23, 2021 for our NDA. The CRL provided that the FDA had completed its review of the NDA and had determined that it could not approve the NDA in its present form. The CRL further provided that additional data are necessary to support approval of oral sulopenem for the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone and recommended that we conduct at least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial, potentially using a different comparator drug. In July 2022 we reached an agreement with the FDA under the SPA process on the design, endpoints and statistical analysis of a Phase 3 clinical trial for oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs and we commenced enrollment in that clinical trial, known as REASSURE, in October 2022. The study is designed as a non-inferiority trial comparing oral sulopenem and Augmentin® (amoxicillin/clavulanate) in the Augmentin® susceptible population. In October 2023 we completed enrollment in the REASSURE clinical trial, enrolling 2,222 patients. In January 2024, we announced that sulopenem met the primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority to Augmentin® in the Augmentin®-susceptible population, and demonstrated statistically significant superiority versus Augmentin® in the Augmentin® susceptible population, in the REASSURE clinical trial. Additionally, though not an approvability issue, the FDA recommended in its CRL that we conduct additional non-clinical PK/PD studies to support dose selection for the proposed treatment indication(s). We have also completed the additional non-clinical PK/PD investigations, as recommended by the FDA, which we believe support the dosing regimen selected for oral sulopenem. We expect to resubmit our NDA to the FDA in the second quarter of 2024. Provided that the resubmitted NDA addresses all of the deficiencies identified in the CRL we received from the FDA in July 2021, we expect that the FDA will complete its review and take action six months from the date the FDA receives the resubmitted NDA (or during the fourth quarter of 2024). There can be

49

no assurance that we will be in a position to resolve the matters set forth in the CRL or that the data generated by the REASSURE clinical trial or the additional PK/PD data will be adequate to support resubmission or approval of our NDA.

Further, due to a variety of factors, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, we may nonetheless be delayed in obtaining or ultimately be unable to obtain FDA approval for oral sulopenem for uUTI or any other indication or for any other product or to successfully commercialize sulopenem.

Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to the product candidate.

We have broad discretion in the use of our funds and may not use them effectively.

We have broad discretion in the application of our available funds and could spend the funds in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our ordinary shares. Our failure to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, cause the price of our ordinary shares to decline and delay the development of our product candidates. Pending their use, we may invest funds in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

We hold our cash and cash equivalents that we use to meet our working capital and operating expense needs in deposit accounts that could be adversely affected if the financial institutions holding such funds fail.

We hold our cash and cash equivalents that use to meet our working capital and operating expense needs in deposit accounts at multiple financial institutions. The balance held in these accounts typically exceeds the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), standard deposit insurance limit or similar government guarantee schemes. If a financial institution in which we hold such funds fails or is subject to significant adverse conditions in the financial or credit markets, we could be subject to a risk of loss of all or a portion of such uninsured funds or be subject to a delay in accessing all or a portion of such uninsured funds. Any such loss or lack of access to these funds could adversely impact our short-term liquidity and ability to meet our operating expense obligations.

For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), and Signature Bank, were closed by state regulators and the FDIC was appointed receiver for each bank. The FDIC created successor bridge banks and all deposits of SVB and Signature Bank were transferred to the bridge banks under a systemic risk exception approved by the United States Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. If financial institutions in which we hold funds for working capital