avro-10k_20211231.htm

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 Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐

Non-accelerated filer	☒	Smaller reporting company	☒

		Emerging growth company	☒

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $336,928,742 as of June 30, 2021 (based on a closing price of $8.89 share as quoted by the Nasdaq Global Select Market as of such date). In determining the market value of non-affiliate common stock, shares of the registrant’s common stock beneficially owned by officers, directors and affiliates have been excluded. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

The registrant had 43,696,327 shares of Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding as of March 10, 2022.


Item No.		Page
	PART I	1
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	37
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	83
Item 2.	Properties	83
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	83
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	83

	PART II	84
Item 5.	Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	84
Item 6.	Reserved	84
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	85
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	95
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	95
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	95
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	95
Item 9B.	Other Information	96
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections.	96

	PART III	97
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	97
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	97
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	97
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	97
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	97

	PART IV	98
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	98
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	98
	Signatures	108

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of in evaluating our business. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

The summary risk factors described above should be read together with the text of the full risk factors below, in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as in other documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The risks summarized above or described in full below are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not precisely known to us, or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). These statements may be identified by such forward-looking terminology as “aims,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “continue,” “could,” “designed to,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “strives,” “should,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Our forward-looking statements are based on a series of expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections about our company, are not guarantees of future results or performance and involve substantial risks and uncertainty. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in these forward-looking statements. Our business and our forward-looking statements involve substantial known and unknown risks and uncertainties, including the risks and uncertainties inherent in our statements regarding:

All of our forward-looking statements are as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K only. In each case, actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking information. We can give no assurance that such expectations or forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. An occurrence of or any material adverse change in one or more of the risk factors or risks and uncertainties referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or included in our other public disclosures or our other periodic reports or other documents or filings filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) could materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Except as required by law, we do not undertake or plan to update or revise any such forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, changes in plans, assumptions, estimates or projections or other circumstances affecting such forward-looking statements occurring after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, even if such results, changes or circumstances make it clear that any forward-looking information will not be realized. Any public statements or disclosures by us following this Annual Report on Form 10-K that modify or impact any of the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K will be deemed to modify or supersede such statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

All brand names or trademarks appearing in this report are the property of their respective holders.

Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the “Company,” “AVROBIO,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to AVROBIO, Inc. Our “board of directors” refers to the board of directors of AVROBIO, Inc.

We are a leading clinical-stage gene therapy company with a mission to free people from a lifetime of genetic disease. Our company is focused on developing potentially curative ex vivo lentiviral-based gene therapies to treat patients with rare diseases following a single dose treatment regimen. Our gene therapies employ hematopoietic stem cells that are harvested from the patient and then modified with a lentiviral vector to insert the equivalent of a functional copy of the gene that is mutated in the target disease. We believe that our approach, which is designed to transform stem cells from patients into therapeutic products, has the potential to provide curative benefit for a range of diseases. Our initial focus is on a group of rare genetic diseases referred to as lysosomal disorders, some of which today are primarily managed with enzyme replacement therapies, or ERTs. These lysosomal disorders have well-understood biologies, identified patient populations, established standards of care yet with significant unmet needs, and represent large market opportunities with approximately $3.4 billion in worldwide net sales in 2021.

Our pipeline is currently comprised of five lentiviral-based gene therapy programs: AVR-RD-04 for the treatment of cystinosis; AVR-RD-02 for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 1; AVR-RD-05 for the treatment of Hunter syndrome; AVR-RD-06 for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 3; and AVR-RD-03 for the treatment of Pompe disease.

AVR-RD-04 is currently being studied for the treatment of cystinosis by our collaborators at the University of California, San Diego, or UCSD, in a Phase 1/2 collaborator-sponsored clinical trial, and as of March 1, 2022 four patients have been dosed. In December 2021 we received feedback from the FDA following a Type C meeting. Pending the outcome of further planned FDA interactions this year, we expect to initiate a Company-sponsored trial in 2023 with initial sites in the United States, followed by sites in Europe and the United Kingdom. Our current plan involves a two-part strategy, beginning in a pre-renal transplant population followed by a post-renal transplant population.

Three patients have been dosed as of March 1, 2022 in our Company-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 1, which we refer to as the Guard1 clinical trial, and we are actively recruiting additional potential patients for our currently active sites. We currently plan to provide updated interim clinical trial data in 2022.

AVR-RD-05 is being studied for the treatment of Hunter syndrome by our collaborators at The University of Manchester, and a Phase 1/2 investigator-sponsored clinical trial is expected to be initiated in 2023. In October 2021, the FDA granted rare pediatric disease designation for AVR-RD-05 for the treatment of Hunter syndrome. Under this program, if AVR-RD-05 is approved by the FDA then the Company may qualify for a voucher that can be redeemed to receive a priority review of a subsequent marketing application for a different product candidate.

AVR-RD-06 is our preclinical program for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 3, and we expect to engage with regulatory authorities this year to discuss a path to the clinic, including a potential Phase 2/3 clinical trial.

In January 2022 we announced the deprioritization of AVR-RD-01, our investigational gene therapy program for Fabry disease. This decision was made due to several factors, including new clinical data showing variable engraftment patterns from the five most recently dosed patients in the Company’s Phase 2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-01 for the treatment of Fabry disease, which we refer to as the FAB-GT clinical trial. The emergence of such new data would have significantly extended the program’s development timeline. That development, coupled with an increasingly challenging market and regulatory environment for Fabry disease, were among the primary factors leading to the Company’s deprioritization of its Fabry program. As a result of the deprioritization, the Company has stopped enrollment of its Phase 2 FAB-GT clinical trial and will focus on its other pipeline programs.

Since its first clinical use in 2003, lentiviral-based gene therapy has been studied in several third parties’ clinical trials for rare diseases such as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy, or CALD, metachromatic leukodystrophy, or MLD, and adenosine deaminase severe combined immunodeficiency, or ADA-SCID. Initially, the use of ex vivo lentiviral-based gene therapies was restricted primarily to the most severe diseases where the risks of the typical requirement for ablating the patients’ bone marrow had a clinically justifiable risk/benefit profile. To date, hundreds of patients have been treated with lentiviral-based gene therapies in third parties’ and our rare disease clinical trials, and we believe the technology can be developed for other serious conditions based on a rigorous risk/benefit assessment. The ablation procedure, also known as the conditioning regimen, is typically an essential step in the ex vivo gene therapy treatment procedure and is administered prior to the gene therapy. We have worked to optimize the conditioning regimen through utilization of a precision busulfan dosing program, which we refer to as Target Concentration Intervention, or TCI. TCI is designed to enable careful titrating of exposure to the conditioning drug to a specific area under the curve, or AuC. The conditioning regimen utilized as part of our plato platform includes TCI to assess how rapidly the individual patient metabolizes the conditioning agent so physicians can adjust the dose as needed, with a goal of minimizing side effects from conditioning while maximizing the potential of durable engraftment. In addition, we are evaluating the potential future use of alternative conditioning agents in lieu of the current busulfan TCI conditioning regimen. For example, we have entered into collaboration agreements with Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. and Magenta Therapeutics, Inc. and are currently evaluating the potential use of their respective monoclonal antibody conditioning agents. We are also evaluating the potential use of additional agents to tailor the conditioning regimen for certain disease indications. We believe our approach to conditioning has the potential to extend the reach of our gene therapies to a broad range of diseases as first-line therapies.

Plato is our gene therapy platform designed to provide the foundation for the potential worldwide commercialization of our gene therapies, if approved. It is an ex vivo gene therapy platform incorporating multiple upgrades including a four-plasmid lentiviral vector designed to optimize vector copy number, transduction efficiency and resulting enzyme activity; a closed, automated manufacturing system designed to improve consistency and predictability of the drug product; and a personalized approach to conditioning. Six patients in our FAB-GT clinical trial of AVR-RD-01, for which enrollment has been halted, and three patients in our Guard1 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02, have been dosed with drug product manufactured utilizing the plato platform, and we intend to utilize the plato platform with these process changes for all future patients enrolling in our Company-sponsored clinical trials. We believe our innovations in viral vector design, cellular manufacturing, cryopreservation, conditioning and other related processes are important steps towards advancing the field of lentiviral-based gene therapy and realizing its full potential to treat a number of diseases. We plan to continue leveraging advancements in stem cell transplantation with the goal of improving patient tolerability of our lentiviral-based gene therapies.

We are initially targeting rare lysosomal disorders in which the current standard of care provides the mechanistic proof that the enzymes or proteins produced endogenously following treatment with our gene therapies can offer benefit to patients. Typically, in lysosomal disorders, a gene mutation results in the deficiency or malfunctioning of an enzyme or other protein. This results in the inability of lysosomes to properly process cellular materials such as damaged organelles. As a result, substrates and their metabolites accumulate to toxic levels in the body’s cells and, in turn, disrupt the function of multiple tissues and organs. Gaucher disease (types 1 and 3), Hunter syndrome and Pompe disease are currently primarily managed by bi-weekly (or weekly in the case of Hunter syndrome), multi-hour infusions with ERTs that seek to exogenously replace the missing functional enzyme. However, given their pharmacokinetics, most ERTs typically remain in the plasma only for a short period of time and thus are not ideal because they are only dosed weekly or every two weeks. Cystinosis is currently treated with two oral formulations of cysteamine that must be taken orally every 12 or six hours, leading to significant pill burden and compliance challenges. Further, oral cysteamine treatment has no effect on ocular cystine crystals deposits, thus requiring patients to be treated with topical cysteamine eye drops which must be applied each hour the patient is awake. These existing therapies manage, rather than cure, the underlying diseases and, as a result, patients continue to have disease progression. Further, the frequent, periodic and life-long dosing schedule required for ERTs and cysteamine results in significant costs for the healthcare system and is burdensome for the patient.

We believe our gene therapies leverage the well-understood mechanism of ERTs by transforming a patient’s own cells into a drug product that enables the patient to express functional enzyme or other protein and mirror the biology seen in an otherwise healthy individual. We believe that a single dose of our gene therapies may provide meaningful life-long benefit to these patients and potentially halt the progression of these diseases while also potentially providing significant health economic advantages.

Our programs leverage years of extensive preclinical and early clinical research by leading researchers, as well as our internal research and ongoing clinical efforts. The status of our initial lentiviral-based gene therapy programs is reflected below.

We continue to seek opportunities to expand our approach to other rare and non-rare diseases. We plan to identify and develop future product candidates through our own internal research efforts as well as through collaborations with leading researchers worldwide.

We are led by biopharmaceutical experts with extensive experience in gene and cellular therapy, and rare diseases. Our team has broad expertise in the clinical, regulatory and commercialization aspects of rare diseases as well as process development and manufacturing for cellular therapies. Members of our management team have held senior positions at Axovant Sciences (now Sio Gene Therapies), Biogen, bluebird bio, Freeline Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Lonza, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Shire, Spark Therapeutics, and other companies pursuing development, manufacturing and commercialization of gene, cellular and other therapies to treat rare diseases.

Our goal is to develop and commercialize lentiviral-based gene therapies that free patients from a lifetime of genetic disease. Key elements of our strategy include:

•

Continue implementing and enhancing our industry-leading plato platform with its personalized approach to conditioning, enhanced vector technology and automated, closed manufacturing processes. Our end-to-end plato platform is designed to provide the foundation for worldwide commercialization of our gene therapies, if approved. We believe our innovations in viral vector design, cellular manufacturing, cryopreservation, and other related processes are important steps towards advancing the field of lentiviral-based gene therapy and realizing its full potential to treat a number of diseases. Plato incorporates a four-plasmid lentiviral vector designed to optimize vector copy number, transduction efficiency and resulting enzyme activity. In combination with this vector, in some indications we use a number of proprietary peptide tag technologies to enhance uptake of therapeutic protein in key tissues. We have also developed a manufacturing process that we believe is both reproducible and scalable, and we believe this technology could enable us to deliver our gene therapies to patients, if approved, in quantities sufficient for global commercial supply. In addition, we believe our personalized approach to conditioning using busulfan with a precision dosing program called Target Concentration Intervention could enable us to deliver durable, ‘head-to-toe’ treatment of symptoms and early intervention in the treatment of lysosomal disorders. We

We develop gene therapies utilizing our ex vivo lentiviral-based approach to transform a patient’s own stem cells into a drug product. Our investigational gene therapies employ lentiviral vectors that are designed to result in stable integration of the desired genes in the chromosomes of stem cells such that they are permanently maintained in the cell and can be reproduced as the cell divides. We focus on delivering our lentiviral-based gene therapies to patient-derived hematopoietic stem cells, which are primitive stem cells that develop into all types of blood cells, including white blood cells, red blood cells and platelets. To accomplish this, we harvest a patient’s hematopoietic stem cells and modify them ex vivo to add the equivalent of a functional copy of the gene that is mutated in the target disease. We then infuse the genetically modified cells back into the patient. Our gene therapies are designed to be administered to the patient as a one-time therapy following a conditioning regimen.

We are focused on employing our approach to treat and potentially cure lysosomal disorders. These disorders have well-understood biologies, identified patient populations, established standards of care that leave many patients with significant unmet medical needs, and represent large markets with approximately $3.4 billion in worldwide net sales in 2021. We believe our ex vivo lentiviral-based gene therapy approach can be industrialized into a robust, scalable and, if approved, commercially viable process that will allow us to deliver our potentially curative therapies to patients across the world.

We believe ex-vivo lentiviral-based gene therapy has the potential to provide numerous advantages, including:

There are approximately 70 identified lysosomal disorders, which are characterized by an abnormal toxic build-up of substrates and their metabolites in the body’s cells. We are currently targeting cystinosis, Gaucher disease type 1, Hunter syndrome, Gaucher disease type 3 and Pompe disease. Each of these disorders affects a meaningful number of patients, has a suboptimal standard of care with unmet medical need and, we believe, is appropriate for lentiviral-based gene therapy. We believe our approach has the potential to address the shortcomings of existing therapies that, despite chronic dosing, cannot halt or reverse disease progression, restore normal lifespan or adequately address symptoms arising in both the peripheral tissues and the central nervous system.

Expanding the Utility of Lentiviral-Based Gene Therapy with Optimized Conditioning Regimens

A core part of our approach is to expand the use of lentiviral-based gene therapy to treat numerous lysosomal disorders. We believe conditioning is an essential step to optimize these treatments as it is designed to clear space in the patient’s bone marrow and central nervous system for cells carrying the therapeutic gene. This maximizes the potential for their long-term engraftment which may enhance durability of therapeutic effect. We believe enabling patient and physician choice of conditioning agents has the potential to be a substantial advance in the gene therapy field, and are evaluating the implementation of a tailored conditioning approach for certain disease indications.

We plan to continue using busulfan conditioning and intend to strive to optimize its tolerability profile. We have pioneered precision dosing of busulfan in gene therapy in a single treatment cycle, with the goal of enhancing the patient experience. A body of research has identified an optimal exposure range for busulfan (Bu-90). Our approach is to personalize conditioning to each patient using TCI, a precision dosing program. TCI is designed to allow for continually controlled exposure by assessing via simple blood draws how rapidly the individual patient metabolizes busulfan, to inform further administration. Use of busulfan in a conditioning regimen causes side effects and can transiently compromise the patient’s immune system, known as neutropenia, and reduce blood clotting, known as thrombocytopenia. The higher the level of conditioning, the greater the potential risk of more serious complications, such as veno-occlusive disease. However, we believe our approach to conditioning has the potential for reduced, predictable and manageable short- and long-term toxicities and maximized long-term engraftment.

In addition to our utilization of busulfan, we are committed to staying on the forefront of new conditioning approaches. For example, we are exploring the implementation of monoclonal antibody conditioning for certain indications and have entered into collaboration agreements with Magenta Therapeutics and Jasper Therapeutics. We believe our approach to conditioning has the potential to extend the reach of our gene therapies to a broad range of lysosomal disorders as first-line therapies.

In addition to developing first-line gene therapies, an important key to our strategy is to continuously improve our technology and production processes and to leverage these improvements across our gene therapies, if approved. Plato is designed to provide the foundation for the potential worldwide commercialization of our gene therapies. It is an ex vivo gene therapy platform incorporating multiple upgrades including a four-plasmid lentiviral vector designed to optimize vector copy number, transduction efficiency and resulting enzyme activity; a closed, automated manufacturing system designed to improve consistency and predictability of the drug product; and a personalized approach to conditioning. Plato has been used to dose a total of nine patients in our clinical trials, which includes six patients from our FAB-GT trial for which enrollment has been halted, and we intend to utilize the plato platform for all future patients enrolling in our Company-sponsored clinical trials. We believe our plato platform may lead to better patient outcomes and will represent a significant advance in our industry towards achieving the quality and scale required for global commercialization of gene therapies.

We believe the plato platform will form the backbone of our future commercialization efforts and our goal to take gene therapy mainstream.

We have utilized our core expertise in the development and optimization of lentiviral vectors to improve the vectors used in our gene therapies. We have made and expect to continue to make enhancements to our lentiviral vectors to improve safety, efficacy and efficiency. For example, clinical trials of AVR-RD-01 first utilized our original academic three-plasmid-produced lentiviral vector, which we refer to as LV1. However, we dosed six patients in our now halted FAB-GT clinical trial of AVR-RD-01 and the first three patients in our ongoing Guard1 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 using our proprietary four-plasmid lentiviral vector, which we refer to as LV2, and expect to dose all future patients in our Company-sponsored trials with LV2. Our goal is to employ vectors that are state-of-the-art and that can be produced in a cost-effective and scalable manner.

Our team has significant experience in cell processing and commercial-scale cellular therapy manufacturing. We have developed and are implementing a detailed plan for more cost efficient and scalable manufacturing of our gene therapies. In contrast to a number of other gene therapy companies that have not developed their commercial scale plans from the outset, we have executed on our plans to move to a closed suspension bioreactor system for vector production, as well as a closed, automated system for manufacturing our gene therapy product. Our move to a closed, automated manufacturing system was completed in 2019 as part of implementing upgrades from our plato platform, and six patients in our now halted FAB-GT clinical trial of AVR-RD-01 and the first three patients in our ongoing Guard1 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 were each dosed using this system.

Our manufacturing approach is intended to allow for the production of drug product using relatively small, self-contained devices, which may reduce our reliance on large traditional clean rooms that are expensive to establish and maintain. We believe our manufacturing approach may result in greater flexibility in the location of manufacture and help to control costs associated with traditional manufacturing. In addition, we believe our automated manufacturing process may reduce operator error and yield greater consistency and less variability in the manufactured drug product.

We currently plan to rely on one CMO site, located in the United States, as a sole source provider of drug product for our Company-sponsored clinical trials worldwide.

The conditioning regimen that we first employed utilized melphalan, a common chemotherapy drug, to ablate the patient’s bone marrow. As part of the upgrades to our plato platform, we transitioned to utilizing busulfan, another chemotherapy drug, that has been in use since the 1950’s. Busulfan is indicated for use in combination with cyclophosphamide as a conditioning regimen prior to allogeneic stem cell transplantation for chronic myeloid leukemia. Busulfan is routinely used in conditioning regimens before allogeneic stem cell transplantations for both malignant and non-malignant conditions. It has also been used as a single-agent, or in combination with an immunosuppressive agent, such as cyclophosphamide, in conditioning regimens prior to ex vivo gene therapy transplants.

Busulfan permits utilization of TCI in our conditioning regimen, thereby enabling physicians to personalize the dosing to each patient by titrating over four days to potentially enhance patient tolerability to the conditioning procedure and promote cell engraftment. By contrast, melphalan is administered once with no TCI, and may cause concern of conditioning-related toxicity across patients due to individual differences in metabolism of the drug. In addition, we believe that the utilization of busulfan in our conditioning regimen has the potential to allow our gene therapies to cross the blood-brain barrier, a feature which may yield therapeutic benefit in diseases that have a central nervous system component, such as Gaucher disease type 3, Hunter syndrome, Pompe disease and other rare and non-rare diseases. Finally, our busulfan conditioning regimen is designed to create more space in the ablated bone marrow compared to melphalan and may increase the average VCN of the patient bone marrow following treatment with the drug product, which are features that we believe will promote better cell engraftment and durability of the gene therapy.

We believe our gene therapy solutions offer several potential advantages over existing therapies for lysosomal disorders, including:

Together with UCSD, we are developing CTNS-RD-04, which we refer to as AVR-RD-04, for the treatment of patients with cystinosis. AVR-RD-04 is manufactured from hematopoietic stem cells that are first harvested from the patient, modified to add the gene that encodes for cystinosin, and then infused into the patient. AVR-RD-04 is currently being studied by our collaborators at UCSD in a Phase 1/2 collaborator-sponsored clinical trial. As of March 1, 2022 four patients have been dosed with AVR-RD-04.

In March 2021, we announced that the European Commission granted orphan drug designation for AVR-RD-04. In July 2021, we received clearance from the FDA for an IND application for AVR-RD-04 for the treatment of cystinosis. This IND clearance allows the Company to initiate a Company-sponsored long-term follow-up study for patients enrolled in the Phase 1/2 collaborator-sponsored clinical trial, as well as potentially initiate a new Company-sponsored clinical trial, subject to regulatory clearance. Also in July 2021, the FDA granted Fast Track Designation for AVR-RD-04 for the treatment of cystinosis to improve renal function.

Cystinosis is a rare, genetic, autosomal recessive, lysosomal disorder caused by the accumulation of cystine, the oxidized dimer of the amino acid cysteine. Cystine is normally transported through the lysosomal membrane to the cytosol where it is reutilized after its transformation to cysteine. In cystinosis, cystine accumulates inside the lysosomes because of a defect in the gene that encodes cystinosin, the protein that transports cystine across the lysosomal membrane. Cystine is poorly soluble and forms crystals as its concentration increases. These crystals build up and cause complications in many organs and tissues. The kidneys and eyes are especially vulnerable to damage, and the muscles, thyroid, pancreas and testes may also be affected.

The most severe form of cystinosis begins in infancy, causing poor growth and a particular type of kidney damage in which certain molecules, such as glucose, amino acids, phosphate, and bicarbonate, that should be reabsorbed into the bloodstream are instead eliminated in the urine. These renal problems ultimately lead to impaired growth and may result in soft, bowed bones, especially in the legs. By the time the patient is approximately two years old, cystine crystals may be present in the cornea, and the buildup of these crystals in the eye causes pain and an increased sensitivity to light. Untreated children with cystinosis may experience complete kidney failure by the age of ten. Other signs and symptoms that may occur in untreated patients, especially after adolescence, include muscle deterioration, blindness, inability to swallow, type 1 diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, and central nervous system problems. More than 90% of untreated patients require a kidney transplant before the age of 20. It is estimated that cystinosis disease is diagnosed in approximately one in 170,000 people.

Cystinosis is currently treated with oral formulations of cysteamine that enter the lysosome and stimulate the breakdown of cystine into products that do not require the cystinosin protein to be transported. Oral treatment can delay the development of kidney failure by six to ten years if it is started at a very early age, however it cannot prevent kidney failure or the development of other complications, such as the formation of cystine crystals in the cornea. The most commonly prescribed oral therapies for cystinosis are Procysbi (delayed release cysteamine bitartrate), marketed by Horizon Orphan, and Cystagon (cysteamine bitartrate), marketed by Mylan and Recordati S.p.A. In 2021, Procysbi generated worldwide net sales of approximately $190 million. We estimate that the average five-year cost to the healthcare system per cystinosis patient prescribed standard of care treatment in the United States is approximately $4.3 million.

Procysbi and Cystagon must be taken orally every 12 or six hours, respectively, leading to significant pill burden and compliance challenges. Because cysteamine works by directly binding to cystine, rather than through a typical small molecule that inhibits an enzyme or receptor, a substantial quantity is required. For adults, this can mean taking at least 12 capsules twice a day, every day. Oral therapy with cysteamine is associated with a high degree of noncompliance due to the frequency with which it must be dosed and the accompanying nausea, as well as the acrid sulfur smell that it produces in the breath and body. It has been estimated that only one third of patients are able to adhere to the strict dosing schedule. Studies have shown that adherence diminishes over time in adolescents and adults despite disease impact. Further, oral cysteamine treatment has no effect on ocular cystine crystals deposits, thus requiring patients to be treated with topical cysteamine eye drops which must be applied each hour the patient is awake.

We are developing AVR-RD-04 to potentially provide a functional cure to patients with cystinosis with a single dose of the patient’s own hematopoietic stem cells modified in an ex vivo procedure. AVR-RD-04 is a lentiviral-based gene therapy containing a human gene for cystinosin designed to maximize the likelihood of sustained cystinosin production in hematopoietic stem cells and their progeny.

In the ongoing collaborator-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-04, up to six patients with cystinosis who are currently being treated with cysteamine will be enrolled. This clinical trial is being conducted by UCSD and has been funded in part by grants to UCSD from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cystinosis Research Foundation and National Institutes of Health. The clinical trial’s primary endpoints are safety and tolerability, assessed for up to two years after treatment. Secondary endpoints to assess preliminary efficacy include change from baseline in cystine levels in rectal mucosa and granulocytes, as well as cystine crystal counts in the cornea and skin. These secondary efficacy endpoints will also be evaluated through clinical tests of kidney function, ophthalmologic measures, muscle strength, pulmonary function and neurological and psychometric function, as well as through patient-reported outcomes and assessments of health-related quality of life. Mixed leukocyte and granulocyte cystine concentration measures have been part of cystinosis standard of care treatment for the past two decades, and changes in the average level of cystine in granulocytes from baseline was originally a primary endpoint of the clinical trial of AVR-RD-04. However, we and our collaborators at UCSD determined that cystine concentration in leukocytes and granulocytes, which is used to monitor small molecule therapies, is not appropriate to represent the mechanism of action of a gene therapy. As a result, the protocol for this clinical trial was amended in 2020 to retain safety and tolerability as the primary endpoint, as is appropriate for this stage of development, and shift measurement of cystine in granulocytes to a secondary endpoint.

Because this is a collaborator-sponsored clinical, the study drug is not manufactured using our plato platform, and neither the automated, closed manufacturing system nor LV2 is used in connection with this clinical trial.

As of December 1, 2021, the first three patients in the trial had discontinued and remained off oral cysteamine, with the first patient out to 26 months post-treatment. Additionally, the first and third patients had discontinued and remained off cysteamine eye drops as of December 1, 2021. The second patient in the trial, who had stopped cysteamine eye drops one-month post-treatment with AVR-RD-04 per the trial protocol, resumed cysteamine eye drops in July 2021.

In February 2022 we presented interim VCN data for the first three patients dosed in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial. At 27 months post-treatment with AVR-RD-04, the first patient exhibited VCN level of 1.03, and at 12 months post-treatment the second and third patients exhibited VCN level of 1.52 and 2.59, respectively.

Skin and rectal biopsies were performed on the first three patients at baseline and post-treatment with AVR-RD-04. The data from the biopsies are intended to show the average skin intracytoplasmic crystals per cell, which is a measurement of the number of toxic crystals in each cell. In February 2022, we announced that at 12-months post-treatment the first three patients’ skin biopsies exhibited a 35%, 64% and 81% reduction, respectively, in average intracytoplasmic crystals per cell. At 12- and 18-months post-treatment, the first patient’s rectal biopsies exhibited a 76% and 53% reduction, respectively, in average intracytoplasmic crystals per cell as compared to baseline. The rectal biopsies for the second and third patients at 12-months post-treatment exhibited reductions of 28% and 86%, respectively, in average intracytoplasmic crystals per cell as compared to baseline. Previously, we reported measurements of the occupancy of cytoplasmic volume from skin and rectal biopsies from the first patient, who exhibited reductions of 72% and 87%, respectively, in each case at 12-months post-treatment as compared to the patient’s baseline levels. We believe these data suggest that the first three patients are producing an endogenous supply of functional cystinosin that is reducing the accumulation of toxic cystine crystals.

Levels of corneal cystine crystals are being assessed in this clinical trial using IVCM. In February 2022, we presented a set of images of the first patient’s cornea measured at baseline and 18-months post-administration. The baseline IVCM images were taken using a Nidek ConfoScan microscope and the subsequent images were taken using a Heidelberg (HRT3) with Rostock Cornea Module microscope. Each of the post-treatment images showed a noticeable decline in the presence of corneal crystals. The images were preliminarily scored by a physician, on a scale of zero to four, to quantify crystal deposition in each corneal layer of the central cornea. At baseline, the preliminary scoring for the first patient was 4.0 across all three eye layers in both eyes, and at 12-months post-treatment the scores for the anterior stroma, middle stroma and posterior stroma of the right eye were 3.0, 3.0 and 2.13, respectively, and 1.86, 1.71 and 2.0, respectively, for the left eye.

Assessment of kidney function includes measurements of serum creatinine, or sCR, and eGFR, which is determined using the CKD-EPI formula. The first patient in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial exhibited an eGFR value of 36.3 mL/min/1.73m² at 19 months post-treatment as compared to a baseline value of 55 mL/min/1.73m². This patient’s eGFR values had been trending downward in the three years prior to administration of AVR-RD-04. We expect this patient’s eGFR levels to continue declining at a level consistent with the irreversible nature of nephropathic cystinosis. At six months post-treatment the second patient in the clinical trial, who received two kidney transplants prior to treatment in the clinical trial, exhibited an eGFR value of 81 mL/min/1.73m² as compared to a baseline value of 71 mL/min/1.73m².

As of the safety cut-off date of December 12, 2021, preliminary interim clinical data for the first four patients dosed in the Phase 1/2 clinical trial appear to indicate that the AVR-RD-04 investigational gene therapy has been generally well tolerated with no unexpected safety events identified. There have been no reports of safety events attributed to the AVR-RD-04 drug product. As of the safety data cut-off date of December 12, 2021, one serious adverse event, or SAE, of appendicitis was reported, which occurred post-treatment and was deemed by the investigator to be unrelated to AVR-RD-04 or the treatment procedures. A total of 84 adverse events, or AEs, were reported as of the safety cut-off date of December 12, 2021, a majority of which were reported by the investigator to be moderate or mild. All reported AEs were consistent with expectations for the underlying disease, stem cell mobilization and conditioning regimen prescribed by the study protocol.

The foregoing data on the Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-04 have been provided by our collaborators at UCSD and are subject to change. Additionally, because this clinical trial is ongoing, safety and efficacy data are preliminary and subject to change. As is typical in open-label studies in which interim reports are provided, the data are regularly reviewed and validated. As a result, certain data may change over time, including reductions or increases in the number of reported safety events, until the database is locked at the end of the study.

We are developing AVR-RD-02 for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 1. We plan to manufacture AVR-RD-02 from hematopoietic stem cells that are first harvested from the patient, modified to add the gene that encodes for glucocerebrosidase, or GCase, and then infused into the patient. Patient enrollment has commenced for the Phase 1/2 Guard1 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 in patients with Gaucher disease type 1, and as of March 1, 2022 we have dosed three patients. The Guard1 trial is actively recruiting additional potential patients for our currently active sites.

Gaucher disease type 1 is the non-neuronopathic form of Gaucher disease, a rare, autosomal recessive, lysosomal disorder caused by a hereditary deficiency of functional GCase, an enzyme responsible for degrading glucocerebroside, a cell membrane building block, into glucose and lipids within lysosomes of cells. In patients with Gaucher disease type 1, the recycling of glucocerebroside from the breakdown of old red and white blood cells is inhibited, leading to its accumulation in macrophages. These abnormal macrophages, known as Gaucher cells, accumulate in multiple organs, particularly the liver, spleen and bone marrow.

Gaucher disease type 1 is one of the most common lysosomal disorders. It is diagnosed in approximately one in 44,000 births worldwide and is more prevalent in certain ethnic groups, such as people of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage. Approximately 90% of patients suffering from Gaucher disease in western countries have Gaucher disease type 1, which manifests as multiple morbidities including enlargement of the spleen and liver, low red blood cells, or anemia, low platelet count, or thrombocytopenia, and bone abnormalities including bone pain, fractures and arthritis. Bruising, risk of bleeding and fatigue are common due to the thrombocytopenia and anemia. Compared with the general population, patients with Gaucher disease type 1 have an approximately 20-fold increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Gaucher disease type 1 does not have manifestations of central nervous system symptoms.

Gaucher disease type 1 is currently treated with bi-weekly infusions of ERT consisting of recombinant GCase over a patient’s lifetime. The most commonly prescribed ERTs for Gaucher disease are Cerezyme, marketed by Sanofi Genzyme, and VPRIV, marketed by Shire.

Although long-term ERT for Gaucher disease type 1 results in some therapeutic benefit, ERTs leave patients with significant unmet needs. Twenty-five percent of patients with Gaucher disease continue to experience physical limitations following two years of ERT, and a clinically significant percentage of patients continue to experience bone pain, thrombocytopenia and enlargement of spleen following ten years of ERT. In a published study of ERT therapy for Gaucher disease type 1, six target goals were evaluated, including parameters for hemoglobin and platelet levels, spleen and liver volumes, and general bone pain and severe disabling bone pain known as bone crisis. Following at least four years of ERT in this study, approximately 60% of patients failed to achieve one or more of these six target goals.

In addition to ERTs, the FDA has approved several oral therapies for the treatment of Gaucher disease, including Zavesca (miglustat) marketed by Actelion and Cerdelga (eliglustat) marketed by Sanofi Genzyme. We believe these oral therapies also provide suboptimal treatment. Zavesca is approved as a second line therapy and is associated with significant toxicities, including diarrhea, weight loss and tremors. Cerdelga is not approved for use in children, has highly variable metabolism due to patient-to-patient genetic variations and is highly susceptible to interactions with other drugs.

Both ERTs and oral therapies for Gaucher type 1 impose significant costs on the healthcare system. We estimate that the average five-year cost to the healthcare system per Gaucher patient (all types) prescribed standard of care treatment in the United States is approximately $2.3 million. In 2021, Sanofi Genzyme’s Cerezyme and Cerdelga together generated worldwide net sales of approximately €937 million euros and Takeda’s VPRIV generated worldwide net sales of approximately ¥41.9 billion Japanese yen.

We are developing AVR-RD-02 to potentially provide a functional cure to patients with Gaucher disease type 1 with a single dose of the patient’s own hematopoietic stem cells modified in an ex vivo procedure. AVR-RD-02 is a lentiviral-based gene therapy that contains a codon-optimized human gene and is designed to maximize the likelihood of sustained GCase production in hematopoietic stem cells and their progeny.

We have initiated our Guard1 Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 in patients with Gaucher disease type 1. Patient enrollment has commenced, and as of March 1, 2022, three patients have been dosed. This clinical trial is actively recruiting additional potential patients for our currently active sites. Our initial clinical trial is open to treatment-naïve patients; patients that have been stable on ERT for at least 24 months; and patients who have not received ERT or substrate reduction therapy, or SRT, in the past 12 months. We intend to enroll eight to 16 patients, between the ages of 18 and 50, with Gaucher disease type 1. Patients currently prescribed ERT will cease treatment for the duration of the clinical trial. All enrolled patients will

receive a single treatment with AVR-RD-02 and will be followed for 52 weeks to measure safety and efficacy. We intend to utilize our plato platform for all patients enrolling in our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02. Our efficacy endpoints for this clinical trial will include visceral domain and hematologic measures such as liver and spleen volumes, hemoglobin, platelet counts, bone pain and bone density measures, and quality of life measures along with critical biological blood markers used to track the disease progression in Gaucher disease type 1.

In February 2021 we presented data on the first patient in the Guard1 clinical trial, which are described below. We currently expect to provide an update on interim clinical data in 2022.

In February 2021 we presented VCN data for the first patient dosed in the Guard1 trial. At six months post-treatment, the patient exhibited a VCN of 0.6. In addition, at three months post-treatment an exploratory assessment of VCN in specific cell populations showed a VCN ≥ 0.7 in the myeloid cell lines, which we believe could be indicative of transgene presence in the macrophages, the essential cell impacted in Gaucher patients.

Glucosylsphingosine, or lyso-Gb1, is considered a surrogate marker for disease activity and treatment response for Gaucher disease type 1. In the case of ERT-naïve patients and patients who have discontinued ERT, we believe that reductions in lyso-Gb1 levels following treatment with gene therapy are likely driven by the therapeutic effect of gene therapy. In February 2021, we announced that the first patient in our Guard1 clinical trial exhibited a 44% reduction in plasma lyso-Gb1 levels six months post-administration of AVR-RD-02 as compared to baseline while on ERT. In this study baseline ERT is the measurement of a single plasma lyso-Gb1 value observed prior to initiating mobilization.

Chitotriosidase is a biomarker of macrophage activation that is found in high levels in Gaucher patients where the macrophages have accumulated an excess lipid burden. In February 2021, we announced that at six months post-treatment with AVR-RD-02 the first patient in the Guard1 clinical trial exhibited a 49% reduction in chitotriosidase levels as compared to baseline while on ERT. In this study baseline ERT is the measurement of a single chitotriosidase value observed prior to initiating mobilization.

Gaucher disease type 1 typically causes patients to have low levels of hemoglobin and platelets. In February 2021, we presented data on the hemoglobin and platelet levels of the first patient dosed in the Guard1 clinical trial at screening, baseline and six months post-administration of AVR-RD-02. The baseline measurement was taken one month prior to discontinuation of ERT. At screening, baseline and six months post-treatment, the patient’s platelet counts were 455x10⁹/L, 432x10⁹/L and 351 x10⁹/L, respectively, and the patient’s hemoglobin concentration was 12.5 g/dL, 11.2 g/dL and 12.2 g/dL, respectively. Both six-month measurements are within the normal range for a healthy individual.

As of the most recent safety cut-off date of August 31, 2021, preliminary interim clinical data for the first patient dosed in the Guard1 clinical trial appear to indicate that the AVR-RD-02 investigational gene therapy has been generally well tolerated with no unexpected safety events identified. There have been no reports of safety events attributed to the AVR-RD-02 drug product, and no SAEs were reported as of the safety data cut-off date. A total of 37 AEs were reported as of the safety cut-off date, 11 of which were Grade 3 or 4 and 26 of which were Grade 1 or 2. All reported AEs were consistent with expectations for the underlying disease, conditioning regimen and drugs mandated by the study protocol or procedures. As of the safety cut-off date of August 31, 2021, all AEs had resolved except for one AE of amenorrhea which remained unresolved and ongoing.

Because this clinical trial is ongoing, safety and efficacy data are preliminary and subject to change. As is typical in open-label studies in which interim reports are provided, the data are regularly reviewed and validated. As a result, certain data may change over time, including reductions or increases in the number of reported safety events, until the database is locked at the end of the study.

We are developing AVR-RD-05 for the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis type II (MPSII), or Hunter syndrome. AVR-RD-05 involves ex vivo transduction of the patient’s own hematopoietic stem cells with a therapeutic transgene, in-licensed from the University of Manchester, or UoM, designed to express functional iduronate 2-sulfatase, or IDS, which is the enzyme the patient needs to maintain cellular health, coupled to a proprietary ApoE2 protein tag that is designed to improve stability of the enzyme in the bloodstream and facilitate uptake by tissues.

AVR-RD-05 will be studied by our collaborators at UoM, and a Phase 1/2 investigator-sponsored clinical trial of AVR-RD-05 is expected to be initiated in 2023.

Hunter syndrome disease is a rare, recessive lysosomal disorder caused by a mutation in the gene that encodes for IDS that results in accumulation of the glycosaminoglycans heparan and dermatan sulfate. Hunter syndrome affects a multitude of organs and is a chronic and progressive multi‐system disorder. Clinical manifestations in Hunter syndrome include skeletal abnormalities, known as dysostosis multiplex, short stature, joint stiffness, and hepatosplenomegaly, accompanied by cardiorespiratory symptoms. Severe cases of Hunter syndrome, which are most common, also feature progressive neurodegeneration, typically followed by death in teenage years due to obstructive airway disease and cardiac failure.

Hunter syndrome is an X-linked disorder, meaning the gene that is responsible is located on the X chromosome. Because males have only one X chromosome, an abnormal copy of the gene that causes Hunter syndrome is sufficient to cause the disease. The overall diagnosed incidence of Hunter syndrome is estimated to be approximately one in 100,000 to one in 170,000 males worldwide.

Hunter syndrome is currently treated with ERT delivered by weekly intravenous infusion. The only approved therapy for Hunter syndrome is Elaprase, marketed by Shire, which generated worldwide net sales of approximately ¥75 billion Japanese yen in 2021. We estimate that the average five-year cost to the healthcare system per Hunter patient prescribed standard of care treatment in the United States is approximately $2.4 million.

Two-thirds of patients experience developmental and neurological decline, which is often noted by approximately age two. Due to lack of newborn screening, diagnosis usually occurs much later in patient’s lives, around five years of age and can be as late as eight years. Although patients typically begin ERT treatment almost immediately after diagnosis, often the disease symptoms are far advanced and ERT is insufficient to halt the disease progression. ERT does not treat the neurological symptoms of the disease, and therefore a significant unmet need remains in a majority of patients with Hunter syndrome. Furthermore, anti-ERT antibodies are a limitation for a significant part of the patient population.

We, together with our collaborators at UoM, are developing AVR-RD-05 to potentially provide a functional cure to patients with Hunter syndrome. AVR-RD-05 is intended to be a gene therapy product containing a codon-optimized human gene for IDS attached to a ApoE2 protein tag designed to increase the cells’ secretion of IDS to potentially restore healthy cellular function, stabilize the secreted IDS so it has a longer half-life, and facilitate uptake of IDS into the brain. In addition, we believe that the utilization of busulfan in our conditioning regimen may have the potential to allow AVR-RD-05 to cross the blood-brain barrier, a feature which may yield therapeutic benefit.

In November 2020, we presented previously published preclinical data on AVR-RD-05. The study presented data from normal study mice, mice affected with the equivalent of Hunter syndrome, mice treated with AVR-RD-05 modified to not incorporate the ApoE2 protein tag, and mice treated with AVR-RD-05 incorporating the proprietary ApoE2 tag. These data demonstrated the effect of AVR-RD-05 on levels and composition of heparan sulfate in the brain, neuro-inflammatory pathologies, facial and skeletal abnormalities, as well as cognitive performance and sensorimotor coordination and balance. We believe these data support the potential of AVR-RD-05 to treat this progressive disease, and potentially prevent the onset of severe symptoms if treated early.

Our collaborators at UoM plan to initiate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in 2023. The Phase 1/2 clinical trial is expected to enroll five male patients, age three months to 12 months, with an early progressive form of the disease. The clinical trial is expected to be open to treatment-naïve patients as well as patients currently on ERT. The clinical trial’s primary endpoints are expected to be safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints to assess preliminary efficacy are expected to include measurements of peripheral expression of IDS activity in plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF, and leukocytes; heparin sulfate concentration in CSF, plasma and urine; VCN per diploid genome, proportion of cells containing the inserted gene in total bone marrow colony forming units; cognitive function; and various behavioral and quality of life measurements.

Because this is an investigator-sponsored clinical, the study drug will not be manufactured using our plato platform, and neither the automated, closed manufacturing system nor LV2 will be used in connection with this clinical trial.

AVR-RD-06 is our gene therapy program for Gaucher disease type 3. Gaucher disease type 3 is the subacute neurological form of Gaucher disease characterized by progressive encephalopathy and associated with the systemic manifestations of Gaucher type 1. As with Gaucher type 1, Gaucher type 3 disease is caused by a gene that codes for the enzyme glucocerebrosidase. The deficiency in glucocerebrosidase leads to the accumulation of Gb1 and its toxic metabolite, lyso-Gb1. AVR-RD-06 is expected to use the same vector and drug product that we use in AVR-RD-02, our investigational gene therapy for Gaucher disease type 1. We currently expect to engage with regulators in 2022 to discuss a path to the clinic, including a potential Phase 2/3 clinical trial.

Gaucher disease type 3 is the subacute, chronic neurological form of Gaucher disease, a rare, autosomal recessive, lysosomal disorder caused by a hereditary deficiency of functional GCase, an enzyme responsible for degrading glucocerebroside, a cell membrane building block, into glucose and lipids within lysosomes of cells. In patients with Gaucher type 3 disease, the recycling of glucocerebroside from the breakdown of old red and white blood cells is inhibited, leading to its accumulation in macrophages. These abnormal macrophages, known as Gaucher cells, accumulate in multiple organs, particularly the liver, spleen and bone marrow. In addition, glucosylceramide accumulates in perivascular macrophages and brain glial cells and neurons leading to neuronal death. Clinically, central nervous system manifestations of Gaucher disease type 3 appear in childhood or adolescence, typically within the latter part of the first decade for the majority of patients, although the course of disease is markedly heterogenous.

Gaucher disease type 3 is estimated to occur in one in 100,000-300,00 births and is more prevalent in certain ethnic groups, such as people of Swedish Norrbottnian descent. Systemic manifestations of Gaucher disease type 3 may include enlargement of the spleen and liver, low red blood cells, or anemia, low platelet count, or thrombocytopenia, and bone abnormalities including bone pain, fractures and arthritis. Bruising, risk of bleeding and fatigue are common due to the thrombocytopenia and anemia. Variable other features of Gaucher disease type 3 include pulmonary infiltrates and esophageal varices associated with liver cirrhosis. Presentation of diverse neurologic features may begin at any time during infancy and early childhood with the most prevalent finding of horizontal supranuclear gaze palsy. Other manifestations of neurological disease include generalized seizures, myoclonus, ataxia, and/or dementia.

Current therapies used to treat Gaucher disease type 1, namely, ERT and SRT, do not penetrate the brain and therefore have no effect on the neurological aspects of Gaucher disease type 3. The most commonly prescribed ERTs for Gaucher disease are Cerezyme, marketed by Sanofi Genzyme, and VPRIV, marketed by Shire.

Patients with Gaucher disease type 3 may exhibit wide variation of disease progression with the severity of systemic disease and neurological deficits differing considerably between patients. In a published study of SRT therapy for Gaucher disease type 3, no significant benefits were demonstrated on the neurological manifestations of Gaucher disease type 3. Although long-term ERT for Gaucher disease type 3 results in some therapeutic benefit on visceral, hematological and bone manifestations, ERTs leave patients with significant unmet needs owing to persisting accumulation of substrate within the central nervous system. Following 10 years of ERT, two patients’ epilepsy had worsened while a third patient developed epilepsy around eight years after treatment initiation. Another published study on ERT showed that enzyme infusions had no effect on patients with myoclonus and approximately 40% of patients deteriorated neurologically during a median 3.5 year follow-up period.

We are developing AVR-RD-06 to potentially provide a functional cure to patients with Gaucher disease type 3 with a single dose of the patient’s own hematopoietic stem cells modified in an ex vivo procedure. AVR-RD-06 is a lentiviral-based gene therapy that contains a codon-optimized human gene and is designed to maximize the likelihood of sustained GCase production in hematopoietic stem cells and their progeny.

In November 2020, we presented preclinical data from a mouse study which we believe demonstrate the potential of lentiviral gene therapy to repopulate the microglia compartment of the brain with microglia cells carrying the therapeutic gene. We also presented preclinical data demonstrating a technique that potentially allows us to examine individual cells in the brain to determine which cell types contain the therapeutic gene. Finally, we presented data comparing the genetically modified microglia and endogenous microglia, which we believe suggest that even though the modified cells are not native to the brain, they do not act as “invaders” and thus could be expected to carry out normal physiological functions.

We are developing AVR-RD-03 for the treatment of Pompe disease. We will manufacture AVR-RD-03 from hematopoietic stem cells that are first harvested from the patient, modified to add the gene that encodes for acid alpha glucosidase A, or GAA, attached to a peptide sequence known as a glycosylation-independent lysosomal targeting, or GILT, tag and then infused into the patient. AVR-RD-03 will incorporate a GILT tag because the GILT tag has been found to increase the uptake of GAA into cells, especially in muscle cells by a multiple of 25, which is a particularly important target tissue for patients with Pompe disease and a target tissue that is considered difficult to access for ERT. AVR-RD-03 is designed to incorporate a potent promoter to increase volume of system enzyme in circulation.

Pompe disease is a rare, autosomal recessive lysosomal disorder caused by a mutation in the gene that encodes for GAA that results in the buildup of glycogen, a complex sugar, in the body’s cells. The accumulation of glycogen in certain organs and tissues, especially muscles, impairs normal tissue and organ function. Patients with Pompe disease experience serious muscle related problems, including progressive muscle weakness, especially in the legs and trunk, and the muscles that control breathing. As the disorder progresses, breathing problems can lead to respiratory failure.

The overall diagnosed incidence of Pompe disease is estimated to be approximately one in 58,000 people although frequency and disease progression varies with age of onset, ethnicity and geography. Overall diagnosed incidence of Pompe disease is projected to increase to one in 22,000 people as it is increasingly included in newborn screening panels.

The severity of Pompe disease symptoms and rate of progression is highly variable and correlated with age of symptom onset and the degree of enzyme deficiency. Infantile or early onset disease, the most severe form of Pompe disease, accounts for approximately 25% of all affected patients. Those with early-onset disease are usually diagnosed in the first few months of life and is associated with cardiomyopathy. Left untreated, these patients can die due to heart failure, respiratory distress or malnutrition resulting from feeding difficulties within the first year of life. Patients with late-onset disease typically have higher enzyme levels and usually have symptoms such as reduced mobility and respiratory problems but are not at increased risk of developing cardiomyopathy. Late-onset patients experience progressive difficulty walking and respiratory decline. While life expectancy can vary, Pompe disease is a life-limiting disease that can result in death due to complications from respiratory failure.

Pompe disease is currently treated with ERT delivered by bi-weekly intravenous infusion. The only approved therapy for Pompe disease is Lumizyme (known as Myozyme outside of the United States), marketed by Sanofi Genzyme, which generated worldwide net sales of approximately €1.0 billion euros in 2021. We estimate that the average five-year cost to the healthcare system per Pompe patient prescribed standard of care treatment in the United States is approximately $3.2 million.

Though patients treated with ERT for Pompe disease have improved survival and respiratory function, ERT is not curative, and patients in long-term observational studies continue to have increased risk of heart failure and have residual muscle weakness including difficulties swallowing with risk of aspiration. One challenge with ERT treatment for Pompe disease is that a standard dose requires approximately twenty-fold more enzyme compared to standard doses for Fabry or Gaucher diseases. Large doses of Lumizyme that are delivered systemically in order to achieve potentially therapeutic levels in the target tissues result in approximately 90% of patients developing antibodies against the therapy. These antibody responses may impact both the efficacy and safety of Lumizyme. The FDA approval of Lumizyme carries a black box warning related to the risk of severe allergic and immune mediated reactions, including life-threatening anaphylaxis.

Our AVR-RD-03 program for Pompe disease has completed planned preclinical development, and we are planning to engage with regulatory authorities this year to discuss a potential path to the clinic with the goal of initiating a clinical trial in 2023. We are developing AVR-RD-03 to be a gene therapy product containing a codon-optimized human gene for GAA attached to a GILT tag designed to increase uptake of GAA in muscle cells. AVR-RD-03 will target patients with late onset Pompe disease, which represent the majority of patients with this disease. In addition, we believe that the utilization of busulfan in our conditioning regimen may have the potential to allow AVR-RD-03 to cross the blood-brain barrier, a feature which may yield therapeutic benefit.

In November 2020 we presented data from a study in which mice with the equivalent of classic infantile-onset Pompe disease were treated with AVR-RD-03. We these data believe support the potential of lentiviral-based gene expression of GAA to prevent some of the symptoms of GAA deficiency. These results also demonstrated the need to further increase the uptake of GAA into muscle cells to treat patients, which is a known challenge for ERTs and leads to the use of large quantities of enzyme to attempt to deliver effective treatment levels.

We believe we can use a GILT tag to address the known challenges of skeletal muscle uptake in patients with Pompe disease. Attachment of a GILT tag to a particular protein can increase the effective uptake of that protein into target tissues. We are designing AVR-RD-03 to use a GILT tag to facilitate GAA uptake into cells and thereby reduce the therapeutically required amount of GAA produced by a patient’s cells following gene therapy treatment.

In mouse models of Pompe, administration of recombinant GAA with the GILT tag demonstrated significant reduction in glycogen in cardiac and skeletal muscles as compared to the administration of recombinant GAA alone. We licensed GILT tag technology from BioMarin and are incorporating a GILT tag into our lentiviral vector with the goal of the patient producing GILT-tagged GAA following treatment with AVR-RD-03.

Our preclinical study measured the levels of GAA observed in normal mice, mice with the equivalent of infantile-onset Pompe disease, mice treated with AVR-RD-03 modified to not incorporate our proprietary GILT tag, and mice treated with AVR-RD-03 including our GILT tag, in each case measured 16 weeks post-treatment. These data showed significant overexpression of GAA in bone marrow, white blood cells and plasma in mice treated with AVR-RD-03 without our GILT tag as well as AVR-RD-03 incorporating our GILT tag.

Our preclinical study also measured glycogen levels in the heart and brain at four months post-treatment with our GILT-tagged version of AVR-RD-03, which showed a 99% and 100% reduction, respectively, in glycogen levels. In addition, our study measured glycogen levels in various organs of the study mice at eight months post-treatment. The data showed an average of greater than 99% reduction in glycogen levels in the heart, greater than 97% reduction in the diaphragm, greater than 85% reduction in skeletal muscle, greater than 95% reduction in the brain, and greater than 99% reduction in the spinal cord.

Industrializing Our Gene Therapies Through Our Outsourced Manufacture and Supply Network

We have established manufacturing relationships that we believe will provide us with drug product manufacturing capabilities to support all aspects of the development and eventual commercialization of our gene therapies. Our team has leveraged their broad expertise in the manufacturing of gene and cellular therapies to build a network of CMO partners for the development and manufacture of drug products and outsourced suppliers for the supply of vectors and plasmids. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on sole source suppliers for vector supply, plasmid supply and cell culture media. In addition, although we have historically relied on multiple CMO partners for drug product manufacturing, we currently plan to use a sole source CMO as the provider of drug product for our ongoing and future Company-sponsored clinical trials. However, we believe that our third-party CMO partner and suppliers have capacity to accommodate current and future clinical trials and we are continuing to build a network that we expect will have capacity to generate sufficient quantities to meet our expected commercial needs.

To optimize production of our gene therapies, we have moved our cell processing to an automated, closed system using disposable supplies. We believe this industrialized manufacturing process will enable a repeatable approach through which we can design and manufacture commercially viable ex vivo lentiviral gene therapies to potentially treat a large variety of genetic disorders. We expect that our automation of the manufacturing processes will further increase our CMO partners’ manufacturing capacity.

We start the process to produce a patient’s gene therapy with the mobilization of a patient’s stem cells from the bone marrow to the blood stream and collect them via apheresis, a standard procedure used in stem cell transplants. The apheresis material is then transported to the manufacturing facility where we isolate the stem cells and treat these cells with a lentiviral vector to insert the equivalent of a functional copy of the gene that is mutated in the target disease. The manufacturing process typically takes approximately three days to complete. We preserve patients’ modified cells at a very low temperature, using cryopreservation to maintain the cellular material in optimal condition until it is thawed prior to being infused into the patient. Cryopreservation of the product allows for long-term storage and the ability to conduct a number of quality control tests to validate the modified cells prior to introducing them into the patient. We believe cryopreservation will also enable us to supply our products globally, as well as significantly increase the convenience of infusion scheduling for clinicians and patients, compared to fresh ex vivo gene therapy products that may have shelf-lives of only 24 hours.

Prior to infusion of the gene therapy-modified cells into the patient, the patients undergo a conditioning regimen to remove some of the patient’s unmodified cells from the bone marrow to create sufficient space for the modified hematopoietic stem cells to engraft and produce their progeny.

After the conditioning regimen is complete, the ex vivo lentiviral-modified stem cells are infused into the patient by intravenous administration. After infusion, these cells are expected to engraft into the bone marrow, replicate and differentiate into all the various types of blood cells that will distribute throughout the body. These widely distributed cells potentially lead to sustained expression of the desired therapeutic enzyme or protein. The sustained expression of the functional enzyme or protein is a direct substitute for the protein currently delivered by ERTs, which require periodic infusions.

The proprietary nature of, or protection for, our gene therapy technology, our product candidates, our production methods and supply chain are an important part of our strategy to develop and commercialize novel therapies. To maximize

the commercial opportunity for our gene therapies, if approved, we and our partners have been building and continue to build barriers to entry by our competitors, including:

We have in-licensed patents and patent applications from BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., GenStem Therapeutics, Inc. and The University of Manchester directed to compositions and methods related to the manufacture and use of certain of our gene therapies. In addition, we have in-licensed certain intellectual property rights and know-how from the University Health Network and affiliates of Lund University. For example, we have in-licensed know-how and data related to AVR-RD-01, including certain information about the vector and its use, from University Health Network, and we have in-licensed know-how and data related to AVR-RD-02, including certain information about the vector and its use, from certain academic scientists affiliated with Lund University. Each of our licenses are limited to particular fields, such as Fabry disease, Gaucher disease type 1, Pompe disease, cystinosis, or Hunter syndrome, and are subject to certain retained rights. We do not control the prosecution and maintenance of all of our in-licensed patents and patent applications, and our rights to enforce the patents are limited in certain ways. For additional detail regarding the risks associated with our license agreements see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

As of March 1, 2022, our in-licensed patent portfolio relating to certain of our gene therapies included the following:

As of March 1, 2022, our Company-owned patent portfolio also included the following:

The term of any given patent depends upon the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing the application, subject to the timely payment of maintenance fees, among other considerations. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed commonly owned patent. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of FDA regulatory review period. However, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. In certain foreign jurisdictions similar extensions as compensation for regulatory delays are also available. The actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a claim by claim and country by country basis for each applicable product and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. Currently, we do not own or license patents or patent applications related to our AVR-RD-01, AVR-RD-02 or AVR-RD-06 product candidates. We rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets and unpatented know-how that is either owned by or licensed to us to protect our technology. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors.

In September 2020, we entered into an agreement, or the MPSII License Agreement, with The University of Manchester, England, or UoM, whereby UoM granted us an exclusive worldwide license under certain patent and other intellectual property rights, subject to certain retained rights, to develop, commercialize and sell an ex vivo lentiviral gene therapy for use in the treatment of Hunter syndrome, or mucopolysaccharidosis type II. As consideration for the MPSII License Agreement, we agreed to pay UoM an upfront, one-time fee of $8.0 million.

As part of the agreement, we are obligated to make milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $80.0 million upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, to pay royalties, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, of a mid-single digit percentage based on net sales of products licensed under the agreement and to pay a low double-digit percentage of any sublicense fees received by us. The next anticipated payment milestones under the MPSII License Agreement include $2.0 million, which would become due following the date of regulatory approval of the clinical trial application for the investigator-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial sponsored by UoM, and $4.0 million, upon the dosing of the first patient in the investigator-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial sponsored by UoM.

Unless terminated earlier, the agreement expires upon the later of 15 years from the effective date or the expiration of the last valid claim of the licensed patents, subject to certain surviving rights and obligations. We and UoM can each terminate the agreement in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of the other party, or a material breach by the other party and failure to cure such breach within a certain period of time. UoM has the right to terminate the agreement in the event of certain actions relating to challenge or opposition to the licensed intellectual property brought us or its affiliates or sublicensees.

Concurrently with the MPSII License Agreement, we entered into a collaborative research funding agreement with UoM, or the CRFA. Under the CRFA, we have agreed to fund the budgeted costs of an investigator-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial to be sponsored by UoM in connection with the development activities under the MPSII License Agreement, which are currently estimated to equal approximately £9.9 million in the aggregate.

In November 2016, we entered into a license agreement with University Health Network, or UHN, pursuant to which UHN granted us an exclusive worldwide license under certain intellectual property rights and a non-exclusive worldwide license under certain know-how, including certain rights to data, in each case subject to certain retained rights, to develop, commercialize and sell products for use in the treatment of Fabry disease. Intellectual property licensed to us under this agreement relates to our Fabry program. In addition, for three years following the execution of the agreement, UHN granted us an exclusive option to obtain an exclusive license under certain improvements to the licensed intellectual property rights as well as an exclusive option to negotiate a license under certain other improvements. Under the terms of the agreement, we are required to meet certain performance milestones within specified timeframes. UHN may terminate the agreement if we fail to meet these performance milestones despite using commercially reasonable efforts and we are unable to reach agreement with UHN on revised timeframes.

As consideration for the licenses, we paid to UHN a one-time upfront fee in the amount of CAD$75,000 and are obligated to pay an additional annual fee until the first sale of a licensed product in certain markets. We are also required to make payments to UHN in connection with the achievement of certain development and regulatory milestones, in an aggregate amount of CAD$2.45 million, as well as royalties on a country-by-country basis of a low to mid-single digit percentages on annual sales of licensed products and a lower single digit royalty in certain circumstances. Additionally, we will pay a low double-digit percentage of all sublicensing revenue. Our royalty obligation expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis upon the latest to occur of the expiration or termination of the last valid claim under the licensed patent rights in such country (if and when any such patent rights come into existence under the license agreement in the future), the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country and the expiration of any applicable regulatory exclusivity in such country.

In addition, under this agreement we made a philanthropic commitment to donate funds to organizations for the benefit of the Canadian Fabry community in an amount equal to a low double-digit percentage of our royalty payments and regulatory milestone payments, up to a maximum amount of CAD$0.5 million in any calendar year.

Unless terminated earlier, this exclusive license agreement with UHN will expire upon the expiration of our royalty obligation for all licensed products. Either we or UHN may terminate the license agreement if the other party commits a material breach and fails to cure such breach within a certain period of time. UHN may terminate this agreement if we enter into bankruptcy or insolvency. We may terminate this agreement for any reason upon notice to UHN.

In January 2017, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Prof. Stefan Karlsson and Dr. Maria Dahl, affiliates of Lund University, pursuant to which Prof. Karlsson and Dr. Dahl, and certain other relevant rights holders that may have an interest in intellectual property generated under a research project we are funding with Lund University, granted to us an exclusive worldwide license, subject to certain retained rights, under certain intellectual property rights to develop, commercialize and sell products in any and all uses relevant to Gaucher disease. Intellectual property licensed to us under this agreement relates to our Gaucher program.

As consideration for the license, we are required to make payments in connection with the achievement of certain milestones up to an aggregate of $0.55 million.

Our license agreement with the rights holders expires on the latest of (i) the twentieth anniversary of the end of a certain research project we are funding pursuant to an agreement with Lund University, (ii) the expiration of the term of any patent filed on the licensed rights that covers a licensed product, (iii) the expiration of any applicable marketing exclusivity right and (iv) such time that neither we nor any of our sublicensees or partners or contractors are commercializing a licensed product. Either we or the rights holders acting together may terminate the license agreement if the other such party commits a material breach and fails to cure such breach within a certain period of time, or if the other party enters into liquidation, becomes insolvent, or enters into composition or statutory reorganization proceedings.

In August 2017, we entered into a license agreement with BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., or BioMarin, pursuant to which BioMarin granted us an exclusive worldwide license under certain intellectual property rights related to GILT tags owned or controlled by BioMarin to develop, commercialize and sell retroviridae-based gene therapy products for use in the treatment of Pompe disease. This agreement was amended in February 2018 and again in January 2020 to, among things, provide that BioMarin would supply us with certain materials related to the GILT tags technology. Under the terms of the agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize one or more licensed products in the United States and certain European countries. In addition, we are required to initiate an IND-enabling pharmacology/toxicology study of a licensed product within a specified period of time.

As consideration for the license, we paid an initial license fee in the amount of $0.5 million and issued 233,765 shares of our Series B preferred stock to BioMarin at the time of our Series B financing. We are also obligated to make payments to BioMarin upon achievement of certain milestones up to an aggregate of $13.0 million and pay to BioMarin a low single digit royalty percentage on net sales of licensed products covered by patent rights in a relevant country. Our royalty obligation expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis upon the latest to occur of the expiration or termination of the last valid claim under the licensed patent rights in such country, which is currently projected to occur in 2029, the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country and the expiration of any applicable regulatory exclusivity in such country.

Unless terminated earlier, our license agreement with BioMarin will expire upon the expiration of our royalty obligation for all licensed products throughout the world. Either we or BioMarin may terminate the license agreement if the other party commits a material breach and fails to cure such breach within a certain period of time. BioMarin may also terminate the agreement in the event of any challenge or opposition to the licensed patent rights or related actions brought by us or our affiliates or sublicensees, or if we, our affiliates or sublicensees knowingly assist a third party in challenging or otherwise opposing the licensed patent rights, except as required under a court order or subpoena. In addition, BioMarin may terminate the agreement upon our bankruptcy or insolvency. We may terminate the agreement for any reason upon notice to BioMarin.

License Agreement with Papillon Therapeutics, Inc. (previously GenStem Therapeutics, Inc.)

In October 2017, we entered into a license agreement with GenStem Therapeutics, Inc., or GenStem, pursuant to which GenStem granted us an exclusive worldwide license, subject to certain retained rights, under certain intellectual property rights owned or controlled by GenStem related to our cystinosis program, including certain rights licensed to GenStem from the University of California, San Diego, to develop, commercialize and sell products for use in the treatment of cystinosis. Under the terms of the agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize one or more licensed products in the United States and in at least one country from other specified markets. We also agreed to comply with certain access requirements consistent with the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine regulations and to manufacture certain licensed products substantially in the United States. In October 2021, we received noticed that the license agreement with GenStem had been assigned to Papillon Therapeutics, Inc., or Papillon.

As consideration for the license, we paid an initial license fee in the amount of $1.0 million and are required to make payments upon completion of certain development milestones up to an aggregate of $16.0 million. For example, in November 2019 we made a $2.0 million payment in connection with the dosing of the first patient in the investigator-sponsored Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-04 in cystinosis in the United States. Additionally, we will pay to Papillon a tiered mid to high-single digit royalty percentage on annual net sales of licensed products as well as a low double-digit percentage of sublicense income received from certain third party sublicensees. Our royalty obligation expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis on the eleventh anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country or the expiration of the last valid claim under the licensed patent rights covering such licensed product in such country, which is currently projected to occur in 2038, whichever is later.

Unless terminated earlier, our license agreement with Papillon will terminate upon the expiration of our royalty obligation for all licensed products throughout the world. Either we or Papillon may terminate the license agreement if the other party commits a material breach and fails to cure such breach within a certain period of time. In addition, we may terminate the agreement for any reason upon notice to Papillon.

Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our potential competitors include larger pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. Key competitive factors affecting the commercial success of our gene therapies are likely to be efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience, price and reimbursement.

The market for treatment of lysosomal disorders is especially large and competitive. The gene therapies we are currently developing, if approved, will face competition.

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a small number of our competitors. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we may be in obtaining FDA approval for drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ products may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any product we may commercialize and may render our gene therapies obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing any of our gene therapies. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours. 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 gene therapies non-competitive or obsolete. See “Risk Factors—Risks related to the discovery and development of our product candidates—We face significant competition in our industry and there can be no assurance that our product candidates, if approved, will achieve acceptance in the market over existing established therapies. In addition, our competitors may develop therapies that are more advanced or effective than ours, which may adversely affect our ability to successfully market or commercialize any of our product candidates,” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information regarding competitors and competitive products.

In the United States, biological products, including gene therapy products, are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding regulations govern, among other things, the testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biological products. Each clinical study protocol for a gene therapy product must be reviewed by the FDA, and FDA approval must be obtained before the marketing of biological products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals.

Within the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, regulates gene therapy products. The FDA and the NIH have published guidance documents with respect to the development and submission of gene therapy protocols. The FDA has published guidance documents related to, among other things, gene therapy products in general, their preclinical assessment, observing subjects involved in gene therapy studies for delayed adverse events, potency testing, and chemistry, manufacturing and control information in INDs for gene therapies.

Ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology. More restrictive regulations or claims that our products are unsafe or pose a hazard could prevent us from commercializing any products. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

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

Before testing any biological product candidate, including a gene therapy product, in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs.

The clinical study sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to ship an unapproved, investigational product in interstate commerce and to administer it to humans, and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the clinical study on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical study can begin. In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules are subject to oversight of institutional biosafety committees, or IBCs, as set forth in the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. Under the NIH Guidelines, recombinant and synthetic nucleic acids are defined as: (i) molecules that are constructed by joining nucleic acid molecules and that can replicate in a living cell (i.e., recombinant nucleic acids); (ii) nucleic acid molecules that are chemically or by other means synthesized or amplified, including those that are chemically or otherwise modified but can base pair with naturally occurring nucleic acid molecules (i.e., synthetic nucleic acids); or (iii) molecules that result from the replication of those described in (i) or (ii). Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them.

The FDA also may impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical studies due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, studies may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical studies to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such studies.

Clinical studies involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the study sponsor’s control. Clinical studies are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical study will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical studies must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical study must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical study will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of study participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical studies are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical study subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical study until completed. Clinical research involving recombinant DNA that is subject to NIH guidelines also must be reviewed by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment.

Clinical studies typically are conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Post-approval clinical studies, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. The FDA recommends that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by ten years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire, of study subjects.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical study investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical studies must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, the NIH and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical studies may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor, acting on its own or based on a recommendation from the sponsor’s data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical study at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical study at its institution if the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Human gene therapy products are a new category of therapeutics. Because this is a relatively new and expanding area of novel therapeutic interventions, there can be no assurance as to the length of the study period, the number of patients the FDA will require to be enrolled in the studies in order to establish the safety, efficacy, purity and potency of human gene therapy products, or that the data generated in these studies will be acceptable to the FDA to support marketing approval. The NIH has a publicly accessible database, the Genetic Modification Clinical Research Information System which includes information on gene transfer studies and serves as an electronic tool to facilitate the reporting and analysis of adverse events on these studies.

Concurrent with clinical studies, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHS Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

After the completion of clinical studies of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human studies, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. In most cases, the submission of a BLA is subject to a substantial application user fee, although the fee may be waived under certain circumstances. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, for original BLAs, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an application with priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the BLA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a ‘‘filing’’ decision. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with GTPs. These are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical studies were conducted in compliance with IND study requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP, GTP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA for a novel product (e.g., new active ingredient, new indication, etc.) must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical studies are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical studies. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical studies, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical studies, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug or biological product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan product designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan product designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

Orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same biological product as defined by the FDA or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, benefits.

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, accelerated approval and priority review, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs and biologics that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. To be eligible for fast track designation, new drugs and biological products must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug or biologic

may request the FDA to designate the drug or biologic as a Fast Track product at any time during the clinical development of the product. One benefit of fast track designation, for example, is that the FDA may consider for review sections of the marketing application for a product that has received Fast Track designation on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted.

Under the breakthrough therapy program, products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may be eligible for the benefits of the Fast Track program when preliminary clinical evidence demonstrates that such product may have substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. Additionally, FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product receives timely advice and interactive communications to help the sponsor design and conduct a development program as efficiently as possible.

Any product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Under priority review, the FDA’s goal is to review an application in six months, compared to ten months for a standard review.

Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug or biological products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval, which means that they may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical studies establishing that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination of publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period.

As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in December 2016, Congress amended the FD&C Act to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, which include cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Regenerative medicine advanced therapies do not include those human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products regulated solely under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act and 21 CFR Part 1271. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and qualify for RMAT designation. A drug sponsor may request that the FDA designate a drug as a RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. The FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the drug meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A BLA for a regenerative medicine therapy that has received RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of RMAT designation also include early interactions with the FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy with RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence from clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval. Like the FDA’s other expedited development programs, RMAT designation does not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Maintaining substantial compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP. We will rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of any products that we may commercialize. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality

assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products, include reporting of cGMP deviations that may affect the identity, potency, purity and overall safety of a distributed product, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, and complying with electronic record and signature requirements. After a BLA is approved, the product also may be subject to official lot release. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products.

We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical holds, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors or other stakeholders, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biological products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterate products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biological product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. In addition, a patent can only be extended once and only for a single product. The U.S. PTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our patents, if and as applicable, to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical studies and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

A biological product can obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods, including some regulatory exclusivity periods tied to patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

The ACA, signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product. This amendment to the PHS Act attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. However, complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.

A reference biological product is granted four and 12 year exclusivity periods from the time of first licensure of the product. FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until twelve years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, to which we are subject, prohibits corporations and individuals from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in an official capacity.

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical studies and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical study application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical studies. In the European Union, for example, a

Clinical Trial Application, or CTA, must be submitted for each clinical trial to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and an IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, the corresponding clinical study may proceed.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational product under European Union regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application. The application used to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the European Union, with the exception of, among other things, region-specific document requirements. The European Union also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. For example, in the European Union, upon receiving marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’s regulatory authorities to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Products receiving orphan designation in the European Union can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no similar medicinal product for the same indication may be placed on the market. An orphan product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity in the European Union for pediatric studies. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications.

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the European Union are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the European Union, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The 10-year market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if:

For other countries outside of the European Union, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical studies must be conducted in accordance with GCPs and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

In addition to FDA restrictions on the marketing of pharmaceutical products, we may be subject to various federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute the gene therapies for which we obtain approval. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

•

the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. A person or entity can be found guilty of violating the statute without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act, or FCA. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution;

•

federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, including the FCA, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment to, or approval by Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or an obligation to pay or transmit money to the federal government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery;

•

the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters; similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payor. Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any source, not just governmental payors, including private insurers. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to penalties. Finally, there are state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including penalties, fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion or suspension from federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the U.S. government under the federal False Claims Act as well as under the false claims laws of several states.

Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing fraud and abuse laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including our arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom receive stock options as compensation for services provided, may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our gene therapies outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs, which may also adversely affect our business.

Regulators globally are also imposing greater monetary fines for privacy violations. For example, in 2016, the European Union adopted a new regulation governing data practices and privacy called the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. Non-compliance with the GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to €20 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Notably, on January 21, 2019, Google was fined almost $57 million by French regulators for violating GDPR.

The collection and use of personal health data in the European Union is governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive, and as of May 25, 2018 the GDPR. The GDPR applies to any company established in the European Union as well as to those outside the European Union if they collect and use personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to individuals in the European Union or the monitoring of their behavior. The GDPR enhances data protection obligations for processors and controllers of personal data, including, for example, expanded disclosures about how personal information is to be used, limitations on retention of information, mandatory data breach notification requirements and onerous new obligations on services providers. Non-compliance with the GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to €20 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. The GDPR and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of personal data, such as healthcare data or other sensitive information, could greatly increase our cost of providing our products and services or even prevent us from offering certain services in jurisdictions that we may operate in.

In addition, further to the UK’s exit from the EU on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the UK at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law, referred to as the “UK GDPR.” The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the EU’s data protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR, the European Commission has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing.

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which, among other things, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; introduced a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans; created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% (as of 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for manufacturers’ outpatient drugs coverage under Medicare Part D; subjects drug manufacturers to new annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal healthcare programs; created a new Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established the Center for Medicare Innovation at Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, President Biden issued an Executive Order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The Executive Order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administrations or other efforts, if any, to challenge repeal or replace the ACA, will impact our business.

In addition, other legislative and regulatory changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACE was enacted:

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. At the federal level, President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration’s policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drug and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and, by supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the Executive Order also directs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, enhance the domestic drug supply chain, reduce the price that the Federal government pays for drugs, and address price gouging in the industry; and directs the FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the FDA’s implementing regulations. FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by states under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our product candidates. Further, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates would have been be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. However, on December 29, 2021 CMS rescinded the Most Favored Nations rule. Additionally, on November 30, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, 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. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that additional foreign, federal and state healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that foreign federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in limited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, if approved, or additional pricing pressures.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any gene therapies for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any gene therapies for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover our gene therapies could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

In addition, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate.

As a result, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and will be a time-consuming process.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain and maintain coverage and reimbursement for any product, we may need to conduct expensive clinical trials in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of such product, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. If third-party payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover the product as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to sell its products at a profit. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, 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 therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 122 full-time employees, 30 of whom have Ph.D. or M.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 89 employees are engaged in research and development activities and 33 employees are engaged in finance, legal, human resources, facilities and general management. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, retaining, incentivizing and integrating existing and new employees, and identifying and recruiting prospective new employees. The principal purposes of our incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards and cash-based performance bonus awards.

We are subject to the informational requirements of the Exchange Act and are required to file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You can read our SEC filings at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We also maintain a website at www.avrobio.com. You may access, free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following risks and uncertainties, together with all other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” as well as our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, before investing in our common stock. Any of the risk factors we describe below could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. The market price of our common stock could decline if one or more of these risks or uncertainties were to occur, which may cause you to lose all or part of the money you paid to buy our common stock. Additional risks that are currently unknown to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial may also impair our business. Certain statements below are forward-looking statements. See “Forward-Looking Information” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks related to our business, financial position and need for additional capital

We have incurred net losses since inception. We expect to incur net losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since inception, we have incurred net losses. We incurred net losses of $119.1 million and $119.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. We historically financed our operations primarily through private placements of our preferred stock and, more recently, our initial public offering and follow-on public offerings of our common stock, as well as sales of our common stock under our “at-the-market” facility. In addition, in November 2021 we entered into the Term Loan Agreement. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development, including clinical and preclinical development of our product candidates, as well as assembling our team. We expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have commercialized any product candidates. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize product candidates with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, and our expenses will increase substantially as we seek to complete preclinical and clinical trials of our product candidates, and manufacture, market and sell these or any future product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval, if any, and satisfy any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. 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 also could cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We have never generated revenue from product sales and do not expect to do so for the next several years, if ever.

Our ability to generate revenue from product sales and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with collaborative partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize, our product candidates. We do not anticipate generating revenues from product sales for the next several years, if ever. Our ability to generate future revenues from product sales depends heavily on our, or our collaborators’, success in:

Even if one or more of the product candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities to perform clinical and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are able to generate revenues from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

We will need additional funding, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts or other operations.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $189.6 million. We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2021 will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the first quarter of 2024. This forecast of cash resources is forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties, and the actual amount of our expenses could vary materially and adversely as a result of a number of factors. We have based our estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and our expenses could prove to be significantly higher than we currently anticipate.

We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of, initiate further clinical trials of and seek marketing approval for, our product candidates and continue to enhance and optimize our vector technology and manufacturing processes. Furthermore, we currently have a total of five investigational gene therapies in our pipeline, two of which are in clinical development. As a result, further development of these programs will require us to expend significant resources to advance these candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to product sales, medical affairs, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on reasonable terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our product revenues, if any, will be derived from or based on sales of products that may not be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Our Term Loan Agreement contains restrictions that potentially limit our flexibility in operating our business, and we may be required to make a prepayment or repay our outstanding indebtedness earlier than we expect. In addition, as a result of the deprioritization of our Fabry program, we can no longer draw $20.0 million of term loans that were contingent upon the achievement of certain milestones related to our development of AVR-RD-01 for Fabry disease.

On November 2, 2021, we entered into the Term Loan Agreement. The Term Loan Agreement provided for term loans of up to $65.0 million in the aggregate available in three tranches, but due to the deprioritization of our Fabry program we can no longer draw $20.0 million of term loans that were contingent upon the achievement of certain milestones related to our development of AVR-RD-01 for Fabry disease. As a result, the amount that remains available to us for future drawdown, subject to satisfaction of the conditions in the Term Loan Agreement, is $30.0 million, $15.0 million of which requires the consent of the Agent and Lenders. The Term Loan Agreement contains various covenants that limit our ability to engage in specified types of transactions. These covenants limit our ability to, among other things:

A breach of any of these covenants could result in an event of default under the Term Loan Agreement. An event of default will also occur if, among other things, a material adverse change in our business, operations, or condition occurs, which could potentially include a material impairment of the prospect of our repayment of any portion of the amounts we owe under the Term Loan Agreement. In the case of a continuing event of default under the Term Loan Agreement, the lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding to be immediately due and payable, proceed against the collateral in which we granted the Lenders a security interest under the Term Loan Agreement, or otherwise exercise the rights of a secured creditor. Amounts outstanding under the Term Loan Agreement are secured by all of our existing and future assets, excluding intellectual property, which is subject to a negative pledge arrangement.

At closing, we drew $15.0 million of the $30.0 million available to us as part of the first tranche. As executed, the Term Loan Agreement also provided the ability to access up to an additional $35.0 million, of which $20.0 million could be drawn in two additional tranches subject to the achievement of certain regulatory and clinical milestones, or the Milestone Funding, and of which $15.0 million could be drawn in an additional tranche with the approval of the Agent and the Lenders. However, as a result of the deprioritization of our Fabry disease program, we are no longer able to draw the $20.0 million of Milestone Funding per the terms of the Term Loan Agreement. Moreover, if the Agent and Lenders do not consent, we would not be able to draw down the final $15.0 million tranche of financing. If we are unable to access the final $15.0 million tranche, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain alternative financing to replace such tranche on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could adversely impact our business.

We may not have enough available cash to repay or refinance our indebtedness at the time any such repayment is required. In such an event, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our preclinical and clinical product development or grant others rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially adversely affected as a result.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or cause us to relinquish valuable rights.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity, convertible debt securities or other equity-based derivative securities, your ownership interest will be diluted and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Any additional indebtedness we incur would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Furthermore, the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline and existing stockholders may not agree with our financing plans or the terms of such financings. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, or our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We are a clinical-stage company founded in November 2015. Our operations to date have been limited to corporate organization, recruiting key personnel, business planning, raising capital, acquiring rights to our technology, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking preclinical studies and planning and supporting clinical trials of certain of our product candidates and establishing research and development and manufacturing capabilities. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to complete clinical trials of our product candidates, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture products on a commercial scale or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history. In addition, as an early-stage company, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors.

Business interruptions resulting from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic or similar public health crises have caused and may continue to cause a disruption of the development of our product candidates and adversely impact our business.

Public health crises such as pandemics or similar outbreaks could adversely impact our business. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has continued to disrupt normal business operations both in and outside of affected areas and has had significant negative impacts on businesses and financial markets worldwide. We continue to monitor our operations and follow applicable government recommendations and the majority of our employees, other than our laboratory staff, have continued to work from home. Notwithstanding these measures, the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, including potential outbreaks of new variants, could affect the health and availability of our workforce as well as those of the third parties on which we rely. If members of our management and other key personnel are unable to perform their duties or have limited availability due to COVID-19, we may not be able to execute on our business strategy and/or our operations may be negatively impacted. We

may experience limitations in employee resources, including because of sickness of employees or their families or the desire of employees to avoid contact with individuals or large groups of people.

In addition, clinical trial activities, including patient enrollment and data collection, are dependent upon global clinical trial sites which have been and continue to be adversely affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. For example, as the global healthcare community responded to the fluctuations in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations, many hospitals, including our clinical sites, temporarily paused elective procedures, which included dosing of new patients with our investigational gene therapies. While dosing of new patients began to resume in the first half of 2021, our ability to continue clinical activities without further delay or interruption will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be accurately predicted. Additionally, while ongoing data collection has continued for our patients that have been dosed, certain data collection was previously delayed and additional delays could result from COVID-19-related interruptions, particularly as new variants of the virus are identified and continue to spread. We are currently conducting and planning to conduct clinical trials for our product candidates in geographies that have been affected by COVID-19.

Additional factors from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic that have delayed and may continue to delay or otherwise adversely affect enrollment in or the progress of the clinical trials of our product candidates, as well as our business generally, include:

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, three vaccines for COVID-19 have received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and two of those later received marketing approval. Additional vaccines may be authorized or approved in the future. The resultant demand for vaccines and potential for manufacturing facilities and materials to be commandeered under the Defense Production Act of 1950, or equivalent foreign legislation, may make it more difficult to obtain materials or manufacturing slots for the products needed for our clinical trials, which could lead to delays in these trials.

These and other factors arising from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could worsen and further adversely impact our ability to conduct clinical trials and our business generally, and could have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition and results. The extent to which the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic impacts our operations or those of our third party partners will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the duration of the pandemic, the efficacy and safety of vaccines, including against emerging variants, the ability of third parties to manufacture and distribute vaccines and the public’s willingness to receive such vaccines, and new information that may emerge concerning mutations of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, among others.

Our lentiviral-based gene therapy product candidates are based on a novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval.

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on our lentiviral-based gene therapy approach, and our future success depends on our successful development of viable gene therapy product candidates. There can be no assurance that we will not experience problems or delays in developing new product candidates and that such problems or delays will not cause unanticipated costs, or that any such development problems can be solved. For example, timely enrollment in our clinical trials is dependent upon global clinical trial sites which have been and may continue to be adversely affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, especially if a resurgence of cases occurs. In addition, the implementation of our plato platform and upgrades, including our current conditioning regimen or any conditioning regimen we implement in the future, may result in delays or setbacks in our research and development activities, and we may not realize the intended benefits of these efforts. In addition, we may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. For example, as of March 1, 2022 we have only dosed nine patients using our plato platform, which includes six patients in our FAB-GT clinical trial for which we have halted enrollment. Our implementation of the LV2 lentiviral vector or of our cell processing to an industrialized, automated closed system using disposable supplies may not be successful or may experience unforeseen delays, which may cause shortages or delays in the supply of our products available for clinical trials and future commercial sales, if any, or impair our research and development efforts, including those in our ongoing and future clinical trials. In addition, there is no assurance that products using our proprietary LV2 lentiviral vector or manufactured using this automated system will ultimately achieve the same favorable preliminary results observed to date. Furthermore, the FDA generally prefers that clinical trials be double-blinded and potentially include sham controls. Such a trial design could be challenging to implement due to the nature of the treatment regimen of lentiviral gene therapy.

In addition, the clinical trial requirements of the FDA and other foreign regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of such product candidates. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied product candidates. To date, only a limited number of gene therapies have received marketing authorization from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. It is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan or other major markets or how long it will take to commercialize our product candidates, if any are approved. Approvals by foreign regulatory authorities may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval, and vice versa.

Gene therapy clinical trials conducted at institutions that receive funding for recombinant DNA research from the United States National Institutes of Health, or NIH, also are subject to the NIH Guidelines, under which supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. Before a clinical trial can begin at any institution, that institution’s review board, or IRB, ant its IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment. While the NIH guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, the review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial and approved its initiation. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. Similarly, foreign regulatory authorities may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy medicinal products and require that we comply with these new guidelines.

The FDA, NIH and the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, have each expressed interest in further regulating biotechnology, including gene therapy and genetic testing. For example, the EMA advocates a risk-based approach to the development of a gene therapy product. Agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, as well as the U.S. congressional committees and other governments or governing agencies, have also expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry. Such action may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our product candidates.

These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and any new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult

with these regulatory and advisory groups, and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of certain of our product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects would be materially and adversely affected.

The FDA continues to develop its approach to assessing gene and cell therapy products. For example, the agency has released a series of draft and final guidance documents relating to, among other topics, various aspects of gene therapy product development, review, and approval, including aspects relating to clinical and manufacturing issues related to gene therapy products. In January 2020, the FDA released a final guidance with recommendations for long-term follow-up studies of patients following human gene therapy administration due to the increased risk of undesirable and unpredictable outcomes with gene therapies that may present as delayed adverse events. We cannot be certain whether such guidance, or other guidance that the FDA may issue, will be relevant to or have an adverse impact on our gene therapy candidates or the duration or expense of any applicable regulatory development and review processes.

Our product candidates and the process for administering our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

During the conduct of clinical trials, patients may experience changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries, discomforts or a fatal outcome. It is possible that as we test our product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical programs, or as use of our product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other adverse events that were observed in earlier clinical trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous clinical trials, will be reported by patients. Additionally, any early access to the Company’s investigational therapies, such as through expanded or Right to Try access, may lead to discovery of undesirable side effects that could have adverse effects on the development programs for current and future product candidates. Gene therapies are also subject to the potential risk that occurrence of adverse events will be delayed following administration of the gene therapy due to persistent biological activity of the genetic material or other components of the vectors used to carry the genetic material. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational products are tested in larger scale, pivotal clinical trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. FDA guidance advises that patients treated with gene therapies undergo long-term follow-up observation for potential adverse events for as long as 15 years. If additional clinical or long-term follow-up experience indicates that any of our product candidates have side effects or cause serious or life-threatening side effects, the development of the product candidate may fail or be delayed, or, if the product candidate has received regulatory approval, such approval may be revoked or limited.

There have been several significant adverse side effects in gene therapy treatments in the past, including multiple reported cases of leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome and death seen in other clinical trials. Gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease treatment and additional adverse side effects could develop. Possible adverse side effects that may occur with treatment with gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction early after administration that could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment or represent safety risks for patients. Another traditional safety concern for gene therapies using viral vectors has been the possibility of insertional oncogenesis by the vectors, leading to malignant transformation of transduced cells. As more patients are dosed with ex vivo lentiviral gene therapies and higher VCNs are achieved, it is expected that very rare cases of insertional oncogenesis may occur. For example, several patients with cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy treated in a third-party ex vivo lentiviral gene therapy clinical trial have been diagnosed with treatment-related myelodysplastic syndrome, with one case being deemed likely mediated by insertion of the lentiviral vector. In addition, persistent dominant clonal expansion due to vector integration has been observed in third-party ex vivo lentiviral gene therapy clinical trials. While our lentiviral gene therapy approach is designed to avoid immunogenicity against the drug product after administration, there can be no assurance that patients would not create antibodies that may impair treatment. In addition, although in the future we may potentially implement molecular cytogenetic screening, there can be no assurance that we will successfully implement such screening procedures in a timely manner or at all, or that, if implemented, they will enhance the safety profile of our gene therapy product candidates. If any of our gene therapy product candidates demonstrates adverse side effects at unacceptable rates or degrees of severity, we may decide or be required to halt or delay clinical development of such product candidates.

In addition to side effects caused by our product candidates, the conditioning, administration process or related procedures, which we evaluate from time to time as part of our process improvement and optimization efforts, also can cause adverse side effects. A gene therapy patient is generally administered one or more myeloablative drugs to remove stem cells

from the bone marrow to create sufficient space in the bone marrow for the modified gene-corrected stem cells to engraft and produce their progeny. This procedure causes side effects and can transiently compromise the patient’s immune system, known as neutropenia, and reduce blood clotting, known as thrombocytopenia.

In 2019 we began transitioning, in connection with our Company-sponsored clinical trials, towards a new conditioning regimen for our product candidates utilizing busulfan as the myeloablative conditioning agent instead of the melphalan that we previously used. The use of this conditioning regimen is designed to utilize a precision dosing program, TCI, to achieve a balance between the removal of a sufficient amount of bone marrow cells from a patient against potential risks such as toxicity or graft failure. In addition, we are evaluating the potential future use of alternative conditioning agents in lieu of the current busulfan TCI conditioning regimen. For example, we have entered into collaboration agreements with Jasper Therapeutics and Magenta Therapeutics and are currently evaluating the potential use of their respective monoclonal antibody conditioning agents. We are also evaluating the potential use of additional agents to tailor the conditioning regimen for certain disease indications. However, there can be no assurances these alternative conditioning regimens will be implemented or would be successful if implemented. Our conditioning regimens may not be successful or may nevertheless result in adverse side effects. For example, in each of our ongoing clinical trials several adverse events, including suppression of neutrophils and platelet counts following the conditioning process, have been observed. While such adverse events in connection with conditioning is expected, if in the future any such adverse events caused by the conditioning process or related procedures continue at unacceptable rates or degrees of severity, the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease development of, or deny approval of, our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. There have been cases of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome, a type of blood disorder that is a potential precursor to acute myeloid leukemia, in patients with preexisting cancer where busulfan treatment was posited to be a contributing factor to this secondary malignancy. Although in the future we may potentially implement molecular cytogenetic screening as an additional risk reduction measure, there can be no guarantees that these procedures will be implemented in a timely manner or would be successful if implemented. Even if we are able to demonstrate that adverse events are not product-related, such occurrences could adversely affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the clinical trial, and lead to a decline in our stock price.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure that the benefits outweigh its risks, which may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients, a communication plan to health care practitioners, and restrictions on how or where the product can be distributed, dispensed or used. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates, lead to a decline in our stock price, and significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We have never completed a pivotal or registrational clinical trial, and may be unable to do so for any product candidates we may develop.

We are at an early stage of development for all of our product candidates. As of the date of this Annual Report, only 21 patients have been dosed in our clinical trials, which includes 14 patients from our Fabry program that we deprioritized in January 2022. Our ongoing clinical trials, as well as potentially additional pivotal clinical trials (also referred to as registrational trials), must be completed in order to obtain FDA or other regulatory approval to market these product candidates. We have limited experience in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings, and have not previously submitted a biologics license application, or BLA, for any product candidate. Carrying out later-stage clinical trials is a complicated and lengthy process, and we do not expect that all data from patients participating in the clinical trials will be relevant or meaningful.

In addition, across our Company-sponsored clinical trials we have dosed only two patients in the United States, and our interactions with the FDA have generally been limited. We cannot be certain how many additional clinical trials of AVR-RD-04, AVR-RD-02 or any other product candidates will be required or how such trials should be designed. In order to commence a clinical trial in the United States, we are required to seek FDA acceptance of an IND for each of our product candidates. We cannot be sure any IND we submit to the FDA, or any similar clinical trial application we submit in other countries, will be accepted. While we have received clearance from the FDA to commence clinical testing in the United States for AVR-RD-02 and AVR-RD-04, and the sponsor of the collaborator-led clinical trial for AVR-RD-04 has received the same, there can be no assurance that we will be able to submit and secure similar clearances for any of our other product candidates. We may also be required to conduct additional preclinical testing prior to filing an IND for any of our product candidates, and the results of any such testing may not be positive. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to a BLA submission and approval of any of our product candidates. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in commercializing any of our product candidates.

The ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-04 is being conducted by our collaborators at the University of California, San Diego. In addition, the planned Phase 1/2 clinical trial of AVR-RD-05 will be an investigator-sponsored trial conducted by our collaborators at The University of Manchester. We do not control the design or administration of investigator-sponsored trials, nor the submission or approval of any IND or foreign equivalent required to conduct these trials, and the investigator-sponsored trials could, depending on the actions of such third parties, jeopardize the validity of the clinical data generated, identify significant concerns with respect to our product candidates that could impact our findings or clinical trials, and adversely affect our ability to obtain marketing approval from the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities. To the extent the results of this or other investigator-sponsored trials are inconsistent with, or different from, the results of our planned Company-sponsored trials or raise concerns regarding our product candidates, the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority may question the results of the Company-sponsored trial, or subject such results to greater scrutiny than it otherwise would. In these circumstances, the FDA or such foreign regulatory authorities may require us to obtain and submit additional clinical data, which could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates. In addition, while investigator-sponsored trials could be useful to inform our own clinical development efforts, there is no guarantee that we will be able to use the data from these trials to form the basis for regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Success in preclinical studies or early clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained in later trials.

Results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future clinical trial results and are not necessarily indicative of final results. There can be no assurance that prior results, such as signals of safety, activity or durability of effect, observed from preclinical studies or clinical trials will be replicated or will continue in ongoing or future studies or trials. Furthermore, preliminary results may not be indicative of the final results of a trial after all data have been collected and analyzed. For example, in January 2022 we announced the deprioritization of our Fabry program due to several factors, including new clinical data showing variable engraftment patterns from the five most recently dosed Phase 2 FAB-GT patients. Although previously reported data from 13 patients treated across our clinical-stage programs had shown durable engraftment out 9 to 54 months, the new data from the five most recently dosed Phase 2 FAB-GT patients were discordant with these other data and showed variable engraftment. Data from three of the five patients showed both a reduction to near baseline levels in alpha-galactosidase A enzyme activity in leukocytes and plasma, and a reduction in vector copy number in whole blood, potentially suggesting resistance to persistent engraftment of the genetically modified cells observed at three to nine months post infusion of AVR-RD-01. Based on our internal assessment, we believe, due to the large degree of heterogeneity in Fabry disease, that in some cases there may be intrinsic resistance to engraftment related to the unique underlying pathophysiology of untreated Fabry disease, potentially caused by the persistently stressed vascular endothelium. However, while this belief is based on a thorough review and analysis conducted by the Company, it remains a hypothesis and there can be no assurances that similar engraftment or other issues will not occur in clinical trials of our other product candidates, which are all based on our technology and the same ex vivo lentiviral approach utilized for AVR-RD-01. For example, although we believe the variable engraftment data were caused by factors intrinsic to certain Fabry disease patients and we do not anticipate readthrough to other clinical trials, if the variable engraftment data were actually caused, directly or indirectly, by any other factors, including any aspect of our plato platform or the conditioning process, we could see similar issues in other clinical trials.

There is a high failure rate for gene therapy and biologic product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In

addition, the design of a pivotal clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. Our Company has limited experience in designing and conducting clinical trials and we may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support regulatory approval.

We also may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including due to changes in regulatory policy or the approval of competitive therapies during the period of our product candidate development. Any of our current or future product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies. Any such failure would cause us to abandon the product candidate.

Additionally, the clinical trials performed to date have been open-label studies and have been conducted at a limited number of clinical sites on a limited number of patients. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Moreover, patients selected for early clinical studies often include the most severe sufferers and their symptoms may have been bound to improve notwithstanding the new treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware that patients have received treatment and may interpret the information more favorably given this knowledge. Because our clinical trials are ongoing, the data that we report are preliminary and subject to change. As is typical in open-label studies in which interim reports are provided, the safety and efficacy data are regularly reviewed and validated. As a result, certain data may change over time, including reductions or increases in the number of reported safety events, until the database is locked at the end of the study.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent us from proceeding with clinical trials of our product candidates.

The timing and success of our patient enrollment and clinical trial activities depend on our ability to recruit patients to participate as well as the completion of required follow-up periods. Patients may be unwilling to participate in our gene therapy clinical trials because of negative publicity from adverse events related to the biotechnology or gene therapy fields, competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, clinical trials in product candidates employing our vectors, the existence of current treatments or for other reasons. In addition, the indications that we are currently targeting and may in the future target are rare diseases, which may limit the pool of patients that may be enrolled in our ongoing or planned clinical trials. The timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed, including as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidates, delays in testing the effectiveness of our product candidates or termination of the clinical trials altogether. For example, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, patient enrollment and dosing was temporarily paused in our ongoing clinical trials and certain data collection has been delayed. While patient enrollment and dosing activities have begun to resume, there could be additional pauses in the future as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or other factors.

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner or at all. Although we currently expect to have enrolled by the end of 2022 up to a total of eight patients in our Company-sponsored clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 for Gaucher disease type 1, which we refer to as the Guard1 clinical trial, there can be no assurances we will achieve that goal or any of our other patient enrollment goals. For example, in 2019 we encountered delays in the enrollment of patients in the Guard1 clinical trial due to patient pre-screening failures that impacted the commencement of enrollment. Additionally, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2020 we encountered protracted timelines with our Guard1 investigational site startup activities, which also impacted patient enrollment.

We have expanded our patient enrollment activities to include patients who reside in a country other than the country where the applicable clinical site is located, and who are required to travel for some or all of the clinical testing and procedures required for patients in the applicable clinical trial. We have encountered and in the future may continue to encounter logistical and regulatory challenges that could delay or prevent any such international patients from successfully enrolling and completing clinical trial procedures, including delays in processing or obtaining patient travel visas or denials of entry at borders, potential travel disruptions, or de-prioritization or unavailability of resources at clinical sites for non-resident international clinical trial participants, any of which could delay our progress and completion of planned clinical trials and which would have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, once these international patients return to their home country they may need to travel back to the country where the applicable clinical site is located. If these patients are unwilling or unable to return to the clinical site for testing and procedures, progress and completion of the clinical trial could be delayed or prevented.

Our current product candidates are being developed to treat rare conditions. We plan to seek initial marketing approvals in the United States, Europe and certain other major markets, including Japan. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials if we cannot enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in the clinical trials required by FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities. Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete a clinical trial in any foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials or we may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical studies to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenues. In addition, if we make changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions, which could delay our clinical development plan or marketing approval for our product candidates. For example, we have transitioned our lentiviral vectors to an LV2 version in connection with our plato platform implementation. In addition, the transition from LV1 to LV2 has required (and is anticipated to continue to require) submission of relevant data to the applicable regulatory authorities in connection with certain of our regulatory filings, including our INDs and clinical trial applications, to demonstrate analytic comparability between LV1 and LV2. Our CTA (including amendments) and IND for our Guard1 clinical study of AVR-RD-02 for Gaucher disease in Canada and the United States, for which Health Canada has issued no objection letters and the FDA has cleared, respectively, included data utilizing LV2 and our automated manufacturing platform. While these applications included data relating to our LV2 lentiviral vector and our automated manufacturing process, which are elements of our plato platform, we expect that the FDA, Health Canada or other regulatory authorities will require us to undertake additional actions in connection with our transition to our plato platform, including submission of additional comparability studies in connection with future regulatory filings, which may result in delays, suspension or termination of ongoing or future clinical trials, or our inability to conduct our trials according to the plans or the timelines that we have envisioned. For example, the Phase 1/2 collaborator-sponsored clinical study of AVR-RD-04 for cystinosis in the United States, which has been cleared by the FDA, does not include our LV2 lentiviral vector or our automated manufacturing platform. Additionally, the study drug for the planned investigator-sponsored clinical study of AVR-RD-05 for Hunter syndrome will not be manufactured using our plato platform, and neither the automated, closed manufacturing system nor LV2 will be used in connection with this clinical trial. Moreover, we are currently evaluating the implementation of an additional, new conditioning regimen that utilizes conditioning agents other than busulfan. We anticipate that we will be required to submit comparability data in future regulatory filings relating to our transition to LV2, the automated manufacturing platform and any new conditioning regiment that we implement. Any such filings may result in delay, suspension or termination of ongoing or future clinical trials pending our submission, and the applicable regulatory agency’s review, of such updates. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

If the results of our clinical studies are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates and impair our ability to commercialize our products.

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical and clinical studies, we cannot predict when or if we will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate and the approval may be for a narrower indication than we seek.

We cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Even if our product candidates demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical studies, the regulatory agencies may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory agency policy during the period of product development, clinical studies and the review process. Regulatory agencies also may approve a treatment candidate for fewer or more limited indications than requested or may grant approval subject to the performance of post-marketing studies. In addition, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. If we are unable to obtain necessary regulatory approvals, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may suffer.

Only one of our ongoing clinical trials utilizes our commercial-scale plato platform.

While we have submitted and intend to continue to submit comparability studies to the FDA and other regulatory agencies, as needed, with respect to our implementation of our commercial-scale plato platform, there can be no assurance that the FDA or other regulatory agencies will not in the future require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials that could result in delays and additional costs in our development or commercialization programs for our product candidates, which could adversely affect our business. We intend to continue implementing our commercial-scale plato platform, including heightened vector efficiency, our closed, automated manufacturing system and utilization of a customized conditioning regimen, in connection with each of our investigational product candidates. We have developed the plato platform to form the backbone of our commercial programs, with the intent of replacing our original academic platform with improved solutions for delivering our gene therapy candidates to patients in multiple disease indications. We believe improvements from our plato platform may lead to better patient outcomes with our gene therapy candidates. In order to implement this transition, we have been and will be required to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions, which could delay our clinical development plans or marketing approvals, if any. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

We face significant competition in our industry and there can be no assurance that our product candidates, if approved, will achieve acceptance in the market over existing established therapies. In addition, our competitors may develop therapies that are more advanced or effective than ours, which may adversely affect our ability to successfully market or commercialize any of our product candidates.

We operate in a highly competitive segment of the biopharmaceutical market. We face competition from many different sources, including larger pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. Our product candidates, if successfully developed and approved, will compete with established therapies, some of which are being marketed by large and international companies. In addition, we expect to compete with new treatments that are under development or may be advanced into the clinic by our competitors. There are a variety of product candidates, including gene therapies, in development for the indications that we are targeting.

We anticipate competing with the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. For example, for Gaucher disease, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, and Shire, acquired by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., market existing enzyme replacement therapies, or ERTs, that represent the standard of care for Gaucher patients. For Gaucher disease we also expect to compete with oral therapies marketed by Actelion and Sanofi. Sanofi also markets an enzyme replacement therapy for Pompe disease, and Shire markets an enzyme replacement therapy for Hunter syndrome. Cystinosis is currently treated by therapies marketed by Horizon Orphan, Mylan, Chiesi, Recordati, Orphan Europe and Leadiant Biosciences. In addition, we may compete with other gene therapy companies in our industry such as Freeline Therapeutics, Generation Bio, Prevail Therapeutics or Graphite Bio. In particular, a number of gene therapy companies have announced preclinical or clinical non-viral and adeno-associated viral based gene therapy programs that, if successful in obtaining regulatory approval, could compete with our gene therapies.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, product candidate development, manufacturing and marketing resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for their products, and mergers and acquisitions within these industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of larger competitors. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel therapeutics or to in-license novel therapeutics that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our business would be materially and adversely affected if competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, have broader market acceptance, are more convenient or are less expensive than any product candidate that we may develop.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances.

While we intend to seek designations for our product candidates with the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities that are intended to confer benefits such as a faster development process or an accelerated regulatory pathway, there can be no assurance that we will successfully obtain such designations. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates are granted such designations, we may not be able to realize the intended benefits of such designations.

The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities offer certain designations for product candidates that are designed to encourage the research and development of product candidates that are intended to address conditions with significant unmet medical need. These designations may confer benefits such as additional interaction with regulatory authorities, a potentially accelerated regulatory pathway and priority review. However, there can be no assurance that we will successfully obtain such designations for any of our product candidates. In addition, while such designations could expedite the development or approval process, they generally do not change the standards for approval. Even if we obtain such designations for one or more of our product candidates, there can be no assurance that we will realize their intended benefits.

We may seek a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for some of our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects

observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification.

In addition, we may seek Fast Track Designation for some of our product candidates. If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the therapy demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the therapy sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. In July 2021 we received Fast Track Designation from the FDA for AVR-RD-04 for the treatment of cystinosis to improve renal function. However, the FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe another product candidate is eligible for this designation, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, and receiving a Fast Track Designation does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

In addition, we may seek a regenerative medicine advanced therapy, or RMAT, designation for some of our product candidates. An RMAT is defined as cell therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Gene therapies, including genetically modified cells that lead to a durable modification of cells or tissues may meet the definition of a regenerative medicine therapy. The RMAT program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of RMATs, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A new drug application or a BLA for an RMAT may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through (1) surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit or (2) reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of such designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real-world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval. RMAT designation is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a regenerative medicine advanced therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of RMAT designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify for RMAT designation, the FDA may later decide that the biological products no longer meet the conditions for qualification.

We may be unable to obtain orphan drug designation for our product candidates and, even if we obtain such designation, we may not be able to realize the benefits of such designation, including potential marketing exclusivity of our product candidates, if approved.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and other major markets, may designate drugs intended to treat conditions or diseases affecting relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as having a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the European Union, EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the European Union. Additionally, orphan designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biologic product.

In October 2019 and March 2020, the FDA granted our requests for orphan drug designation for AVR-RD-02 for the treatment of Gaucher disease and AVR-RD-04 for the treatment of cystinosis, respectively. In September 2020 and March 2021 we announced that the European Commission granted our request for orphan drug designation for AVR-RD-02 for the treatment of Gaucher disease and AVR-RD-04 for the treatment of cystinosis, respectively. However, if we request orphan drug designation (or the foreign equivalent) for any other product candidates, there can be no assurances that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will grant any of our product candidates such designation. Additionally, the designation of any of our product candidates as an orphan product does not mean that any regulatory agency will accelerate regulatory review of, or ultimately approve, that product candidate, nor does it limit the ability of any regulatory agency to grant orphan drug designation to product candidates of other companies that treat the same indications as our product candidates prior to our product candidates receiving exclusive marketing approval.

Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities from approving another marketing application for a product that constitutes the same drug treating the same indication for that marketing exclusivity period, except in limited circumstances. If another sponsor receives such approval before we do (regardless of our orphan drug designation), we will be precluded from receiving marketing approval for our product for the applicable exclusivity period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and 10 years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to nine years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be revoked if any regulatory agency determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition in the United States. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA may subsequently approve another drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the latter drug is not the same drug or is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the European Union, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product for the same orphan indication if:

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, our products will remain subject to regulatory oversight.

Even if we obtain any regulatory approval for our product candidates, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates also may be subject to a REMS, limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the quality, safety and efficacy of the product. For example, the holder of an approved BLA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. FDA guidance advises that patients treated with gene therapies undergo long-term follow-up observation for potential adverse events for as long as 15 years. The holder of an approved BLA also must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws.

In addition, product manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, requirements and adherence to commitments made in the BLA or foreign marketing application. Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA, and comparable foreign regulatory authority, requirements including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations and

applicable product tracking and tracing requirements. If we, or a regulatory authority, discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of that product, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions relative to that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing.

If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of any of our product candidates, a regulatory authority may:

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the FDA’s policies, and those of equivalent foreign regulatory agencies, may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our focus on developing our current product candidates may not yield any commercially viable products, and our failure to successfully identify and develop additional product candidates could impair our ability to grow.

As part of our growth strategy, we intend to identify, develop and market additional product candidates beyond our existing product candidates. We may spend several years completing our development of any particular current or future product candidates, and failure can occur at any stage. The product candidates to which we allocate our resources may not end up being successful. Because we have limited resources, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with certain programs or product candidates or for indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential than our product candidates. Our spending on current and future research and development programs may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through strategic collaborations, licensing or other arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts with respect to a particular product candidate or fail to develop a potentially successful product candidate.

Because our internal research capabilities are limited, we may be dependent upon biotechnology companies, academic scientists and other researchers to sell or license product candidates, approved products or the underlying technology to us. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify, select, discover and acquire promising product candidates and products.

In addition, certain of our current or future product candidates may not demonstrate in patients any or all of the pharmacological benefits we believe they may possess or compare favorably to existing, approved therapies, such as ERT.

We have not yet succeeded and may never succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety of our product candidates or any future product candidates in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. Accordingly, our focus on treating these diseases may not result in the development of commercially viable products.

If we are unsuccessful in our development efforts, we may not be able to advance the development of our product candidates, commercialize products, raise capital, expand our business or continue our operations.

Gene therapies are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience production problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs or otherwise adversely affect our business.

The manufacturing process we use to produce our product candidates is complex, novel and has not been validated for commercial use. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers.

Our product candidates require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and chemical properties of a biologic such as ours generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product may not be sufficient to ensure that the product will perform in the intended manner. Accordingly, we and our manufacturing suppliers employ multiple steps to control the manufacturing process with the goal of ensuring that the product candidate is made strictly and consistently in compliance with the process. Problems with the manufacturing process, including even minor deviations from the intended process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims or insufficient inventory. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet FDA or other applicable regulatory standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs.

In addition, the FDA and other foreign regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the agency authorizes its release. Even slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. There is no assurance we will not experience lot failures in the future. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay clinical trials, or, if approved, commercial product launches, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We expect to rely on third parties to conduct some or all aspects of our vector production, product manufacturing, protocol development, research and preclinical and clinical testing, and these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

We do not expect to independently conduct all aspects of our vector production, product manufacturing, protocol development, research and preclinical and clinical testing. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties with respect to these items. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us or renegotiate the terms of our agreements at any time. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay our product development activities. Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required regulations and study protocols. For example, for product candidates that we develop and commercialize on our own, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical and clinical studies are conducted in accordance with the study plan, protocols and regulatory requirements.

If our contract counterparties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our studies in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated study plans and protocols, we will not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the preclinical and clinical studies required to support approval of our product candidates or the FDA or other regulatory agencies may refuse to accept our clinical or preclinical data. For example, in 2019 we encountered delays in the enrollment of patients in the Company-sponsored Guard1 clinical trial of AVR-RD-02 for Gaucher disease. While a number of interested patients had been identified for the Guard1 clinical trial, we encountered patient pre-screening failures that impacted the commencement of enrollment in these studies. Additionally, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2020 we encountered protracted timelines with our investigational site startup activities for our Guard1 clinical trial, which also impacted patient enrollment. In 2020, a kidney biopsy was conducted on the third patient in the FAB-GT clinical trial of AVR-RD-01, but due to human error in processing the biopsy sample at the external laboratory vendor, the kidney Gb3 inclusions could not be evaluated and will not be available.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the product candidates ourselves, including:

Any of these events could lead to delays of our preclinical and clinical studies or failure to obtain regulatory approval, or impact our ability to successfully commercialize future products. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of production.

We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on sole source suppliers for our automated, closed cell processing system; vector supply; plasmid supply; and cell culture media supply, and we plan to rely on a sole source supplier of drug product manufacturing. In addition, we are dependent on a limited number of suppliers for some of our other components and materials used in our product candidates.

We have moved our cell processing to an automated, closed system with a sole source supplier. In addition, we currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on sole source suppliers for vector supply, plasmid supply and cell culture media, and we are planning to rely on a sole source supplier of drug product for our Company-sponsored clinical trials. Our sole source suppliers may be unwilling or unable to supply product to us reliably, continuously or at the levels we anticipate or are required by our clinical trial activities. Although we have entered into written supply agreements with our sole source suppliers, such suppliers could still delay, suspend, or terminate supply of product to us for a number of reasons, including manufacturing or quality issues, payment disputes with us, bankruptcy or insolvency, or other occurrences.

In addition, we currently depend on a limited number of suppliers for some of the other components necessary for our product candidates. We cannot be sure that any of our suppliers will remain in business, or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose. Our use of a sole source or limited number of suppliers of raw materials, components and finished goods exposes us to several risks, including disruptions in supply, price increases, late deliveries and an inability to meet customer demand. There are, in general, relatively few alternative sources of supply for these components and equipment. Any of our vendors may be unable or unwilling to meet our future demands for our clinical trials or commercial sale. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for these components and materials could take a substantial amount of time and it may be difficult to establish replacement suppliers who meet regulatory requirements. Any disruption in supply from any supplier or manufacturing location could lead to supply delays or interruptions which would damage our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we are required to switch to a replacement supplier or manufacture materials ourselves, the manufacture and delivery of our product candidates could be interrupted for an extended period, adversely affecting our business. Establishing additional or replacement suppliers may not be accomplished quickly, and we may not be able to enter agreements with replacement suppliers on reasonable terms, if at all. In either scenario, our clinical trials supply could be delayed significantly as we establish alternative supply sources. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original CMO and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual

restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. If we are able to find a replacement supplier, the replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory authority approval, which could result in further delay. For example, the FDA could require additional supplemental bridging data if we rely upon a new supplier. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials. While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the components and materials used in our product candidates, any interruption or delay in the supply of components or materials, or our inability to obtain components or materials from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner, could impair our ability to conduct our clinical trials and, if our product candidates are approved, to meet the demand of our customers and cause them to cancel orders.

In addition, as part of the FDA’s approval of our product candidates, the FDA must review and approve the individual components of our production process, which includes the manufacturing processes and facilities of our suppliers. Our current suppliers have not undergone this process, nor have they had any components included in any product approved by the FDA.

Our reliance on suppliers subjects us to a number of risks that could harm our reputation, business, and financial condition, including, among other things:

If any of these risks materialize, costs could significantly increase and our ability to conduct our clinical trials and, if our product candidates are approved, to meet demand for our products could be impacted.

We and our contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing our products. The manufacturing facilities on which we rely may not continue to meet regulatory requirements and have limited capacity.

We currently rely on sole source suppliers of our automated, closed cell processing system; vector supply; plasmid supply; and cell culture media, and we are planning to rely on a sole source supplier of drug product for our Company-sponsored clinical trials. In addition, we currently depend on a limited number of suppliers for some of the other components necessary for our product candidates. Each of our suppliers may require licenses to manufacture such components if such processes are not owned by the supplier or in the public domain and we may be unable to transfer or sublicense the intellectual property rights we may have with respect to such activities.

All entities involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical studies or commercial sale, including our existing contract manufacturers for our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in clinical studies must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record keeping) and the implementation and operation

of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of adventitious agents or other contaminants, or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We or our contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s good laboratory practices, or GLP, and cGMP regulations enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program. Some of our contract manufacturers have not produced a commercially-approved product and have never been inspected by the FDA before. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates or any of our other potential products. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or our other potential products or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, or if the FDA is unable to conduct such an inspection due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA may issue a complete response letter or defer action on our applications, and approval of the products may be delayed or may not be granted.

The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit our manufacturing facilities or those of our third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time-consuming for us or a third party to implement and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical study or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.

If we or any of our third-party manufacturers fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new drug product or biologic product, or revocation of a pre-existing approval. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially harmed.

These factors could cause the delay of clinical studies, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of our product candidates, cause us to incur higher costs and prevent us from commercializing our products successfully. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements, and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our preclinical and clinical studies may be delayed.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we rely on third parties to manufacture our vectors and our product candidates, and because we collaborate with various organizations and academic institutions on the advancement of our gene therapy approach, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets.

Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Our academic collaborators typically have rights to publish data, provided that we are notified in advance and may delay publication for a specified time in order to secure our intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration. In other cases, publication rights are controlled exclusively by us, although in some cases we may share these rights with other parties. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information

including our trade secrets in cases where we do not have proprietary or otherwise protected rights at the time of publication. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

If we are unable to establish sales, distribution and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we will be unable to generate any product revenue.

We are in the preliminary stages of building our commercial organization. To successfully commercialize any of our current or future product candidates, if approved, we will need to develop these capabilities, either on our own or with others. The establishment and development of our own commercial team or the establishment of a contract sales force to market any product candidate we may develop will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. Moreover, we cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully develop this capability. We may enter into collaborations regarding any approved product candidates with other entities to utilize their established marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into such agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If any future collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to commercialize our product candidates, or we are unable to develop the necessary capabilities on our own, we will be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. We compete with many companies that currently have extensive, experienced and well-funded sales, distribution and marketing operations to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates, if approved. Without an internal team or the support of a third-party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our product revenues may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

We focus our research and product development on treatments for serious lysosomal disorders. Our understanding of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may reduce the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected or may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, patients may become increasingly difficult to identify and access, and any approval we receive from regulatory agencies may be for a narrower indication and smaller patient population than anticipated, all of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The commercial success of any current or future product candidate will depend upon the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community.

Even if we obtain any regulatory approval for our product candidates, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on the medical community, patients, and third-party payors accepting gene therapy products in general, and our product candidates in particular, as effective, safe and cost-effective. Any product that we bring to the market may not gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of these product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Sales of medical products also depend on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe the treatment. We cannot predict whether physicians, physicians’ organizations, hospitals, other healthcare providers, government agencies or private insurers will determine that our product is safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective as compared with competing treatments.

Even if a product candidate displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in preclinical and clinical studies, market acceptance of the product, if approved for commercial sale, will not be known until after it is launched. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts to educate the marketplace may require more resources than are required by the conventional technologies marketed by our competitors. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable.

If we obtain approval to commercialize our product candidates outside of the United States, a variety of risks associated with international operations could materially adversely affect our business.

We are currently conducting clinical trials for our product candidates in the United States, Canada and Australia, and plan to expand to other geographies. If any of our product candidates are approved for commercialization, we may enter into agreements with third parties to market them on a worldwide basis or in more limited geographical regions. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to entering into international business relationships, including:

The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products are uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for any of our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. In the United States, recently enacted legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a

particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our or their commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenue we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if any product candidates we may develop obtain marketing approval. See section entitled “Business – Government Regulation – Coverage and Reimbursement.”

Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates or any other products that we or they may develop also will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments. Sales of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, as CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs and commercial payors are critical to new product acceptance. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement.

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe and certain other major markets where we plan to commercialize may put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems, and pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies. In general, the prices of medicines under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

Moreover, efforts by governmental and other third-party payors, in the United States and abroad, to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Due to the novel nature of our technology and the potential for our product candidates to offer therapeutic benefit in a single administration, we face uncertainty related to pricing and reimbursement for these product candidates.

Our target patient populations are relatively small, as a result of which the pricing and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved, must be adequate to support commercial infrastructure. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell our product candidates will be adversely affected. The manner and level at which reimbursement is provided for services related to our product candidates (e.g., for administration of our product to patients) is also important. Inadequate reimbursement for such services may lead to physician resistance and adversely affect our ability to market or sell our product candidates, if approved.

Healthcare legislative reform measures and constraints on national budget social security systems may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. See Section entitled “Business - Government Regulation – Healthcare Reform.” We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future.

The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payers of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect:

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical and biologic products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

We expect that the healthcare reform measures that have been adopted and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and could seriously harm our future revenues. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates.

Inadequate funding for the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA and other government employees and stop critical activities. Since March 2020 when foreign and domestic inspections of facilities were largely placed on hold, the FDA has been working to resume routine surveillance, bioresearch monitoring and pre-approval inspections on a prioritized basis. Since April 2021, the FDA has conducted limited inspections and employed remote interactive evaluations, using risk management methods, to meet user fee commitments and goal dates. Ongoing travel restrictions and other uncertainties continue to impact oversight operations both domestic and abroad and it is unclear when standard operational levels will resume. The FDA is continuing to complete mission-critical work, prioritize other higher-tiered inspectional needs (e.g., for-cause inspections), and carry out surveillance inspections using risk-based approaches for evaluating public health. Should the FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, and the FDA does not determine a remote interactive evaluation to be adequate, the FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue, depending on the circumstances, a complete response letter or defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Additionally, during the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FDA has stated it is continuing working to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products in line with its user fee performance goals and conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. However, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and approval timelines could be extended, including where a pre-approval inspection or an inspection of clinical sites is required and due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and travel restrictions FDA is unable to complete such required inspections during the review period. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future shutdowns of other government agencies, such as the SEC, may also impact our business through review of our public filings and our ability to access the public markets.

Any contamination in our manufacturing process, shortages of materials or failure of any of our key suppliers to deliver necessary components could result in interruption in the supply of our product candidates and delays in our clinical development or commercialization schedules.

Given the nature of biologics manufacturing, there is a risk of contamination in our manufacturing processes. Any contamination could materially adversely affect our ability to produce product candidates on schedule and could, therefore, harm our results of operations and cause reputational damage.

Some of the materials required in our manufacturing process are derived from biologic sources. Such materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage, contamination, recall or restriction on the use of biologically derived substances in the manufacture of our product candidates could adversely impact or disrupt the commercial manufacturing or the production of clinical material, which could materially and adversely affect our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our gene therapy approach utilizes lentiviral vectors derived from viruses, which may be perceived as unsafe or may result in unforeseen adverse events. Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of gene therapy and genetic research may damage public perception of our product candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

Gene therapy remains a novel technology, with only a limited number of gene therapy products approved to date. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, and gene therapy may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians specializing in the treatment of those diseases that our product candidates target prescribing treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments they are already familiar with and for which greater clinical data may be available. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop. For example, earlier gene therapy trials led to several well-publicized adverse events, including cases of leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes and deaths seen in other trials using other vectors. Adverse events in our clinical studies or discovered in long-term follow-up, even if not ultimately attributable to our product candidates (such as the many adverse events that typically arise from the conditioning process), or adverse events in other gene therapy trials, and the resulting publicity could result in a decline in our stock price, increased governmental regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our potential product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are approved and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key employees, consultants and advisors and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on principal members of our executive team and key employees, the loss of whose services may adversely impact the achievement of our objectives. While we have entered into employment agreements with each of our executive officers, any of them could leave our employment at any time, as all of our employees are “at will” employees. We do not maintain “key person” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. The loss of the services of one or more of our current employees might impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives. Recruiting and retaining other qualified employees, consultants and advisors for our business, including scientific and technical personnel, will also be critical to our success. We implemented a reduction in force in January 2022 in connection with the deprioritization of our Fabry disease program, and personnel decisions like these may have an adverse impact on the morale of our continuing employees. While we believe that our relations with our continuing employees to be good, there can be no assurance that we can avoid hiring and retention challenges for skilled personnel in the future. There is currently a shortage of skilled executives in our industry, which is likely to continue. As a result, competition for skilled personnel, including in gene therapy research and vector manufacturing, is intense and the turnover rate can be high. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for individuals with similar skill sets. In addition, our ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel could be impacted by other factors, such as remote or hybrid working arrangements, including those resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which could impact employees’ productivity and morale, as well as any failure to succeed in preclinical or clinical trials. The inability to recruit or the loss of the services of any executive, key employee, consultant or advisor may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

We may need to expand our operations and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As we mature, we may need to rapidly expand our full-time employee base and to hire more consultants and contractors. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and/or grow revenues could be reduced, and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.

If we are unable to manage expected growth in the scale and complexity of our operations, our performance may suffer.

If we are successful in executing our business strategy, we will need to expand our managerial, operational, financial and other systems and resources to manage our operations, continue our research and development activities and, in the longer term, build a commercial infrastructure to support commercialization of any of our product candidates that are approved for sale. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management. It is likely that our management, finance, development personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need to effectively manage our operations, growth and product candidates requires that we continue to develop more robust business processes and improve our systems and procedures in each of these areas and to attract and retain sufficient numbers of talented employees. We may be unable to successfully implement these tasks on a larger scale and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and growth goals.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA or of other foreign regulatory authorities, provide accurate information to the FDA and other foreign regulatory authorities, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical studies, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

We are subject to certain U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations. We can face serious consequences for violations.

Among other matters, U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations, which are collectively referred to as Trade Laws, prohibit companies and their employees, agents, clinical research organizations, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors, and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting, or receiving directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of Trade Laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations. We also expect our non-U.S. activities to increase in time. We plan to engage third parties for clinical trials and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals and we can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents, or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities. The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act’s accounting provisions.

We may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws health information privacy and security laws, and other health care laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

If we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our operations will be directly, or indirectly through our prescribers, customers and purchasers, subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Health Care Program Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal civil and criminal False Claims Act and Physician Payments Sunshine Act and regulations.

These laws will impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and educational programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy laws by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. See section entitled “Business – Government Regulation – Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements.”

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects entities to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in federal and state funded healthcare programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid), contractual damages and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause a pharmaceutical manufacturer to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, that person or entity may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

Failure to comply with health and data protection laws and regulations could lead to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business.

We and any potential collaborators may be subject to federal, state, and foreign data protection laws and regulations (i.e., laws and regulations that address privacy and data security). In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our collaborators. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by HITECH. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to civil, criminal, and administrative penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA.

Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial patients, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights,

failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

European data collection is governed by restrictive regulations governing the use, processing and cross-border transfer of personal information.

We currently plan to conduct clinical trials in the European Union, or EU, and the United Kingdom, or UK, and as a result will be subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer or other processing of personal health data in the EU is governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. 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, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, obtaining consent from individuals to whom the data processing relates, responding to additional data subject requests, imposing notification of personal data breaches to the competent national data protection authorities, implementing safeguards in connection with the security and confidentiality of the personal data, accountability requirements and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR informs our obligations with respect to any clinical trials conducted in the European Economic Area, or EEA, by expanding the definition of personal data to include coded data and requiring changes to informed consent practices and more detailed notices for clinical trial subjects and investigators. In addition, the GDPR imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union, including to the United States, and as a result increases scrutiny that such rules may apply to transfers of personal data from any clinical trial sites located in the EU and the UK to the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal data and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to four percent of global revenues or 20 million Euros, whichever is greater, and 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. In addition, the GDPR provides that European Union member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric, or health data.

Given the breadth and depth of its obligations, complying with the GDPR’s requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and assessment of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors, or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the European Union.

Further, the UK exited the EU effective January 31, 2020, subject to a transition period that ended December 31, 2020. Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on January 31, 2020, pursuant to the transitional arrangements agreed to between the UK and EU, the GDPR continued to have effect under law in the UK, and continued to do so until December 31, 2020 as if the UK remained a member state of the EU for such purposes. Following December 31, 2020, and the expiry of those transitional arrangements, the data protection obligations of the GDPR continue to apply to UK-related processing of personal data in substantially unvaried form and fashion under the so-called “UK GDPR” (i.e., the GDPR as it continues to form part of UK law by virtue of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended (including by the various Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations)). Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR, the European Commission has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing.

To enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA or the UK, adequate safeguards must be implemented in compliance with European and UK data protection laws. On June 4, 2021, the EC issued new forms of standard contractual clauses for data transfers from controllers or processors in the EU/EEA (or otherwise subject to the GDPR) to controllers or processors established outside the EU/EEA (and not subject to the GDPR). The new standard contractual clauses replace the standard contractual clauses that were adopted previously under the EU Data Protection Directive. The UK is not subject to the EC’s new standard contractual clauses but has published a draft version of a UK-specific transfer mechanism, which, once finalized, will enable transfers from the UK. We will be required to implement these new safeguards when conducting restricted data transfers under the EU and UK GDPR and doing so will require significant effort and cost.

Further, certain European data protection laws restrict transfers of personal data to countries outside Europe that do not ensure an adequate level of protection, like the United States (so-called “third countries”). These transfers are prohibited unless an appropriate safeguard specified by the European data protection laws is implemented, such as the Standard Contractual Clauses, or SCCs, approved by the European Commission, or a derogation applies. The Court of Justice of the

European Union, or CJEU, in its decision in Case C-311/18 (Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems, or Schrems II,) deemed that the SCCs are valid. However, the CJEU ruled that transfers made pursuant to the SCCs and other alternative transfer mechanisms need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account the legal regime applicable in the destination country, in particular regarding applicable surveillance laws and relevant rights of individuals with respect to the transferred personal data, to ensure an “essentially equivalent” level of protection to that guaranteed in the EEA in the jurisdiction where the data importer is based. On June 4, 2021, the European Commission published new versions of the SCCs, or New SCCs, which seek to address the issues identified by the CJEU’s Schrems II decision and provide further details regarding the transfer assessments of the importer third country’s laws that the parties are required to conduct when implementing the New SCCs. On June 18, 2021, the European Data Protection Board, or EDPB, issued its final guidance following the CJEU’s decision that imposes significant new diligence requirements on transferring data outside the EEA, including under an approved transfer mechanism. This guidance requires an “essential equivalency” assessment of the laws of the destination country transferred. If the “essentially equivalent” level of protection standard outlined by the CJEU’s decision is not satisfied in the destination country, the exporting entity must then assess if supplementary technical, organizational and/or contractual measures can be put in place that, in combination with the chosen transfer mechanism, would address the deficiency in the laws and ensure that essentially equivalent protection can be given to the data. Complying with this guidance will be expensive and time consuming and may ultimately prevent us from transferring personal data outside the EEA, which would cause significant business disruption. At present, there are few, if any, viable alternatives to the SCCs. The risks associated with such exports of personal data from locations within Europe are particularly relevant to our business as our group comprises several operating entities, many of which are located, and/or sponsor clinical trials, in Europe. We have yet to adopt and implement comprehensive processes, systems and other relevant measures within our organization, and/or with our relevant collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants, which are appropriate to address relevant requirements relating to international transfers of personal data from Europe, and to minimize the potential impacts and risks resulting from those requirements, across our organization. Failure to implement valid mechanisms for personal data transfers from Europe may result in our facing increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and injunctions against processing personal data from Europe. Inability to export personal data may also: restrict our activities outside Europe; limit our ability to collaborate with partners as well as other service providers, contractors and other companies outside of Europe; and/or require us to increase our processing capabilities within Europe at significant expense or otherwise cause us to change the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations – any or all of which could adversely affect our operations or financial results. Additionally, other countries outside of Europe have enacted or are considering enacting similar cross-border data transfer restrictions and laws requiring local data residency, which could increase the cost and complexity of delivering our services and operating our business. The type of challenges we face in Europe will likely also arise in other jurisdictions that adopt laws similar in construction to the GDPR or regulatory frameworks of equivalent complexity.

We face potential product liability, and, if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability and costs. If the use of our product candidates harms patients, or is perceived to harm patients even when such harm is unrelated to our product candidates, our regulatory approvals could be revoked or otherwise negatively impacted and we could be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims.

The use of our product candidates in clinical studies and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval exposes us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products. There is a risk that our product candidates may induce adverse events. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

We carry master product liability insurance of $5.0 million per occurrence and $5.0 million in the aggregate in the United States. For studies conducted in certain countries outside the United States, we maintain local admitted policies with varying limits. We believe our product liability insurance coverage is sufficient in light of our current clinical programs; however, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. If and when we obtain marketing approval for product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs or medical treatments that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

Patients with the diseases targeted by certain of our product candidates are often already in severe and advanced stages of disease and have both known and unknown significant pre-existing and potentially life- threatening health risks. During the course of treatment, patients may suffer adverse events, including death, for reasons that may be related to our product candidates. Such events could subject us to costly litigation, require us to pay substantial amounts of money to injured patients, delay, negatively impact or end our opportunity to receive or maintain regulatory approval to market our products, or require us to suspend or abandon our commercialization efforts. Even in a circumstance in which we do not believe that an adverse event is related to our products, the investigation into the circumstance may be time-consuming or inconclusive. These investigations may interrupt our sales efforts, delay our regulatory approval process in other countries, or impact and limit the type of regulatory approvals our product candidates receive or maintain. As a result of these factors, a product liability claim, even if successfully defended, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions or liabilities, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We might not be able to utilize a significant portion of our net operating loss carryforwards and research and development tax credit carryforwards.

As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $313.0 million and $214.0 million, respectively, and federal research and development tax credit carryforwards of approximately $6.2 million and $3.7 million, respectively. If not utilized, the net operating loss carryforwards and research and development credits will generally expire at various dates through 2038 (other than federal net operating loss carryforwards generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, which are not subject to expiration and generally may not be carried back to prior taxable years except that net operating losses generated in 2018, 2019 and 2020 may be carried back five taxable years). These net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. In addition, under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, and corresponding

provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change, by value, in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. We may have experienced ownership changes in the past. We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside of our control. If an ownership change occurred or occurs and our ability to use our historical net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards is materially limited, or if our research and development carryforwards are adjusted, it would harm our future operating results by effectively increasing our future tax obligations. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020, deductions for federal net operating losses arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 may only offset 80% of taxable income.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and inter partes reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing development candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

Third parties may assert that we or our licensors are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. In particular, we are aware of issued patents in the United States that cover the lentiviral vectors used in the manufacture of our product candidates. While we believe that we have reasonable defenses against a claim of infringement, potentially including that certain of these patents are expected to expire prior to commercializing our product candidates, if approved, in the United States, there can be no assurance that we will prevail in any such action by the holder of these patents. In the event that the holder of these patents seeks to enforce its patent rights and our defenses against a claim of infringement are unsuccessful, we may not be able to commercialize our product candidates in the United States, if approved, without first obtaining a license to some or all of these patents, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. In addition, the defense of any claim of infringement, even if successful, is time-consuming, expensive and diverts the attention of our management from our ongoing business operations.

Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe or be alleged to infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our or our licensors’ technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our product candidates, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire.

Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. Even in the absence of a finding of infringement, we may choose to obtain a license, if such a license is available. A successful claim of patent or other intellectual property infringement against us could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates are subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others.

We depend upon the intellectual property rights granted to us under licenses from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our technology and products, including technology related to our manufacturing process and our gene therapy product candidates. In particular, we have in-licensed certain intellectual property rights and know-how from the University Health Network (relevant to AVR-RD-01 and our Fabry program, which we deprioritized in January 2022) and affiliates of Lund University (relevant to AVR-RD-02 and our Gaucher type 1 program). In addition, we have in-licensed patents and patent applications from BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., or BioMarin (relevant to AVR-RD-03 and our Pompe program), GenStem Therapeutics, Inc., which was subsequently assigned to Papillon Therapeutics, Inc., or Papillon, (relevant to AVR-RD-04 and our cystinosis program) and The University of Manchester (relevant to AVR-RD-05 and our Hunter program), directed to compositions and methods related to the manufacture and use of AVR-RD-03, AVR-RD-04 and AVR-RD-05, respectively. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm or prevent our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Each of our existing licenses are exclusive but are limited to particular fields, such as Fabry disease, cystinosis, Gaucher disease type 1, Hunter syndrome, or Pompe disease, and are subject to certain retained rights. Absent an amendment or additional agreement, we may not have the right to use intellectual property in-licensed for one of our programs for another program. In addition, licenses that we may enter into in the future may not provide exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and products in the future. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products in territories included in all of our licenses. Licenses to additional third-party technology that may be required for our development programs may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. For example, pursuant to each of our intellectual property licenses with Papillon, BioMarin, the rights holders associated with Lund University, and The University of Manchester, our licensors retain control of such activities. Therefore, we cannot be certain that these patents and applications will be prosecuted, maintained and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to maintain such patents, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated and our right to develop and commercialize any of our products that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected.

Our current license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements that we may enter into will impose, various obligations, including diligence and certain payment obligations. If we fail to satisfy our obligations, the licensor may have the right to terminate the agreement. Disputes may arise between us and any of our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to such agreements and other issues. Such disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed or the terms of our license agreements may prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current arrangements on acceptable terms, or at all, or may impair the value of the arrangement to us. Any such dispute could have a material adverse effect on our business. If we cannot maintain a necessary license agreement or if the agreement is terminated, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected.

Our ability to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to maintain the proprietary nature of our technology and manufacturing processes. We rely on manufacturing and other know-how, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, license agreements and contractual provisions to establish our intellectual property rights and protect our products. These legal means, however, afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights. The failure to obtain, maintain, enforce or defend such intellectual property rights, for any reason, could allow third parties to make competing products or impact our ability to develop, manufacture and market our products, if approved, on a commercially viable basis, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

In particular, we rely primarily on trade secrets, know-how and other unpatented technology, which are difficult to protect. Although we seek such protection in part by entering into confidentiality agreements with our vendors, employees, consultants and others who may have access to proprietary information, we cannot be certain that these agreements will not be breached, adequate remedies for any breach would be available or our trade secrets, know-how and other unpatented proprietary technology will not otherwise become known to or be independently developed by our competitors. If we are unsuccessful in protecting our intellectual property rights, sales of our products may suffer and our ability to generate revenue could be severely impacted.

Our licensors and we have sought, and we intend to continue to seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and, in at least some cases, one or more countries outside the United States related to current and future product candidates that are important to our business. However, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as patents, whether the claims of any issued patents will provide us with a competitive advantage, or whether we will be able to successfully pursue patent applications in the future related to our current or future product candidates. While we have in-licensed patents and patent applications relevant to AVR-RD-03, we currently have no owned or in-licensed patents or patent applications covering AVR-RD-01, AVR-RD-02 or AVR-RD-06, and the patent applications that we in-licensed related to AVR-RD-04 and AVR-RD-05 are at a very early stage. Many of our product candidates are in-licensed from third parties. Accordingly, in some cases, the availability and scope of potential patent protection is limited based on prior decisions by our licensors or the inventors, such as decisions on when to file patent applications or whether to file patent applications at all.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States. Although our license agreements grant us worldwide rights, and our currently in-licensed U.S. patent rights have certain corresponding foreign patents or patent applications, there can be no assurance that we will obtain or maintain such corresponding patents or patent applications with respect to any future license agreements. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state

laws in the United States even in jurisdictions where we and our licensors pursue patent protection. Consequently, we and our licensors may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, even in jurisdictions where we and our licensors pursue patent protection, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we and our licensors have not pursued and obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights, even if obtained, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Issued patents covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court. We may not be able to protect our trade secrets in court.

If one of our licensing partners or we initiate legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, should such a patent issue, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, written description or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld information material to patentability from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties also may raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, inter partes review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Such proceedings could result in the revocation or cancellation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which the patent examiner and we or our licensing partners were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we could lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect and some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors.

We may be subject to claims asserting that our employees, consultants or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. Our licensors may face similar risks, which could have an adverse impact on intellectual property that is licensed to us.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of the patents and other intellectual property that we own or license.

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in the patents and intellectual property that we own or license or that we may own or license in the future. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own; our licensors may face similar obstacles. We could be subject to ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against any claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, we may have to pay monetary damages and may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Some intellectual property which we have in-licensed may have been discovered through government funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements, and a preference for U.S. industry. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights, and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

Some of the intellectual property rights we have licensed, including rights licensed to us by Papillon, may have been generated through the use of U.S. government and California state funding and may therefore be subject to certain federal and state laws and regulations. For example, with respect to the AVR-RD-04 program for cystinosis, the NIH previously granted funding to UCSD for certain research in connection with the development of UCSD’s gene therapy program for cystinosis, which we originally licensed from GenStem Therapeutics, Inc., who subsequently assigned the license to Papillon. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our AVR-RD-04 program, or in other product candidates to the extent funded by the U.S. government pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh-Dole Act. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show

that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply. Any exercise by the government of certain of its rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. With respect to state funding, specifically funding via the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM, which has granted funds for the study of AVR-RD-04 for cystinosis, the grantee has certain obligations and the state or CIRM has certain rights. For example, the grantee has an obligation to share intellectual property, including research results, generated by CIRM-funded research, for research use in California.

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

Changes in either the patent laws or the interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes several significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These also include provisions that switched the United States from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, allow third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and set forth additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by the USPTO administered post grant proceedings. Under a first-to-file system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The USPTO developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The patent positions of companies engaged in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Two cases involving diagnostic method claims and “gene patents” were decided this year by the Supreme Court of the United States, or Supreme Court. On March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., or Prometheus, a case involving patent claims directed to a process of measuring a metabolic product in a patient to optimize a drug dosage for the patient. According to the Supreme Court, the addition of well-understood, routine or conventional activity such as “administering” or “determining” steps was not enough to transform an otherwise patent-ineligible natural phenomenon into patent-eligible subject matter. On July 3, 2012, the USPTO issued a guidance memo to patent examiners indicating that process claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or a naturally occurring relation or correlation that do not include additional elements or steps that integrate the natural principle into the claimed invention such that the natural principle is practically applied and the claim amounts to significantly more than the natural principle itself should be rejected as directed to not patent-eligible subject matter. On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., or Myriad, a case involving patent claims held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. relating to the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad held that an isolated segment of naturally occurring DNA, such as the DNA constituting the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, is not patent-eligible subject matter, but that complementary DNA, which is an artificial construct that may be created from RNA transcripts of genes, may be patent-eligible. On March 4, 2014, the USPTO issued a guidance memorandum to patent examiners entitled 2014 Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products. These guidelines instruct USPTO examiners on the ramifications of the Prometheus and Myriad rulings and apply the Myriad ruling to natural products and principles including all naturally occurring nucleic acids.

Certain claims of our licensed patents and patent applications contain, and any future patents we may obtain may contain, claims that relate to specific recombinant DNA sequences that are naturally occurring at least in part and, therefore, could be the subject of future challenges made by third parties. In addition, the 2014 USPTO guidance could impact our ability to pursue similar patent claims in patent applications we may prosecute in the future.

We cannot assure you that our efforts to seek patent protection for our product candidate


One Kendall Square Building 300, Suite 201
Cambridge, Massachusetts	02139
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

Title of each class		Trading Symbol		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share		AVRO		Nasdaq Global Select Market