10-K

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ☐ No ☒

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

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

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

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 common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the price of the registrant’s common stock as of June 30, 2021, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $354.9 million (based on the last reported sale price on the Nasdaq Global Select Market as of such date). For this computation, the registrant has excluded the market value of all shares of common stock reported as beneficially owned by its executive officers, directors and stockholders that the registrant has concluded are affiliates of the registrant. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of March 24, 2022, there were 47,532,573 outstanding shares of the registrant's common stock, par value of $0.001 per share.

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

•

the initiation, timing, progress and results of our current and future preclinical studies and clinical trials and related preparatory work and the period during which the results of the trials will become available, as well as our research and development programs, including our ability to resolve the clinical hold on our investigational new drug application for CP101;

These forward-looking statements are based on our management’s current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about our business and the industry in which we operate, and management’s beliefs and assumptions and are not guarantees of future performance or development. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described under “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this report may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.

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

Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “FTG,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Finch Therapeutics Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

All trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners.

The following is a summary of the principal risks that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results, cash flows or stock price. Discussion of the risks listed below, and other risks that we face, are discussed in the section titled “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

•

We are currently subject to a clinical hold on our IND for CP101. We need to resolve the FDA clinical hold issues in order to proceed with enrollment in our PRISM4 clinical trial and initiate our Phase 1b clinical trial in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Our business may be adversely affected if the clinical hold is not resolved in a timely manner or if regulatory concerns lead to additional delays and/or FDA enforcement actions.

•

We are heavily dependent on the success of our product candidates, which are in clinical and preclinical development. If we are unable to advance our current or future product candidates through clinical trials, obtain marketing approval and ultimately commercialize any product candidates we develop, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are a clinical-stage microbiome therapeutics company leveraging our Human-First Discovery platform to develop a novel class of orally administered biological drugs. The microbiome consists of trillions of microbes that live symbiotically in and on every human and are essential to our health. When key microbes are lost, the resulting dysbiosis can increase susceptibility to immune disorders, infections, neurological conditions, cancer and other serious diseases. We are developing novel therapeutics designed to deliver missing microbes and their clinically relevant biochemical functions to correct dysbiosis and the diseases that emerge from it. Our Human-First Discovery platform uses reverse translation to identify diseases of dysbiosis and to design microbiome therapeutics that address them. We believe that our differentiated platform, rich pipeline and the broad therapeutic potential of this new field of medicine position us to transform care for a wide range of unmet medical needs.

Our lead product candidate, CP101, is an orally administered complete microbiome therapeutic in development for the prevention of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, or CDI. In June 2020, we reported positive topline data from our Phase 2 placebo-controlled clinical trial of CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI, which we refer to as the PRISM3 trial, and in November 2021, we reported positive topline data from our open-label, Phase 2 clinical trial of CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI, which we refer to as the PRISM-EXT trial. We have designed a Phase 3 clinical trial, which we refer to as the PRISM4 trial, to serve as our second pivotal trial of CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI. On March 1, 2022, we announced that enrollment in PRISM4 was paused following receipt of a clinical hold letter on February 24, 2022 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, in connection with our investigational new drug application, or IND, for CP101, requesting additional information regarding our SARS-CoV-2 donor screening protocols, including, among other things, that we address the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the informed consent process, additional detail on how samples are shipped to the vendor performing the SARS-CoV-2 testing of the donor material and how inconclusive test results will be handled. We are also preparing to initiate a Phase 1b clinical trial of FIN-211 in autism spectrum disorder, or ASD; however, because FIN-211 includes donor-derived components, the clinical hold related to our IND for CP101 will also delay initiation of our clinical trial in ASD. We plan to manufacture additional lots of CP101 and FIN-211 to satisfy the FDA's requests related to SARS-CoV-2 screening and testing. We are currently evaluating the extent of the delay the clinical hold and related manufacturing activities will have on the timing for our clinical trials in CDI and ASD, which we expect to be at least one quarter based on manufacturing timelines; we describe the clinical hold and related matters further in the section entitled “Our Clinical Programs”.

Our lead candidate, CP101, consists of a microbial community harvested from rigorously screened healthy donors that is lyophilized and formulated in orally administered capsules designed to release at the appropriate location in the gastrointestinal tract. CP101 is designed to deliver a complete microbiome, addressing the community-level dysbiosis that characterizes CDI. Patients with CDI suffer from severe diarrhea, which can progress to toxic megacolon and death, with more than 44,000 CDI-attributable deaths annually in the United States. In addition to the human cost, the economic impact of CDI is significant, with 2.4 million in-patient days and more than $5 billion in direct treatment costs each year in the United States alone. CDI often returns after cessation of antibiotic treatment because antibiotics do not address the dysbiosis that underlies this disease. We estimate there are approximately 200,000 cases of recurrent CDI annually in the United States.

In June 2020, we announced that PRISM3, the first pivotal trial of CP101, which was a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled multi-center Phase 2 clinical trial, met its primary efficacy endpoint. Overall, 74.5% of participants who received a single administration of CP101 achieved a sustained clinical cure, defined as the absence of CDI through week 8, achieving statistical significance for the primary efficacy endpoint, with a clinically meaningful 33.8% relative risk reduction for CDI recurrence compared to placebo. In October 2021, we shared additional data from PRISM3 showing that the proportion of participants with sustained clinical cure (defined as absence of CDI recurrence) through week 24 remained significantly higher in the CP101 arm compared to the placebo arm. In PRISM3, the prevalence of adverse events was similar across CP101 and placebo arms, with no treatment-related serious adverse events in the CP101 arm.

In November 2021, we announced positive topline results from the 132-participant PRISM-EXT trial. The primary efficacy endpoint of the PRISM-EXT trial was sustained clinical cure (defined as absence of CDI recurrence) through 8 weeks post-treatment. Overall, 80.3% of participants who received a single oral administration of CP101 following standard-of-care, or SOC, antibiotics in PRISM-EXT achieved sustained clinical cure through week 8. At week 24, 78.8% of participants had

sustained clinical cure. In the PRISM-EXT trial, there were no treatment-related serious adverse events reported and CP101 exhibited an overall safety profile consistent with the profile observed in PRISM3. The PRISM-EXT results are consistent with and build on our previously reported PRISM3 results.

Following a strategic review of our pipeline and business, we announced in March 2022 the decision to pause the development of CP101 for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus, or HBV. We believe this decision will allow us to maximize our working capital available for investment in our wholly-owned recurrent CDI and ASD programs. We may continue our research efforts in HBV in the future as our portfolio continues to mature.

In addition to developing CP101, a Complete Consortia product candidate designed to address community-level dysbiosis, or disruption across many functional pathways and species, we are also developing Targeted Consortia product candidates that consist of individual bacteria grown from master cell banks to engage narrower pathway-level dysbiosis. The ability to pursue both of these product strategies enables us to tailor our product candidates to the pathophysiology of each indication. This combination of capabilities also enables us to pursue a third product strategy, Enriched Consortia, which addresses dysbiosis at both the community and pathway level. These product strategies are summarized in the schema below:

Our Human-First Discovery platform informs each of these product strategies using clinical interventional data, through a process of reverse translation. Core to this strategy is our ability to deploy our proprietary machine learning algorithms to mine clinical data generated internally and by third parties, including experience with fecal microbiota transplantation, or FMT, a procedure that has been used to restore the gut microbiome and address community-level dysbiosis. FMT is a procedure, not a product. It is not approved by the FDA, and there are no standards for testing, processing and delivery of FMT, though it typically requires a colonoscopy. Despite these limitations, FMT has been used to treat more than 60,000 patients, with hundreds of clinical studies ongoing across a range of disease areas. We believe that this data can be used to (1) identify diseases where addressing dysbiosis provides therapeutic benefit, (2) reveal the mechanisms that underlie these results and (3) uncover key microbes and functional pathways that drive these clinical outcomes. We believe this reverse translation strategy is the optimal approach to developing microbiome therapeutics, providing causal insights that cannot be gleaned from preclinical in vitro or in vivo experiments alone. We further believe that we are uniquely positioned to execute

on this strategy because of our proprietary FMT database and biorepository, our broad network of collaborators that supports the rapid growth of our data assets and our proprietary machine learning algorithms that enable the efficient translation of clinical data into therapeutic insights.

FIN-211: Our Product Candidate to Address Gastrointestinal and Behavioral Symptoms of ASD

We have used our Human-First Discovery platform to develop FIN-211, an Enriched Consortia product candidate that we are advancing to address the gastrointestinal and behavioral symptoms of ASD. Scientific research in human and animal models have highlighted the “gut-brain axis” linking dysbiosis to neurological and neurobehavioral conditions, as the microbiome impacts the enteric nervous system and the production of neurotransmitters. This basic research is supported by a growing body of third-party clinical research. An open-label, proof-of-concept FMT trial observed that, two years after treatment, 33% of the study participants who had previously been diagnosed with ASD were below the ASD diagnostic cutoff score for the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), a commonly used ASD diagnostic tool. In another open-label randomized, controlled trial, children with ASD receiving FMT and behavioral therapy showed a statistically significant improvement in their behavioral symptoms compared to those receiving behavioral therapy alone. Both studies also observed marked improvements in the gastrointestinal symptoms that many autistic children suffer from. There are no FDA-approved therapies for the core symptoms of ASD and the total financial burden of care for this condition is estimated to exceed $100 billion in the United States annually. We have received feedback from the FDA that demonstrating a benefit for either gastrointestinal or behavioral symptoms of ASD could support a biologics license application. Building on our discussions with the FDA, we aim to continue to validate behavioral instruments as part of our clinical development plans. We have designed FIN-211 to address both behavioral and gastrointestinal aspects of ASD, which we plan to assess, along with safety and tolerability, in a Phase 1b clinical trial of FIN-211 in ASD. We believe FIN-211 has the potential to transform care for patients with ASD.

TAK-524 (formerly FIN-524) Ulcerative Colitis Development Program in Collaboration with Takeda

In collaboration with Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, or Takeda, we are also developing Targeted Consortia product candidates for inflammatory bowel disease. In August 2021, we announced that Takeda elected to accelerate its leadership role in the FIN-524 ulcerative colitis development program, now known as TAK-524. Accordingly, we transferred the program to Takeda for further development. The design of product candidate TAK-524 leverages computational and molecular analysis of data from 146 patients treated with FMT and 19 observational studies of an additional 2,210 patients. We believe that the development program for TAK-524, which is a Targeted Consortia product candidate composed of strains grown from master cell banks, is not affected by the clinical hold related to our IND for CP101.

We continue to partner with Takeda on discovery efforts targeting the development of FIN-525 for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. We believe that the development program for FIN-525, which is a Targeted Consortia product candidate composed of strains grown from master cell banks, is not affected by the clinical hold related to our IND for CP101.

The human microbiome describes the community of more than 30 trillion microbes that reside on and inside the human body. By evolving together over millions of years, microbes and humans have developed an intricate and mutually beneficial relationship that has only recently been uncovered. Enabled by the genomic revolution, researchers have discovered that humans carry over 1,000-fold more microbial genes than host genes and that microbiome signaling is fundamentally intertwined with many aspects of human physiology ranging from immune and metabolic functions to neurological function and reproductive health. The deep inter-relationship between microbes and their human hosts is a co-evolution that has resulted in a learned dependency, leaving humans now reliant on inputs from this previously unrecognized organ system.

Disruption of the gut microbiome is associated with a large number of diseases that have dramatically increased in prevalence among populations in developed countries over the past century. We believe these epidemiological trends are linked to changes in the microbiome, which if reversed could potentially address an underlying cause of these diseases and change the epidemiology as a result. The rise of these chronic illnesses coincides with our adoption of a number of practices that disrupt the microbiome: more than 42 billion doses of antibiotics are administered annually, many killing 40-60% of microbial species in the gut; a third of babies in the United States today are born by caesarean sections, and are consequently unable to inherit this organ from their mother; and a highly sanitized and artificial environment, absent the environmental inputs expected by our microbiome, applies further pressure on this ecosystem within us. The effects of these environmental inputs coalesce around the gut microbiome resulting in dysbiosis and these changes are linked to a wide variety of chronic diseases. For example, antibiotic exposure doubles the risk of developing IBD, as well as significantly increases the risk of developing over 10 types of cancer. Early microbiome disruption is also associated with ASD, autoimmune indications such as celiac diseases, and allergies and asthma, and microbiome disruption later in life has been linked to neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Importantly, in multiple animal models, these diseases can be induced by microbiome disruption and corrected by restoration, providing evidence of causality. For several of these therapeutic areas, this has been further bolstered by clinical data with FMT.

The effects of gut microbiome dysbiosis reverberates throughout the body, both because immune cells are heavily concentrated in the gut, where more than 70% of the body’s immune cells are located, and because microbial metabolites enter systemic circulation, acting on organs throughout the body. For example, researchers at the California Institute of Technology showed that the transfer of the microbiome from human donors with ASD into microbiome-free mice promoted hallmark autistic behaviors. In addition, a large body of research has documented the connection between over a dozen different microbiome species and molecular pathways connecting the gut’s enteric nervous system to the brain. We believe the gut-brain axis is but one example of how the microbiome can provide therapeutic benefits to diseases beyond the gut.

Restoring the microbiome, or its inputs, is an opportunity to directly address the underlying causes of many diseases driven by dysbiosis. Many existing drugs target only the downstream symptoms of disease, for example, anti-tumor necrosis factor, or anti-TNF, biologics are prescribed to IBD patients to suppress systemic immunity, without addressing the underlying drivers of gut inflammation and immune dysregulation. This can lead to unintended side effects as well as an incomplete resolution of disease. Treating the root cause of disease is more likely to deliver a therapeutic breakthrough and for many diseases of dysbiosis, we believe that only through the restoration of the critical physiological role of the microbiome organ can this be achieved. Currently there are no microbiome therapeutics approved by the FDA. We believe that our ability to target both community- and pathway-level dysbiosis through our Human-First Discovery platform uniquely positions us to deliver on this transformational opportunity to improve human health through microbiome therapeutics.

We develop microbiome therapeutics following a three-stage process that combines aspects of traditional drug development with the unique opportunities enabled by our platform. In the first stage, Human-First Discovery, we use human data to identify promising clinical indications, microbial mechanisms and a consortia that engages these mechanisms. The second stage consists of IND-enabling activities, including bioprocess and formulation development, quality control and current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, production. The third stage is clinical development, in which we leverage customized pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assays to understand optimal dosing and delivery. Importantly, data from clinical development can feed directly back into Human-First Discovery, enabling iterative development of differentiated follow-on product candidates.

•

Clinical Indication Selection: We aim to de-risk development by targeting indications with known underlying dysbiosis, an understanding of relevant mechanistic pathways and, critically, data from FMT that provide proof-of-concept that a microbial intervention has the potential to positively impact clinically meaningful outcomes. We have exclusive access to certain data and samples from groups that we believe are the largest providers of FMT in the world, including OpenBiome, which has delivered more than 60,000 FMTs to over 1,000 clinical sites. With more than 300 third-party clinical studies evaluating FMT around the world, we are uniquely well positioned to leverage this trove of clinical data to identify promising new drug development opportunities. We believe that by requiring a foundation of clinical data prior to indication selection and program initiation, our programs are already significantly de-risked before we begin development.

•

Target Identification and Validation: We use translational assays and high-throughput sequencing to generate curated datasets from FMT studies, observational clinical studies, and sometimes preclinical models, for each target indication. We then use our expertise in microbial ecology enhanced by our proprietary machine learning tools to identify microbiome compositions and functions that are deficient in our target population and whose restoration is causally linked to improved outcomes. We believe that observational clinical studies and preclinical models are valuable for generating mechanistic hypotheses which can then be validated using interventional data from FMT. Taken together, these efforts provide molecular and microbial targets, specific metabolites or bacteria, that are linked to clinical outcomes.

•

Candidate Selection and Consortia Design: To engage these targets, we deliver designed microbial consortia. The capability to deliver both a complete microbiome and targeted microbes gives us the flexibility to engage a diversity of mechanisms and therefore develop treatments for a wide range of indications. In diseases characterized by community-level dysbiosis like CDI, we are able to deploy Complete Consortia product candidates like CP101. In diseases where we are able to target pathway-level dysbiosis like IBD, we are able to deploy Targeted Consortia product candidates like TAK-524. Importantly, we have obtained exclusive access to

a library of more than 10,000 samples from certain donors that have each been administered to patients through FMT. We are able to cryo-revive and manufacture strains from these samples, enabling precise matching of the exact strain that was associated with clinical outcomes with FMT. We believe that this direct chain of custody from a clinical sample into a Targeted Consortia significantly reduces translational risk and is uniquely enabled by our proprietary partnerships. We are also able to engage both the Targeted and Complete Consortia product strategies in a single Enriched Consortia product candidate like FIN-211 for conditions like ASD that have both community- and pathway-level dysbiosis. We believe we are uniquely positioned to align product strategy with mechanism because of our capabilities to address community- or pathway-level dysbiosis.

•

Bioprocess and Formulation Development: We have developed proprietary methods for growing, harvesting, purifying, preserving and delivering microbiome consortia. Of particular note, our advanced lyophilization technology enables the preservation of a complete microbiome in a stable formulation with at least two years of stability at 2°–8°C and up to six months of stability at room temperature to accommodate excursions during delivery and administration. Furthermore, we have developed orally administered, targeted release technologies, enabling intestinal release that facilitates robust pharmacokinetics. We believe that our deep expertise in bioprocess and formulation development have, and will continue to, enable rapid development of differentiated products.

•

Quality Control and Product Safety: Unlike other product candidates in development, we have developed manufacturing processes that do not rely on non-specific biocides like ethanol to exclude potential pathogens. Instead, each of our product candidates leverages molecular screening technology to exclude potential pathogens and harmful antibiotic resistance or virulence elements. This technology enables us to exclude unwanted agents without compromising potentially beneficial microbes. In addition to these purity assays, we have also developed both culture-based and culture-independent measures of viability to provide consistent potency across lots.

•

cGMP Production: We have developed cGMP production capabilities as a strategic asset, internalizing key activities that we believe we are uniquely positioned to execute, while externalizing activities that can be completed by third parties, in order to maximize our capital efficiency. As an example of this strategy in action, we are developing cGMP production capabilities for CP101, an orally administered Complete Consortia product candidate. With nearly a decade of operational experience and know-how enabling our Complete Consortia manufacturing platform, we believe we are uniquely positioned to enable this manufacturing process. By contrast, we have worked closely with third parties for the production of certain Enriched Consortia and Targeted Consortia product candidates. For these product candidates, there are rapidly maturing providers able to leverage analogous experience with large scale fermentation, including the required capital equipment and infrastructure to enable cGMP manufacture of these product candidates.

•

Progression: We have developed a suite of customized pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assays to maximize learning from our clinical programs to guide progression through clinical development. Our pharmacokinetic assays quantitatively assess the engraftment, or colonization in the intestine, of our consortia. Our pharmacodynamic assays measure the production of microbial metabolites and their downstream effects on the host.

•

Expansion: When we initiate clinical development of a new program, we aim not only to inform the progression of the specific program under evaluation, but also to inform expansion into other indications. As an example, having determined that we are able to engraft a diverse microbial community and effectively restore missing metabolic pathways with CP101 for recurrent CDI, we are now able to use similar compositions in other indications that are tied to community-level dysbiosis. Because this community-level dysbiosis is common to many microbiome-associated diseases, we believe this particular product strategy may have broad applications, such that clinical validation in one indication de-risks the development of other indications with similar characteristics.

the development of product candidates like FIN-211 will provide a rich pool of data that we can mine with our Human-First Discovery platform to inform follow-on product candidates in the same indication with even more favorable product attributes. In this way, our clinical development is designed to feed back into discovery, enabling iterative improvement and life cycle management as we establish franchises in new indications.

Our lead product candidate, CP101, is an orally administered, complete microbiome therapeutic capsule designed to deliver an intact, functional microbiome to durably repair community-level dysbiosis. CP101 contains microbial communities harvested from rigorously screened, healthy human stool samples that have been purified, tested, stabilized, characterized and formulated in acid-resistant capsules to facilitate intestinal release after passage through the stomach.

Pathogen exclusion in CP101 is based on proprietary testing and characterization technology developed through discussions with the FDA; unlike other orally administered microbiome therapeutic candidates in development, it does not rely on non-specific biocides such as ethanol, which inactivate both beneficial and potentially pathogenic bacteria. Instead, our technology enables us to identify suitable microbial communities prior to manufacture, without requiring destructive interference in the healthy community needed to repair community-level dysbiosis. This enables CP101 to deliver a complete consortium of microbial communities rather than narrow and variable subsets of the microbiome. Our product qualification strategy is supported by the proprietary chemistry and processing techniques that optimize community viability during lyophilization, processing and administration. This fully integrated manufacturing process is designed to consistently deliver a complete microbiome.

Our production process for CP101 is designed to be scalable. We typically collect many samples from each donor and we are able to produce many treatments from each sample collected. As a result, a small pool of donors can support a large production base. For example, we believe a pool of 200 active donors could support production of approximately 100,000 treatments of CP101 annually. Furthermore, our process is designed to yield a favorable stability profile, with at least 24 months of stability at 2°–8°C and up to six months of stability at 25°C to allow for temperature excursions during delivery and administration. We believe this favorable stability profile will simplify supply chain logistics and enable more convenient care. CP101 has received Fast Track designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA for the prevention of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, or recurrent CDI. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides expedited review and access to collaborate with the FDA on rapid development of CP101.

Following receipt of a clinical hold letter from the FDA related to our IND for CP101 on February 24, 2022, or the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter, we paused enrollment in PRISM4, our Phase 3 clinical trial of CP101 in recurrent CDI. In the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter, the FDA requested additional information about our SARS-CoV-2 donor screening protocols, including, for example, additional detail on how samples are shipped to the vendor performing the SARS-CoV-2 testing of the donor material and how inconclusive test results will be handled, as well as updating the informed consent process to address the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including, for example, the limitations of laboratory screening.

In March 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA issued a public safety alert regarding the potential risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus through the use of donor-derived investigational microbiome therapies and the need for additional safety precautions. At that time, the FDA placed our IND for CP101 on partial clinical hold, requiring us to implement new SARS-CoV-2 screening measures for any microbiota material donated on or after December 1, 2019 and to address the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the informed consent process. At that time, the FDA also placed the IND of OpenBiome, a manufacturer that we had contracted with to produce clinical raw material, on a partial clinical hold for the same reasons. Notwithstanding the partial clinical hold notices, we were able to continue dosing patients in our then-ongoing PRISM-EXT trial of CP101 in recurrent CDI as all of the CP101 lots used for PRISM-EXT were manufactured from material donated prior to December 1, 2019.

In January 2021, OpenBiome was released from partial clinical hold after implementing, among other things, a direct testing method for SARS-CoV-2. In March 2021, we acquired certain manufacturing assets from OpenBiome, and in November

2021, we began dosing participants in PRISM4 with CP101 lots that had been screened for SARS-CoV-2 using the same testing method and vendor used by OpenBiome.

Following communications with the FDA in January 2022, on February 24, 2022, the FDA sent the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter to us stating that the FDA required additional information about our SARS-CoV-2 screening protocols and related informed consent language, and that a clinical hold remains in effect until the FDA's requests have been satisfactorily addressed. The February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter did not reference any adverse clinical outcome experienced in any of our clinical trials. We have informed the FDA that participants were dosed in PRISM4 while the clinical hold was in effect and we are conducting a quality investigation of the matter. We are communicating with the FDA regarding the quality investigation, and we have committed to addressing any relevant findings prior to proceeding with enrollment in PRISM4. We have submitted a Complete Response to the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter and we are communicating with the FDA to resolve the clinical hold as soon as possible.

On March 17, 2022, we received an additional letter from the FDA, or the March 2022 Letter, requesting changes to the testing algorithm used to diagnose suspected CDI recurrences in PRISM4, as well as additional information about the proposed statistical analysis plan for PRISM4 and the validation package for one of our release tests. We are unable to proceed with enrollment in PRISM4 until the FDA removes the clinical hold, we address findings from our related quality investigation, we complete related manufacturing activities to satisfy the FDA's requests related to SARS-CoV-2 screening and testing (which includes manufacturing additional lots of CP101), and we satisfactorily address the matters raised in the March 2022 Letter. We are currently evaluating the extent of the delay these activities will have on the anticipated timing for resuming enrollment in PRISM4 and, based on manufacturing timelines, we expect at least a one-quarter delay.

Clostridioides difficile, or C. difficile, is a toxin-producing, spore-forming bacterium that causes severe and persistent diarrhea in infected individuals. C. difficile expresses toxins that lead to inflammation of the colon, severe diarrhea and abdominal pain, as well as potentially more serious clinical outcomes including toxic megacolon, perforation of the colon, and death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers CDI to be one of the top five most urgent antibiotic resistant threats and the most common healthcare-associated infection in the United States. We estimate that there are over 450,000 cases of primary CDI and approximately 200,000 cases of recurrent CDI annually in the United States, collectively resulting in more than 44,000 CDI-attributable death per year. In addition to this human toll, the economic impact is substantial, with 2.4 million inpatient days and greater than $5 billion in direct treatment costs each year in the United States. Between 2001 and 2012, there was an increase in the annual CDI incidence of 43%; however, cases of multiply recurrent CDI increased 188% over that same period.

Dysbiosis: Observational clinical data suggests that patients with recurrent CDI have significant community-level dysbiosis compared to healthy controls, with reduced microbiome diversity, in part, due to the many courses of antibiotics that are typically used to treat these patients. Initial episodes of CDI are predominantly linked to treatment with antibiotics, creating a direct link between dysbiosis and disease onset.

Mechanism of Action: The microbiome plays an important role in the pathophysiology of recurrent CDI, and third-party preclinical models and human studies support our understanding of this mechanism. Among healthy individuals, an intact microbiome outcompetes C. difficile for its main energy source, primary bile acids produced by the host. This competitive exclusion enabled by an intact microbiome is described as colonization resistance. However, when there is community-level dysbiosis and competitors are eliminated, C. difficile, typically a poor competitor for bile acid metabolism, is able to overcome colonization resistance, resulting in infection. In addition to competing for resources, a healthy microbiome generates microbiome-derived secondary bile acids that inhibit residual C. difficile spores from germinating into their vegetative, toxin-producing form. Organisms that are able to convert primary bile acids into C. difficile-inhibiting secondary bile acids remove a food resource (primary bile acids) and create a potent inhibitor of toxin production (secondary bile acids). Antibiotics are able to suppress vegetative, toxin-producing C. difficile, but residual C. difficile spores are not susceptible to antibiotics and are able to persist. Accordingly, when an antibiotic course is complete, the residual C. difficile spores can germinate into vegetative, toxin-producing C. difficile, driving CDI recurrence, a key element of morbidity, mortality and cost in CDI care. Until the underlying microbiome dysbiosis is addressed, patients remain susceptible to CDI recurrence.

Third-Party Clinical Data: Numerous cohort studies, observations from clinical practice and small randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that FMT is able to prevent recurrent CDI. CP101 builds on these human data that suggest repairing community-level dysbiosis may restore colonization resistance and break the cycle of CDI recurrence.

Although antibiotics are considered standard of care to treat CDI, they also impair the diversity of the resident microbiome, affording a potential microbial niche for resident C. difficile spores to germinate into toxin-producing cells. Recurrence rates following antibiotic therapy are high as these agents exacerbate community-level dysbiosis. A commonly used CDI antibiotic, vancomycin, is non-specific and causes significant disruption to the microbiome. New generation medications, such as fidaxomicin, were designed as an alternative, narrow-spectrum antibiotic, with reduced activity against other microbes compared to vancomycin. Increasingly sophisticated and precision-targeted antibiotics can mitigate further harm to the microbiome but they do not address what we believe to be the root cause of recurrent CDI—the dysbiosis caused by antimicrobials.

Bezlotoxumab is an approved intravenous monoclonal antibody product that targets the toxins produced by C. difficile. However, like antibiotic therapy, it fails to repair dysbiosis, the underlying cause of recurrent CDI.

Probiotics are dietary supplements or foods that contain microbes and are typically derived from fermented foods such as yogurt. However, probiotics are not designed to durably colonize the human intestine and no clinical trials have demonstrated durable repair of dysbiosis with probiotics to date. Recent ACG guidelines have recommended against the use of probiotics for the prevention of CDI.

FMT is the process of transplanting stool and accompanying microbes from healthy donors into patients suffering from diseases of dysbiosis. FMT has generated remarkable outcomes in CDI, supporting the rationale for targeting dysbiosis. However, FMT is a procedure, not a product, and often requires a colonoscopy for administration. There are no defined regulatory standards for screening, processing and delivery of FMT, and this treatment has not been approved by the FDA. There is no FDA-approved agent that addresses the community-level dysbiosis that underlies recurrent CDI.

We have designed CP101 to break the cycle of CDI recurrence by restoring a complete microbiome. We believe that CP101 has the following advantages when compared to existing therapeutic approaches and other microbiome therapeutic candidates in development for the treatment of recurrent CDI:

•

Differentiated manufacturing enables the delivery of a complete microbiome. Our manufacturing technology enables us to exclude pathogens through donor and stool screening, without destruction of the majority of the microbiome through non-specific biocides like ethanol. Besides enabling CP101 to address community-level dysbiosis, rather than a limited subset of the microbiome, we believe that creating a manufacturing process that moves beyond reliance on biocides enables higher yields and more efficient, less costly manufacturing. We believe these advantages will be particularly important as we evaluate CP101 in new indications where ethanol-sensitive organisms, which comprise the majority of the microbiome, are likely to play a critical role and scalable manufacturing will enable us to serve large markets.

•

Novel class of therapy that addresses the underlying cause of disease by restoring the microbiome. While antibiotics are the current standard of care for the treatment of recurrent CDI, they fail to address the underlying community-level dysbiosis that causes recurrence of the disease. CP101 is designed to durably repair community-level dysbiosis, restoring colonization resistance and production of protective microbiome-derived secondary bile acids. Through its novel mechanism, CP101 also avoids contributing to antibiotic resistance.

patients across all stages of recurrent CDI, including first recurrence, which represents more than half of all recurrent CDI episodes. PRISM3 included participants 65 years of age or older who were experiencing their first recurrence of CDI and PRISM-EXT included adults of all ages who were experiencing their first recurrence of CDI. Other drugs in development have focused on patients with multiple recurrences, rather than the more challenging hurdle of delivering meaningful clinical outcomes in front-line care for recurrent CDI. CP101 achieved its primary endpoint in a population that included patients diagnosed by either polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, testing or toxin enzyme immunoassay, or EIA, testing. Other drugs in development failed to demonstrate efficacy among patients diagnosed by PCR and have subsequently focused development exclusively on those diagnosed by toxin EIA. This is commercially important because PCR is the method used to diagnose more than 80% of all CDI cases each year in the United States. By incorporating patients with first recurrence and diagnosed by PCR testing into our study design, we expanded the addressable patient population more than 10-fold relative to products in development that were evaluated only in patients with multiple recurrences and diagnosed by toxin EIA testing. We believe based on the results of our PRISM3 trial, CP101 will have broad applicability across all stages of recurrent CDI and all methods of CDI diagnosis. Data from our PRISM-EXT trial also supports the use of CP101 as rescue therapy for patients who do not respond to a first dose of treatment.

•

Favorable tolerability profile with no treatment-related SAEs observed. In our PRISM3 trial, CP101 was observed to be well-tolerated, with a similar prevalence of adverse events across the CP101 and placebo arms and no treatment-related SAEs within the CP101 group. We believe this promising tolerability profile is enabled by our robust product and process design.

Recurrent CDI represents a robust market opportunity and we estimate there are approximately 200,000 cases each year in the United States. As shown in the figure below, the first recurrence of CDI represents more than half of these cases. Unlike pivotal trials for other microbiome programs, the PRISM3 trial design included first recurrence CDI for patients 65 years of age or older, demonstrating benefit in a broad patient population.

We expect that prescriptions of CP101 will be predominantly fulfilled in the outpatient setting, through the specialty pharmacy channel. While initial presentation of recurrent CDI may occur either in the hospital setting or in the outpatient setting, the majority of hospitalized patients are discharged while being treated with standard-of-care antibiotics, prior to when CP101 would be administered. We believe that this outpatient setting, which provides favorable pricing and reimbursement dynamics relative to the hospital setting, will allow us to better realize value in the recurrent CDI market opportunity.

The development of CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI is supported by positive topline results from a Phase 1 open-label clinical trial (n=49), a Phase 2 placebo-controlled clinical trial referred to as the PRISM3 trial (n=198), and a Phase 2 open-label clinical trial referred to as the PRISM-EXT trial (n=132), as further summarized elsewhere in this Annual Report. CP101 is currently in late-stage clinical development and being evaluated in a Phase 3 clinical trial, referred to as the

PRISM4 trial, anticipated to enroll approximately 300 participants. We plan to have further discussions with the FDA regarding the size and make-up of the safety database for CP101, which could result in the need for additional studies. PRISM4 is currently on clinical hold, pending product availability and resolution of matters related to the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter and the March 2022 Letter.

PRISM4 Trial

We have designed a Phase 3 clinical trial, which we refer to as the PRISM4 trial, to serve as our second pivotal trial of CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI. The PRISM4 trial is a multi-center trial expected to enroll approximately 300 adult participants with recurrent CDI. PRISM4 has two parts: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled part (Part A) and an optional, open-label treatment part (Part B). In Part A, eligible participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either a one-time oral administration of CP101 or placebo after completing standard-of-care, or SOC, CDI antibiotics for their most recent CDI recurrence. The primary efficacy endpoint of the trial will be CDI recurrence through 8 weeks post-treatment. The primary safety endpoint is the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events through week 8. Secondary endpoints include safety and CDI recurrence through 24 weeks post-treatment. The design of Part A is shown below.

Like our previously completed PRISM3 Phase 2 clinical trial, the PRISM4 trial will enroll participants with recurrent CDI, including participants experiencing their first CDI recurrence that are 65 years of age or older. At study entry, all guideline recommended test methods for C. difficile, including PCR- or toxin EIA-based test methods, will be accepted for the diagnosis of the qualifying episode of CDI.

Participants in Part A of the PRISM4 trial that experience a CDI recurrence within 8 weeks of randomization will have the option to enroll in the open-label, Part B component of the trial, in which they will receive CP101 following completion of SOC antibiotics.

On March 1, 2022, we announced that enrollment in PRISM4 was paused following receipt of the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter. We have submitted a Complete Response to the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter and we are communicating with the FDA to resolve the clinical hold and related matters, as described above in the section entitled "Clinical Hold".

We evaluated CP101 for the treatment of recurrent CDI in our pivotal PRISM3 trial, which represents the first positive pivotal trial with an orally administered complete microbiome product candidate. PRISM3 was a Phase 2, 1:1 randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-national trial designed to demonstrate the superiority of CP101 following standard-of-care CDI antibiotics compared to antibiotics alone in preventing recurrence among patients with recurrent CDI. A total of 206 participants were enrolled across 51 sites, of which 198 were evaluable. Patients were recruited from across all stages of recurrent CDI, including patients experiencing their first recurrence that were 65 years of age or older. Qualifying episodes of recurrent CDI were diagnosed using all standard-of-care laboratory tests, including PCR- or toxin EIA-based test methods. All participants were treated with standard-of-care CDI antibiotic therapy prior to randomization. Following antibiotic treatment, participants were randomized to receive either a one-time oral administration of CP101 or a placebo, without the need for bowel preparation. The trial design is shown below.

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two study arms, with no meaningful clinical differences. Participants with a first CDI recurrence at study entry represented approximately 30% of the study population.

PRISM3 achieved its primary efficacy endpoint, which was sustained clinical cure defined as the absence of CDI recurrence through eight weeks following administration of study drug. Sustained clinical cure was determined by a blinded adjudication board of independent experts evaluating the totality of clinical and laboratory data including central laboratory data with PCR, toxin EIA and toxigenic culture testing. Following standard-of-care CDI antibiotics, 74.5% of participants treated with CP101 achieved sustained clinical cure, a statistically significant improvement over those receiving placebo (61.5%; p=0.0488), meeting the primary efficacy endpoint and representing a clinically meaningful 33.8% relative risk reduction for CDI recurrence, as shown below on the left. On long-term assessment, CP101 demonstrated clinically meaningful durability and the proportion of participants with sustained clinical cure, defined as the absence of CDI recurrence, through Week 24 remained significantly higher in the CP101 arm compared to placebo (73.5% [75/102] vs 59.4% [57/96], p=0.0347). Time-to-event analysis through Week 24 showed a statistically significant and durable benefit, favoring CP101 compared to placebo (p=0.018), as shown below on the right.

PRISM-EXT was an open-label Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI. Initially, the study only enrolled participants who had previously enrolled in the randomized, placebo-controlled PRISM3 trial and experienced a CDI recurrence. After PRISM3 enrollment was complete, a protocol amendment expanded the inclusion criteria to allow participants with recurrent CDI to enroll directly in PRISM-EXT without having previously enrolled in PRISM3. The trial design is shown below.

In November 2021, we reported positive topline results from the PRISM-EXT trial. A total of 132 participants were analyzed, including one cohort that directly enrolled in the trial following a recent CDI recurrence without having previously participated in PRISM3 (n=82) and one cohort that enrolled after experiencing a CDI recurrence following administration of placebo or a single dose of CP101 in PRISM3 (n=50). The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained clinical cure (defined as absence of CDI recurrence) through 8 weeks post-treatment. Overall, 80.3% of participants who received a single oral administration of CP101 following standard-of-care antibiotics in PRISM-EXT achieved sustained clinical cure (defined as absence of CDI recurrence) through week 8 and 78.8% had sustained clinical cure through week 24, as shown below. The PRISM-EXT results are consistent with and build on the previously reported PRISM3 results.

Among the 102 participants who were treated with CP101 in PRISM3, 20 were enrolled in PRISM-EXT and treated with a second dose of CP101. Of the participants who received either a single dose of CP101 in PRISM3 (n=82) or a second dose by enrolling in PRISM-EXT (n=20), a post-hoc analysis shows that a total of 90 participants achieved sustained clinical cure through 8 weeks after their final dose, resulting in a cumulative efficacy of 88.2% (n=102).

The first clinical trial to evaluate CP101 for the treatment of recurrent CDI was a 49 patient, single-center, open-label Phase 1 clinical trial conducted at the University of Minnesota. The trial enrolled patients who had experienced two or more recurrences of CDI. The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability of CP101. Clinical success was defined as absence of CDI recurrence within two months post-treatment. No related SAEs occurred and 43 of the 49 patients treated achieved clinical success, resulting in an efficacy rate of 87.8% after treatment with CP101. Because the study was designed with a single arm and did not have concurrent control participants, the statistical significance of the observed efficacy rate was not assessed in this study. Approximately a third of patients reported mild, transient gastrointestinal symptoms following the treatment. Multiple doses were evaluated in this first cohort, including a high dose range (1.25-2.5x1012) and a low dose range (2.1-2.5x1011), with no meaningful dose response at the dosing levels tested. An intermediate dose of 6x1011 was selected for further process development and tested in an additional 10-patient cohort at the University of Minnesota. In this second cohort, seven of ten patients achieved clinical success through eight weeks following CP101. These promising clinical results from Phase 1 were used to secure Fast Track designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA.

CP101 has been well-tolerated throughout all stages of development to date, and there have been no treatment-related SAEs reported. In the PRISM3 safety population, treatment-emergent AEs and treatment-related AEs were similar between treatment groups, with 16.3% (17/104) of participants in the CP101 arm versus 19.2% (19/99) of participants in the placebo arm experiencing treatment-related adverse events, or AEs, through 24 weeks. In the CP101 arm, treatment-related AEs were mild (Grade 1: 16/17) and moderate (Grade 2: 1/17), and primarily gastrointestinal in nature.

The most common treatment-emergent AEs reported in the CP101 arm through week 8 were predominantly gastrointestinal symptoms, as shown in the table below. Among the five most common adverse events in the CP101 arm, four adverse events were observed more frequently in participants treated with placebo relative to participants treated with CP101. For instance, we observed significantly fewer participants with abdominal pain among those treated with CP101 (30.8%) relative to those treated with placebo (59.6%; p<0.0001).

Additionally, in the 132-participant PRISM-EXT trial, there were no treatment-related SAEs reported and CP101 exhibited an overall safety profile consistent with the profile observed in PRISM3.

We used data from these clinical trials to confirm potential mechanisms underlying the clinical outcomes observed with CP101 for recurrent CDI. We used high-throughput sequencing to characterize the engraftment of CP101 Taxa, or groups of genetically similar bacteria, among participants treated in the PRISM3 study. As expected, participants treated with CP101 had dramatically higher engraftment of CP101 Taxa than patients treated with placebo, as shown in the graphic below, highlighting our ability to effectively deliver a viable consortia to the appropriate location in the gastrointestinal tract with our targeted oral capsule.

We also observed a strong relationship between engraftment of the microbes delivered in CP101 and clinical outcomes in PRISM3. Among patients with successful engraftment at week 1 following CP101 administration, 96.0% achieved a sustained clinical cure, while 54.2% of those without successful engraftment at week 1 achieved a sustained clinical cure (p < 0.001).

We believe one factor that may have reduced engraftment among some PRISM3 participants who received CP101 is the persistence of residual vancomycin, a broad spectrum antibiotic with activity against a number of CP101 microbes, prior to treatment with CP101. As part of the study protocol, all patients enrolled in PRISM3 completed a course of standard of care antibiotics, which could have included either vancomycin or fidaxomicin, prior to randomization and administration of study drug.

To limit the impact of residual standard of care antibiotics on CP101, participants in PRISM3 completed a minimum two-day antibiotic washout period prior to administration of study drug to provide time for antibiotic clearance from the colon. Recent scientific literature shows, however, that the stool concentration of vancomycin two days after cessation of administration remains at approximately 65% of peak concentrations and declines to approximately 15% of peak concentrations after a three-day washout. These data suggest that a two-day washout period may have been insufficient to clear residual vancomycin.

To address this limitation, we have extended the minimum antibiotic washout period prior to administration of CP101 in our PRISM4 trial from two days to four days.

We believe bile acid metabolism plays a key role in the pathogenesis of recurrent CDI. A healthy microbiome generates microbiome-derived secondary bile acids that inhibit residual C. difficile spores from germinating into their vegetative toxin-producing form. Patients with recurrent CDI have depleted secondary bile acids and a higher concentration of primary bile acids, a key energy source for C. difficile. There are eight microbial genes that are critical for the conversion of primary bile acids into secondary bile acids. We used high-throughput metagenomic sequencing to measure the presence of these genes before and after treatment with CP101. At baseline, we found participants with recurrent CDI had between zero and four of these genes, missing key components of the pathway. Among participants evaluated for pharmacodynamics in Phase 1 (n=5), we found that all participants had all eight genes at all timepoints measured after treatment with CP101, highlighting the ability of CP101 to restore an important pathway in the pathogenesis of recurrent CDI.

These data show that in keeping with similar host-targeted gene therapies, we are able to deliver a lasting transformation in the genetic capacity of the treated patient in a manner that improves clinical outcomes. With our treatment, however, we do not need to modify the host genome, instead we can deliver these genetic capabilities through microbes that are able to engraft and reproduce in the host. Importantly, because more than 99% of all genes found in humans are found in the microbiome, this opens a much broader suite of targets than those which are accessible through host-targeted gene therapies.

CP101 is Designed to Break the Cycle of CDI Recurrence by Restoring Bile Acid Metabolism

CP101 Restores Bile Acid Metabolism – A Key Biomarker for Treatment in Recurrent CDI

Following a strategic review of our pipeline and business, we announced in March 2022 the decision to pause the development of CP101 for the treatment of chronic HBV. We believe this decision will allow us to maximize our working capital available for investment in our wholly-owned recurrent CDI and ASD programs. We continue to believe that CP101, or other product candidates that we may develop in the future, may have the potential to treat chronic HBV, a chronic infection linked to microbiome dysbiosis. We may continue our research efforts in HBV in the future as our portfolio continues to mature.

ASD is a behaviorally defined condition characterized by reduced social interaction, impaired communication skills and the presence of repetitive or restrictive behaviors. Beyond the core symptoms by which it is defined, ASD is recognized as a heterogeneous medical condition by the FDA, and patients can exhibit highly varied symptoms and behaviors such as irritability, heightened sensitivities and movement disorders. A subset of patients with ASD, comprising at least 30% of the

population, experience significant gastrointestinal symptoms, with the most common gastrointestinal symptom being constipation (ASD-C). There is a correlation between the severity of these gastrointestinal symptoms and the severity of behavioral symptoms. Standard treatments for constipation are often ineffective, which may be because the underlying biology of gastrointestinal symptoms is distinct in children with ASD compared to neurotypical children. We believe by addressing this underlying biology with a microbiome therapeutic, we will be able to improve ASD gastrointestinal symptom and neurobehavioral development.

The diagnosed prevalence of ASD is currently 1 in 44 for children in the United States, a prevalence that has increased substantially over the past few decades. Worldwide prevalence estimates vary but are thought to be similar in other developed countries. It is believed there are more than 4.6 million children and adults in the United States with ASD. By some estimates, the total financial burden of care for patients with ASD exceeds $100 billion in the United States annually.

There is no FDA-approved pharmaceutical treatment for the core symptoms of ASD. The only widely accepted intervention with substantial supportive evidence is a form of long-term behavioral therapy, called Applied Behavioral Analysis, or ABA. Children with ASD usually begin ABA as soon as they are diagnosed, typically between ages 2-6 years, and are recommended to receive 30-40 hours of therapy every week. ABA may continue into adulthood and parents are often faced with making difficult choices between school or continuing ABA therapy. The only FDA-approved pharmaceutical treatment for ASD are anti-psychotics, which are only prescribed to treat the irritability that often accompanies ASD, but is not a core symptom of the disorder. While ASD-C may be treated with laxatives or enemas, these can be poorly tolerated and are often ineffective. As a result, a high unmet medical need remains across both gastrointestinal and behavioral symptoms.

Dysbiosis: Microbiome signals, epidemiological risk factors and gut symptoms all suggest a link between ASD and the microbiome. ASD is frequently accompanied by severe gastrointestinal manifestations, revealing symptoms more proximal to the activities of the gut microbiome. Moreover, the risk of developing ASD is significantly increased among children born by caesarean section or those exposed to multiple courses of antibiotics early in life. Mouse studies have demonstrated the ability to transfer ASD-like symptoms by transferring stool from humans with ASD. Conversely, certain ASD-mouse models have shown that ASD-like symptoms can be reduced by microbiome transfer from a neurotypical donor.

Mechanism of Action: Once considered a strictly neurological condition, the modern view of ASD has evolved to encompass multiple systems, including interactions between the central nervous system, the enteric nervous system and the gut microbiome, also called the gut-brain axis. Many well-known neuro-active signaling molecules such as gamma-aminobutyric acid, or GABA, serotonin and oxytocin are either produced or modulated by the microbiome, which has led to efforts to better understand the role of the microbiome across a range of behavioral and neurological conditions, including ASD. Current research highlights several pathways in the gut-brain axis that may be key to ASD. Neuro-active metabolites that are exclusively produced by the microbiome, such as 4-ethylphenylsulfate, or 4EPS, are significantly elevated among children with ASD relative to neurotypical controls, and are capable of inducing ASD-like symptoms in mice. Oxytocin, a neuropeptide responsible for regulating social bonding and behavior, has long been a target for drug development in ASD, but exogenous agonism of oxytocin has been challenging due to a short half-life of oxytocin. Certain microbes can induce endogenous production of oxytocin, providing an alternative means to engage this important pathway. Preclinical work has demonstrated that introduction of oxytocin-inducing bacteria can restore neurotypical behavior in three independent ASD murine models. This rescue is dependent on the vagus nerve which connects the enteric nervous system in the gut with the central nervous system and was eliminated when the gene for the oxytocin receptor was knocked out. This pathway-level dysbiosis and previously described community-level dysbiosis suggest the potential role for an Enriched Consortia product strategy.

Third-Party Clinical Data: At least five investigator-sponsored clinical studies have found that the restoration of a healthy microbiome by FMT is associated with marked improvements in behavioral and gastrointestinal symptoms among children with ASD. An open-label proof-of-concept trial administering FMT for 8 weeks reported that, two years after treatment, most participants reported gastrointestinal symptoms remaining improved compared to baseline and 44% of study participants who had previously been diagnosed with ASD fell below the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) score cut-off used to classify autism. Even using a more stringent CARS score cut-off of 25, we find that 33% of participants no longer meet the diagnostic criteria for ASD, as shown in the below graph. Additionally, in a randomized, controlled trial, children with ASD receiving FMT and behavioral therapy showed a statistically significant improvement in their behavioral symptoms compared to the control group receiving behavioral therapy alone.

FIN-211 is an orally administered, Enriched Consortia product candidate designed to deliver both a complete microbiome and targeted microbes not found in most healthy donors. Based on our understanding of the biology of ASD, we have identified species capable of inducing oxytocin production and improving gastrointestinal barrier function. We believe these organisms may have important therapeutic benefits for individuals with ASD. These organisms are not ubiquitous in healthy donors, so our Complete Consortia product strategy would not generally include these microbes. Accordingly, we have decided to pursue an Enriched Consortia product strategy that includes both strains targeting oxytocin-production and a complete microbiome to address community-level dysbiosis, which we believe best positions FIN-211 to potentially address both the gastrointestinal and behavioral symptoms of ASD.

We are preparing to initiate a Phase 1b clinical trial, which we refer to as AUSPIRE, of FIN-211 in children with ASD (ages 5–17 years) with constipation. Although FIN-211 is not directly addressed in the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter, it is an Enriched Consortia product candidate that includes donor-derived components. Because the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter is concerned with SARS-CoV-2 screening measures for donor-derived microbiota material, the clinical hold will delay initiation of AUSPIRE and will require us to conduct additional manufacturing activities (including manufacturing additional components of FIN-211) in order to satisfy the FDA's requests related to SARS-CoV-2 screening and testing. We have submitted a Complete Response to the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter and we are communicating with the FDA to resolve the clinical hold as soon as possible. We are evaluating the extent of the delay the clinical hold and the related manufacturing activities will have on the expected timing of AUSPIRE; based on manufacturing timelines, we expect at least a one-quarter delay.

Based on clinical FMT data and preclinical data with oxytocin-inducing strains, we believe FIN-211 is positioned to address both the gastrointestinal and behavioral symptoms of ASD. The FDA has indicated that either gastrointestinal or behavioral endpoints could support a biologics license application and we are evaluating both gastrointestinal and behavioral endpoints. Given the absence of FDA-approved therapies and building on our discussions with the FDA, we aim to continue to validate behavioral instruments as part of our clinical development plans. We believe FIN-211 can potentially address adults with ASD as well as both adults and children without gastrointestinal symptoms, expanding beyond our initial population of pediatrics with gastrointestinal symptoms where we expect to observe an enriched signal.

We believe this development strategy represents an attractive entry into the gut-brain axis, providing two opportunities to provide therapeutic benefit to patients with ASD, both for behavioral symptoms and lower-risk gastrointestinal endpoints. Furthermore, we believe that ASD could validate our microbiome-based approach to addressing additional gut-brain axis indications. We plan to leverage existing and emerging clinical data from our academic collaborators to inform the development strategy of future product candidates to address additional neurological disorders that are associated with the gut-brain axis.

TAK-524 (Ulcerative Colitis) & FIN-525 (Crohn’s Disease) for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

TAK-524 (formerly known as FIN-524) and FIN-525 are each orally administered Targeted Consortia product candidates designed for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (TAK-524) and Crohn’s disease (FIN-525). We initially partnered with Takeda, a global leader in inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, to develop TAK-524. TAK-524 comprises targeted strains identified by our Human-First Discovery platform, which do not require donors. Following the achievement of certain preclinical milestones in the development of TAK-524 for ulcerative colitis, we expanded our development partnership with Takeda to include FIN-525, a program to develop a live biotherapeutic product optimized for Crohn’s disease that also comprises targeted strains identified by our Human-First Discovery platform. In August 2021, Takeda accelerated its leadership role in TAK-524, taking responsibility for clinical development, while we continue to conduct discovery efforts on FIN-525. We believe that the development programs for TAK-524 and FIN-525, which are Targeted Consortia product candidates composed of strains grown from master cell banks, are not affected by the February 2022 Clinical Hold Letter.

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease are the two principal sub-types of IBD. IBD comprises a set of heterogeneous autoimmune conditions that cause inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms of IBD include severe, chronic abdominal pain, diarrhea, gastrointestinal bleeding and weight loss. Patients have substantially higher risk of colon cancer, gastrointestinal perforations and infections, and many eventually require surgical resection of portions of their gastrointestinal tract or colectomy. Patients undergo periods of active disease (flares) accompanied by intermittent periods of little or no disease activity (remission). Over 3 million Americans and 10 million people globally are thought to suffer from IBD, and the incidence has increased rapidly over the past few decades. By some estimates, the total financial burden of care for patients with IBD exceeds $31 billion in the United States annually.

The current treatment options vary by disease types and severity, and are designed to reduce inflammation, but do not address the underlying cause of disease. Active mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis is often treated with 5-ASA agents. However, over 70% of patients fail to enter remission. Active mild-moderate Crohn’s disease have limited therapeutic options. Corticosteroids are commonly used in active disease; however, the long-term side effect profile is poor and includes increased risk of infections, type 2 diabetes, weight gain, mood disturbances and hypertension. Biologic agents that suppress inflammatory cytokines or cell trafficking are not typically orally administered agents, and have poor rates of inducing remission. There is a single, recently approved oral biologic for moderate to severe Crohn’s disease; however, similar to other biologics, it is associated with increased risk for severe infections, blood clots and the development of malignancy. Commonly used anti-TNF biologic agents may lead to serious infections due to immunosuppression, and there have been reports of hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, a rare form of lymphoma that is fatal in some patients.

Overall, current treatments for IBD fail to address the underlying causes of inflammation, and there is a significant need for well-tolerated, easily administered, disease-modifying agents in IBD.

Dysbiosis: Over the last decade, a number of lines of evidence have pointed to the promise of microbiome therapeutics in treating ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Inflammatory bowel disease is one of the suite of chronic inflammatory diseases that has risen dramatically in prevalence in developed nations marked by gastrointestinal dysbiosis.

Mechanism of Action: Extensive preclinical work has demonstrated the criticality of the microbiome, including specific microbial metabolites, in regulating gastrointestinal tract inflammation, predicting response to therapy and determining the risk of disease recurrence after surgery. The improvement of gut barrier integrity, reduction of local immune activation and modulation of gut inflammation are all modulated by the microbiome.

Third-Party Clinical Data: FMT studies in IBD were key in our decision to develop Targeted Consortia product candidates for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Data from over 40 FMT studies, including five randomized, placebo-controlled trials in ulcerative colitis and one randomized, placebo-controlled trial in Crohn’s disease, have shown promising clinical outcomes. Some of these interventional studies also served as our main discovery datasets to select which strains and functions to include in our Targeted Consortia approach for IBD. Clinical studies with only spore-forming compositions have

yielded mixed results, highlighting the value of our approach, which leverages both spore-forming and non-spore forming compositions.

TAK-524 is a Targeted Consortia product candidate of nine bacterial strains selected for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, and is orally administered in a lyophilized formulation. We designed this consortium to target three specific modes of action: two classes of immunoregulatory metabolites, each targeting a different set of host pathways, and donor strains linked to remission following FMT in patients with ulcerative colitis. Takeda now leads development of TAK-524.

FIN-525 is a discovery-stage program designing a Targeted Consortia product candidate for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. The strategy for this consortium, which is differentiated from ulcerative colitis, includes donor strains depleted in Crohn’s patients and linked to remission following FMT in these patients, as well as several classes of metabolites, each targeting a different set of host pathways.

TAK-524 and FIN-525 leverage data collected from over two dozen cohorts comprising over 2,300 patients, including six FMT studies in ulcerative colitis and five in Crohn’s disease. Our machine learning platform identified microbes and microbial functions deficient in patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease compared to non-IBD controls. We tested these hypotheses with FMT data to identify the subset most likely to be causal, focusing on organisms consistently shown to be enriched among successful FMTs and subjects without IBD. To reduce the translational risk of these empirical signals, we isolated target organisms directly from specific donor samples that induced remission in clinical studies of FMT in IBD. In vitro and in vivo measurements on the isolated strains and consortia then confirmed the signals of biological activity hypothesized by our machine learning platform. We are currently conducting discovery efforts on FIN-525.

In January 2017, we entered into an agreement, or the Takeda Agreement, with Takeda, pursuant to which we granted Takeda a worldwide, exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under our rights in certain patents, patent applications and know-how to develop, have developed, manufacture, have manufactured, make, have made, use, have used, offer for sale, sell, have sold, commercialize, have commercialized and import our microbiome therapeutic candidate TAK-524 for the prevention, diagnosis, theragnosis or treatment of diseases in humans. We subsequently amended and restated the Takeda Agreement in October 2019 to provide a worldwide, exclusive license to a second microbiome therapeutic candidate, FIN-525. We further amended the Takeda Agreement in August 2021 to transition primary responsibility for further development and manufacturing activities of TAK-524 to Takeda in accordance with a transition plan, and Takeda assumed sole responsibility for regulatory matters with respect to TAK-524. In November 2021, we further amended the Takeda Agreement to enable us to carry out certain FIN-525 preliminary evaluation activities.

Under the terms of the Takeda Agreement, we agreed to design TAK-524 (a product candidate optimized for ulcerative colitis) for Takeda based on selection criteria within a product-specific development plan. We also agreed to conduct feasibility studies on FIN-525 (a program to develop a live biotherapeutic product optimized for Crohn’s disease) for Takeda, and Takeda can determine whether to initiate a full product-specific development plan for FIN-525 following its review of the data from our feasibility studies. The FIN-525 feasibility study was completed in March 2021. Takeda is to select one optimal microbial cocktail for each of TAK-524 and FIN-525 after completion of certain initial product development activities. Thereafter, prior to initiation of the first Phase 3 clinical trial for TAK-524 or FIN-525, as applicable, Takeda has the right to substitute the initially selected microbial cocktail for another microbial cocktail selected by Takeda from certain alternative cocktails that were designated by Takeda at the time of selecting the initial microbial cocktail.

Pursuant to the Takeda Agreement, we are primarily responsible for early-stage development activities for FIN-525 pursuant to an agreed upon development plan and budget, including potentially through Phase 2 clinical trials, subject to Takeda’s right to either co-develop a product with us at Phase 2 or assume responsibility for such development. After the successful completion of the first Phase 2 clinical trial for FIN-525, Takeda will assume primary responsibility for the Phase 3 clinical program. Initially, we are responsible for clinical supply of FIN-525; however, Takeda is required to assume responsibility for such manufacture and supply no later than six months after completion of the first Phase 2 clinical trial for the first FIN-525 product candidate. All such development and manufacturing activities will be overseen by certain joint committees. Pursuant to the August 2021 amendment to the Takeda Agreement, Takeda assumed primary responsibility for early-stage development and manufacturing activities with respect to TAK-524. Takeda also assumed sole responsibility for regulatory matters with respect to TAK-524. We remain responsible for certain development activities designated in the TAK-524 development plan, for which we will continue to receive reimbursement from Takeda.

Takeda is responsible for up to 110% of our budgeted full-time equivalent costs in connection with our development activities for TAK-524 (and FIN-525, if Takeda elects to initiate a full development plan for FIN-525) as well as all costs related to chemistry, manufacturing and control development or other development costs incurred after the initial selection of an optimal microbial cocktail. Takeda is solely responsible for all commercial activities related to the TAK-524 and FIN-525 product candidates, at its cost.

We have agreed that prior to completion of the first Phase 2 clinical trial for the first TAK-524 product candidate being developed with the intention of seeking U.S. regulatory approval, other than as part of any development activities under the Takeda Agreement, we shall not engage in any research and development directed toward any product candidate for the treatment of IBD, or access or use certain fecal microbiota source material or any data generated from that material in IBD for any purpose. Additionally, we have agreed that prior to completion of the first Phase 2 clinical trial for the first FIN-525 product candidate being developed with the intention of seeking U.S. regulatory approval, other than as part of any development activities under the Takeda Agreement, we shall not engage in any research and development directed toward any product for the treatment of Crohn’s disease, or access or use certain fecal microbiota source material or any data generated from that material in Crohn’s disease for any purpose. We have also agreed for the remainder of the term of the Takeda Agreement to certain restrictions on our access or use of certain bacterial strains having at least a threshold genetic relatedness to the strains incorporated into TAK-524 or FIN-525, our access or use of certain fecal microbiota source material, and our ability to conduct certain research and development directed toward products for the treatment of IBD and Crohn’s disease that contain bacterial strains having less than a threshold genetic divergence from the bacterial strains in TAK-524 and FIN-525, respectively.

Pursuant to the Takeda Agreement, we granted Takeda a right of first offer in the event that we seek to commence a program for the treatment of IBD, as well as an exclusive option to negotiate that the parties undertake an additional development program for a microbial composition.

In connection with entry into the Takeda Agreement, we received a one-time, upfront payment from Takeda in the amount of $10.0 million. Additionally, we received $4.0 million in the aggregate for the achievement of certain development milestones for TAK-524 therapeutic products and are entitled to receive up to $176.0 million in the aggregate, for the achievement of specified development, regulatory and commercial sale milestones for TAK-524 therapeutic products. We are entitled to receive up to $177.7 million in the aggregate, for the achievement of specified development, regulatory and commercial sale milestones for FIN-525 therapeutic products, subject, to certain specified reductions based upon the nature of the FIN-525 product and certain additional milestones to be negotiated by the parties. We are also entitled to receive up to $10.0 million for the first diagnostic product for each of TAK-524 and FIN-525, subject to certain reductions in the event that Takeda uses a third party to develop such diagnostic products. Pursuant to this agreement, Takeda is obligated to pay us a royalty on net sales of TAK-524 and FIN-525 products ranging from mid to high-single digits, subject to certain reductions. Such royalties are payable on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, during the period beginning on the date of first commercial sale of such product in such country and ending on the later to occur of the expiration of the last-to-expire valid

claim of any patents or patent applications controlled by us and licensed in such country that covers the composition of matter of such product, the date that regulatory exclusivity of such product expires in such country, or eight years from the date of the first commercial sale of such product in such country.

The Takeda Agreement expires on the date of expiration of the last royalty payment obligation. Either party may terminate the Takeda Agreement in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party. Takeda has the right to terminate the Takeda Agreement, in whole or in party, on a program-by-program basis upon specified notice to us or immediately following the withdrawal of a product from any market as a result of bona fide concerns based on specific and verifiable information that such product is unsafe for administration to humans. Additionally, the parties may mutually agree to terminate the Takeda Agreement on a program-by-program basis.

In July 2017, we entered into a license agreement, or the Arizona State Agreement, with Skysong Innovations LLC (formerly Arizona Science and Technology Enterprises LLC), or Skysong, pursuant to which we obtained a worldwide, royalty-bearing, exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under certain patents and patent applications of Arizona State University to make, have made, use, have used, sell, have sold, offer to sell, have offered for sale, import, have imported, export or have exported products and services that are covered by such licensed patents. In July 2018, we subsequently amended the Arizona State Agreement to include certain additional patents and patent applications of Arizona State University. The patents and patent applications that we have exclusively licensed from Arizona State University under the Arizona State Agreement relate generally to compositions and methods to treat autism spectrum disorder and related symptoms and comorbidities. If issued, the patents within the licensed intellectual property would be expected to expire beginning in 2033.

Pursuant to the terms of the Arizona State Agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts in connection with the development and commercialization of products and services, the manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale, importation or exportation of which, but for the license granted under the Arizona State Agreement, would infringe one or more licensed patents, or licensed products. Such efforts are limited to the United States and include a specific performance milestone.

Under the terms of the Arizona State Agreement, we paid Skysong an upfront fee of $10,000 and reimbursed Skysong for prior patent prosecution expenses. Additionally, we have agreed to make a low-six digits milestone payment upon the first commercial sale of a product in each of the United States, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan, and a one-time commercial milestone payment in the low-seven digits upon the achievement of cumulative, worldwide net sales of all licensed products by us, our sublicensees or respective affiliates in the low-nine digits. We are also obligated to pay Skysong a low-single digit royalty on net sales of licensed products, including a minimum annual royalty payment in the mid-four digits to low-five digits that is creditable against the royalties due in such year. The royalty obligations continue on a country-by-country basis as to each licensed product until expiry of the last to expire claim within the licensed patents that covers such licensed product in such country. Moreover, we are obligated to pay a percentage of any non-royalty consideration received by us from a sublicensee in the high-second decile.

The Arizona State Agreement expires on the date of expiration of all royalty obligations. Upon expiration of our royalty obligations with respect to a licensed product in a country we will have a royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual license to such licensed product in such country. We may terminate the Arizona State Agreement earlier for any reason or upon an uncured material breach of the agreement by Skysong. Skysong may terminate the Arizona State Agreement earlier upon our uncured material breach of the agreement, our insolvency, our initiation of any proceeding or claim challenging the validity or enforceability of any licensed patent, or our failure to meet a specific performance milestone.

In March 2012, CIPAC Limited, an entity under the laws of Malta, or CIPAC, entered into a license agreement, or the UMN Agreement, with Regents of the University of Minnesota, or UMN, pursuant to which CIPAC obtained a worldwide, royalty-bearing, exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under certain patents and inventions of the University of Minnesota to make, have made, use, offer to sell or sell, offer to lease or lease, import, or otherwise offer to dispose or dispose of any product or service that is covered by such licensed patents. The UMN Agreement was subsequently amended in June 2014 and October 2014. In May 2015, CIPAC transferred its interest in the UMN Agreement to us. Subsequent to such transfer, the UMN Agreement was subsequently amended in December 2016 and September 2017. We amended and

restated the UMN Agreement in January 2022, to consolidate earlier amendments and extend the deadline for satisfying performance milestones by one year.

Pursuant to the terms of the UMN Agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the licensed inventions and to manufacture and sell licensed products, including by meeting certain specific performance milestones.

Under the terms of the UMN Agreement, we paid UMN an aggregate upfront fee of $155,000, and are obligated to pay annual maintenance fees in the mid-four digits. We are also obligated to pay UMN a royalty on net sales of licensed products ranging in the low-single digits depending on which licensed patents cover such licensed product, subject to a minimum annual royalty payment escalating over time in the low-five digits to low-six digits payable at the end of each applicable year. Such minimum annual royalty payments begin in 2021. The royalty obligations continue on a country-by-country basis as to each licensed product until expiry of the last to expire claim within the licensed patents that covers such licensed product in such country. Moreover, we are obligated to pay a percentage of any non-royalty consideration received by us from a sublicensee in the high-second decile.

The UMN Agreement expires on the date of expiration of all claims under the licensed patents. We may terminate the UMN Agreement earlier upon an uncured material breach of the agreement by UMN. UMN may terminate the UMN Agreement earlier upon our uncured material breach of the agreement, our insolvency, or upon the commencement by us of any proceeding asserting or alleging the invalidity or unenforceability of the licensed patents.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including the field of microbiome therapeutics, are characterized by rapidly changing technologies, significant competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. While we believe that our scientific knowledge, technology and development experience provide us with competitive advantages, we face substantial competition from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide.

Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with currently approved therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We are aware of a number of companies focused on developing microbiome therapeutics in various indications. For CP101, we are aware that Seres Therapeutics, Inc. and Rebiotix Inc. each have a product candidate that has completed Phase 3 trials for recurrent CDI and are pursuing FDA approval to enable subsequent commercialization. In November 2021, Rebiotix filed a BLA for RBX-2660, their lead product in recurrent CDI, and Seres has indicated that they plan to file a BLA in 2022. In addition to these late-stage competitors, we are also aware of competitive microbiome therapies in earlier stages of clinical development, including VE303 (Vedanta Biosciences), NCTD-M3 (Destiny Pharma plc), MET-2 (NuBiyota), and RBX7455 (Rebiotix). Any advances in microbiome therapies made by a competitor may be used to develop therapies that could compete against any of our product candidates.

We are aware of a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as smaller, early-stage companies, that are pursuing the development of products and disease indications we are targeting. These companies include AbbVie Inc., Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Inc., UCB S.A. and Vir Biotechnology, Inc. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others may be based on entirely different approaches.

Many of our potential competitors, alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources than we do, such as larger research and development, clinical, marketing and manufacturing organizations. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of competitors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Competitors also may obtain FDA, EMA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against competitors.

The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than us, which might result in competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than us. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our current and future product candidates, novel discoveries, product development technologies and know-how; to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others; and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing or in-licensing U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications related to our proprietary technology that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We seek to obtain domestic and international patent protection, and endeavor to promptly file patent applications for new commercially valuable inventions. We file new patent applications as we conduct research and development, initiate new programs, and monitor the activities of others within the microbiome field. We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know-how, and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

The patent positions of biopharmaceutical companies like us are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent may be challenged in courts after issuance. Moreover, many jurisdictions permit third parties to challenge issued patents in administrative proceedings, which may result in further narrowing or even cancellation of patent claims. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or at all, whether the claims of any patent applications, should they issue, will cover our product candidates, or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors or otherwise provide any competitive advantage.

Because patent applications in the United States and certain other jurisdictions are maintained in secrecy for 18 months or potentially even longer, and because publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries and patent application filings, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending patent applications. Accordingly, we may not have been the first to invent the subject matter disclosed in some of our patent applications or the first to file patent applications covering such subject matter.

Our patent portfolio leverages both offensive and defensive strategies to protect our business. We have a large and diverse patent portfolio consisting of more than 55 issued U.S. and foreign patents and more than 140 pending patent applications that we own or exclusively license from others. Our patent portfolio has broad applicability across the microbiome field, and provides protection for our lead product candidates CP101, FIN-211, TAK-524, FIN-525, as well as additional Complete, Enriched and Targeted Consortia product candidates that we may develop. For CP101 specifically, our patent portfolio includes more than ten U.S. patents that cover CP101 and methods of use and manufacture. These patents have expiration dates between 2031 and 2037.

Many of our broadest patents and patent applications originate from patent families that embody pioneering work in the microbiome by Dr. Thomas Borody, a prolific inventor and founder of the Centre for Digestive Diseases in Australia, and Drs. Alexander Khoruts and Michael Sadowsky at the University of Minnesota. These patent families have priority dates that precede the entry into the microbiome field by many of our competitors. As a result, we have been successful in obtaining broad patent coverage from these patent families over the composition formulation, method of manufacture and method of using our product candidates. These patent families include:

•

We own a patent family that includes over fifteen issued U.S. patents, three pending U.S. patent applications, granted foreign patents in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Israel, Mexico, Republic of Korea, New Zealand and Japan, and three pending foreign patent applications. Representative issued U.S. patents in this family include U.S. 10,022,406, U.S. 9,962,413, U.S. 10,328,107, U.S. 10,278,997, and U.S. 10,617,724, that have claims

directed to pharmaceutical compositions comprising stool bacterial material and a cryoprotectant, methods of processing stool received from healthy human donors, methods of manufacturing, and formulations. Patent applications, if issued, and patents in this family are expected to expire in 2031, assuming all required maintenance fees are paid and absent any applicable patent term extension or patent term adjustment.

•

We exclusively in-license a patent family from the Regents of the University of Minnesota that includes over five issued U.S. patents, one pending U.S. patent application, granted foreign patents in Australia, Europe, Canada and China, and three pending foreign patent applications. Representative issued U.S. patents within this family include U.S. 10,028,980, U.S. 10,286,011, U.S. 10,286,012, and U.S. 10,251,914, that have claims directed to formulations comprising fecal bacteria, methods of increasing fecal microbiota diversity, and methods of decreasing relative abundance of a bacteria. Patent applications, if issued, and patents in this family are expected to expire in 2032, assuming all required maintenance fees are paid and absent any applicable patent term extension or patent term adjustment.

•

We own a patent family that includes three issued U.S. patents U.S. 9,901,603, U.S. 10,821,138 and U.S. 11,123,377, one pending U.S. patent application, granted patents in Australia, Japan and China, and nine pending foreign patent applications. These issued U.S. patents have claims directed to room temperature stable products containing human-derived bacteria. Patent applications, if issued, and patents in this family are expected to expire in 2036, assuming all required maintenance fees are paid and absent any applicable patent term extension or patent term adjustment.

Our patent portfolio provides comprehensive patent protection for our Complete Consortia product candidates, including CP101. Representative patents and patent applications from our foundational patent families that have claims that cover CP101 and our Complete Consortia product candidates include:

For our Targeted Consortia product candidates and their manufacture, our portfolio consists of several issued U.S. patents from our foundational patent families that provide patent coverage. We are also pursuing product-specific patent protection for each of our Targeted Consortia product candidates including TAK-524. Representative patents that we own and provide protection for our Targeted Consortia product candidates include issued U.S. patents (U.S. 10,610,551 and U.S. 10,278,997) covering compositions having lyophilized bacteria from the genus Bacteroides or the phylum Firmicutes derived from healthy donors and their manufacture, which are expected to expire in 2031.

Our Enriched Consortia product candidates, such as FIN-211, are protected by many of the same patents and patent applications that cover our Complete Consortia product candidates. We also have patent protection for these Enriched Consortia product candidates specifically as well as various pending applications directed to these product candidates. Representative patents and patent applications that have claims that cover our Enriched Consortia product candidates include:

Generally, issued patents are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. In certain instances, patent term can be adjusted to recapture a portion of delay by the USPTO in examining the patent application (patent term adjustment) or extended to account for term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period (patent term extension), or both. In some cases, the term of a U.S. patent may be shortened by terminal disclaimer, which reduces its term to that of an earlier-expiring patent.

Patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 is available for one U.S. patent that includes at least one claim covering the composition of matter of a first approved FDA drug product, or its methods of use or manufacture. The extended patent term cannot exceed the shorter of five years beyond the non-extended expiration of the patent or fourteen years from the date of the FDA approval of the drug product, and a patent cannot be extended more than once or for more than a single product. During the period of extension, if granted, the scope of exclusivity is limited to the approved product for approved uses. Some foreign jurisdictions, including Europe and Japan, have analogous patent term extension provisions, which allow for extension of the term of a patent that covers a drug approved by the applicable foreign regulatory agency. If and when our product candidates receive FDA approval, we expect to apply, if appropriate, for patent term extension on patents covering those product candidates, their methods of use and/or methods of manufacture.

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. We typically rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We protect trade secrets and know-how by establishing confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and collaborators. These agreements provide that all confidential information developed or made known during the course of an individual or entities’ relationship with us must be kept confidential during and after the relationship. These agreements also provide that all inventions resulting from work performed for us or relating to our business and conceived or completed during the period of employment or assignment, as applicable, shall be our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary information by third parties.

In November 2020, we entered into an asset purchase agreement, or the OpenBiome Agreement, with Microbiome Health Research Institute, Inc., or OpenBiome, pursuant to which we acquired certain biological samples, including aliquots of human stool that have been used in clinical trials and under enforcement discretion for the treatment of CDI not responding to standard therapy, and obtained a perpetual license to certain OpenBiome technology, and, upon closing of the transaction, we acquired certain additional assets of OpenBiome, including capital equipment (comprising lab equipment) and contracts relating to the operating maintenance of a lab facility. In connection with entering into the OpenBiome Agreement, we terminated our existing agreements with OpenBiome, as such agreements were superseded by the OpenBiome Agreement and certain other agreements entered into concurrently with the OpenBiome Agreement.

In connection with the signing of the OpenBiome Agreement, OpenBiome granted us a worldwide, irrevocable and perpetual license, with the right to grant sublicenses (through multiple tiers) under certain of OpenBiome’s technology that is necessary or useful in the manufacture of products manufactured directly from stool from a stool donor source without the use of culturing or replication, which we refer to as Natural Products, including technology pertaining to the selection of human stool donors, the collection and processing of stool from human donors and the preparation of stool-based products, and under any improvements to our intellectual property previously developed by OpenBiome or developed by OpenBiome during a specified period of time after the closing of the transaction, in each case to exploit products and services. In addition to the foregoing license, except under certain limited circumstances, OpenBiome agreed to not license or transfer to our competitors any rights to those aspects of its manufacturing technology that are not publicly available as of the date of the OpenBiome Agreement.

Pursuant to the OpenBiome Agreement, for the period prior to the closing of the transaction we granted OpenBiome a worldwide, non-exclusive license under certain of our intellectual property rights to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and export certain Natural Products solely for the treatment of recurrent CDI in the United States under an FDA policy of enforcement discretion and to conduct clinical research in all fields other than the diagnosis, treatment, palliation or prevention in humans of CDI not subject to an FDA policy of enforcement discretion, IBD, ASD or HBV. Additionally, for the period beginning on the closing of the transaction, we granted OpenBiome a worldwide, non-exclusive license under certain of our intellectual property rights to sell certain Natural Products manufactured prior to the closing of the transaction solely for the treatment of recurrent CDI in the United States under enforcement discretion, and to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and export certain Natural Products for purposes of conducting clinical research in all fields other than the diagnosis, treatment, palliation or prevention in humans of CDI not subject to an FDA policy of enforcement discretion, IBD, ASD or HBV. Notwithstanding the foregoing license, OpenBiome has agreed to certain restrictions related to the use, sale and supply of such products in connection with clinical research of our competitors. Additionally, the license grant excludes any license to exploit a Natural Product wherein processed stool is lyophilized (such as in the case of CP101).

In connection with the signing of the OpenBiome Agreement, we paid OpenBiome $1.0 million in the form of an upfront payment and $150,000 as reimbursement for OpenBiome’s attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection the negotiation of the OpenBiome Agreement. On the closing of the transaction, we paid OpenBiome $2.25 million, plus an additional $1.6 million if no regulatory restrictions were in place preventing the sale and distribution of OpenBiome’s products under enforcement discretion as of the date of closing. In addition to the foregoing payments, we are obligated to pay to OpenBiome a low single digit royalty on net sales of Natural Products by us and our affiliates and a high single digit royalty of certain sublicensing revenue (including royalties) received in connection with Natural Products, as well as a low single digit royalty on net sales of TAK-524, FIN-525 and any product that is not a Natural Product or a product that comprises both material manufactured directly from stool from a stool donor source without the use of culturing or replication and drug substance or drug product comprising one or more active pharmaceutical ingredients, and, in either case contains one or more isolates derived from certain stool donors that are exclusive to us, or Cultured Products, by us and our affiliates and a high single digit percentage of certain sublicensing revenue (including royalties) received in connection with Cultured Products. On a country-by-country basis, our payment obligations with respect to Natural Products expires twenty-five years after first commercial sale of such Natural Product in such country, and, with respect to Cultured Products expires fifteen years after first commercial sale of such Cultured Product in such country. We are also obligated to pay OpenBiome up to $6.0 million in the aggregate upon achievement of certain development and regulatory milestones with Natural Products and $20.0 million in the aggregate upon achievement of certain commercial milestones with Natural Products.

In November 2020, concurrently with entering into the OpenBiome Agreement, we entered into a license agreement, or the LMIC Agreement, with OpenBiome, pursuant to which we granted OpenBiome a non-exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under certain of our patents, patent applications and know-how that are reasonably necessary or useful for the exploitation of products manufactured directly from stool from a stool donor source without the use of culturing or replication, or Natural Products, to make, use, sell, have sold, offer for sale and import Natural Products and formulated liquid suspensions derived from the stool of a stool donor source that may be incorporated into a Natural Product, in either case for the treatment in humans of malnutrition and neglected tropical diseases in certain low- and middle-income countries, or the LMIC Territory. The license grant excludes any license to exploit a Natural Product wherein processed stool is lyophilized (such as in the case of CP101) or to otherwise use the licensed intellectual property to lyophilize a product.

Pursuant to the LMIC Agreement, we own all improvements, enhancements or modifications to the licensed intellectual property (whether or not patentable) invented by either party during the term of the LMIC Agreement. OpenBiome has agreed to assign to us its interest in and to any such improvements, enhancements or modifications.

Pursuant to the LMIC Agreement, we are entitled to receive tiered royalties on net sales of Natural Products and products that incorporate formulated liquid suspensions derived from the stool of a stool donor source that may be incorporated into a Natural Product in the LMIC Territory ranging from mid-single digit to low-second decile. Royalties are payable on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis during the period beginning on the first commercial sale of such product in such country and ending on the later of the expiration of the last to expire valid claim from a licensed patent that covers such product or ten years from the date of the LMIC Agreement.

The LMIC Agreement expires on product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon expiry of the applicable royalty obligation for such product in such country. OpenBiome has the right to terminate the LMIC Agreement upon specified prior written notice to us. Either party may terminate the LMIC Agreement in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party of either the LMIC Agreement (or uncured breach by OpenBiome of the OpenBiome Agreement), provided that if such uncured material breach is limited to a breach of the LMIC Agreement in a particular country, our right to terminate the LMIC Agreement is limited to just such country. Either party may terminate the LMIC Agreement in the event of the insolvency of the other party. We may terminate the LMIC Agreement in the event that OpenBiome brings, or assists in bringing, a challenge to the validity, patentability, scope, construction, inventorship, ownership, enforceability or non-infringement of any licensed patent or patent application.

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries and jurisdictions including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biological products, such as our product candidates and any future product candidates. We, along with third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process or post-approval may subject an applicant to delays in development or approval or licensure, as well as administrative or judicial sanctions.

In the United States, biological products are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Biological products are also subject to other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. The process required by the FDA before biological product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•

satisfactory completion of one or more FDA pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product, or components thereof, will be produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

Before testing any biological product candidates in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of product biological characteristics, chemistry, toxicity, formulation and stability, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may or may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with GCPs, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and eligibility criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated in the trial. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed.

There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Information about certain clinical trials, including clinical trial results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. Information related to the investigational product, patient population, phase of investigation, clinical trial sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Disclosure of the results of these clinical trials can be delayed in certain circumstances.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if, among other things, the clinical trial was conducted with qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

For purposes of BLA submission and approval, clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, which may overlap or be combined:

•

Phase 1 clinical trials generally involve a small number of healthy volunteers who are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the biological product candidate. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients. The primary purpose of these clinical trials is to assess the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and distribution of the biological product candidate in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence of effectiveness.

•

Phase 2 clinical trials generally involve studies conducted in a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and dosing schedule and to identify possible adverse side effects and safety risks. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials.

•

Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve a large number of patients at multiple sites and are designed to provide statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy of the biological product candidate for its intended use, further evaluate its safety and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product approval and labeling. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the biological product candidate.

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials 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 may, at any time while clinical trials are ongoing under the IND, impose a partial or complete clinical hold based on concerns for patient safety and/or noncompliance with regulatory requirements. This order issued by the FDA would delay a proposed clinical study or cause suspension of an ongoing study until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed, and the FDA has notified the company that investigations may proceed. Additionally, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including non-compliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated checkpoints based on access to certain data from the trial and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA 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 fifteen 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.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the biological product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, companies 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 their shelf life.

Assuming successful completion of all required testing and clinical trials of a biological product candidate in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product candidate’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product candidate, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by independent investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the identity, quality, safety, purity and potency of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic may be marketed in the United States.

The cost of preparing and submitting a BLA is substantial. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, each BLA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. The applicant under an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee.

The FDA reviews a submitted BLA to determine if it is substantially complete before the FDA accepts it for filing and may request additional information from the sponsor. The FDA must make a decision on accepting a BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with any additional information requested. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the BLA. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether the biological product candidate is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. Under the goals agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of an original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original BLA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs, and the review process can be 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 for both standard and priority review BLAs may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether such facilities comply with cGMP requirements. 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.

The FDA also may inspect one or more clinical sites and audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements and the integrity of the data supporting safety, purity, and potency of the product candidate. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel product candidates or product candidates 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, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it generally considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions on approval.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product is produced, it will issue either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter, or CRL. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biological product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the BLA and may require additional clinical data, additional pivotal clinical trial(s)

and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing in order for the FDA to reconsider the application for approval. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application or request an opportunity for a hearing. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months from receipt, depending on the type of information included. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the biological product outweigh the potential risks to patients. A REMS is a safety strategy implemented to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals and elements to assure a product’s safe use, or ETASU. An ETASU can include, but is not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing the product, dispensing the product only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient-specific registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. In addition, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, one or more post-market clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, and testing and surveillance programs to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after approval, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product candidate 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 but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation on its own does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

Among the benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application user fee. In addition, 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 drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same product for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or in instances of drug supply issues. Competitors, however, may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication. In the latter case, because healthcare professionals are free to prescribe products for off-label uses, the competitor’s product could be used off-label for the orphan indication despite another product’s orphan exclusivity.

A designated orphan drug many not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. In addition, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or, as noted above, if a second applicant demonstrates that its product is clinically superior to the approved product with orphan exclusivity or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

The FDA offers a number of expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. For example, Fast Track designation may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and where preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a biological product candidate can request the FDA to designate the candidate for a specific indication for Fast Track status concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the candidate. The FDA must determine if the biological product candidate qualifies for Fast Track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. The sponsor of a Fast Track product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once a BLA is submitted, the product candidate may be eligible for priority review. A Fast Track product may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA. Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including under the Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval.

Breakthrough Therapy designation may be granted for product candidates that are intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Under the Breakthrough Therapy program, the sponsor of a new biological product candidate may request that the FDA designate the candidate for a specific indication as a Breakthrough Therapy concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the biological product candidate. The FDA must determine if the biological product qualifies for Breakthrough Therapy designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to product candidates designated as breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process, providing timely advice to the sponsor regarding development and approval, involving more senior staff in the review process, assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team and taking other steps to design the clinical studies in an efficient manner. The designation also includes all of the Fast Track program features, including eligibility for rolling review of BLA submissions if the relevant criteria are met.

Priority review may be granted for product candidates that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in the safety and effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of serious conditions when compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. For original BLAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date (as compared to ten months under standard review).

Accelerated approval may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and that generally provide a meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on the basis of an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that is reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of the product candidate and substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions or survives. The accelerated approval pathway is contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence and, in some cases, the FDA may require that the trial be designed, initiated and/or fully enrolled prior to approval. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA prior to the intended date or dissemination or publication.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process.

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 biological product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA generally does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, provides a six-month extension of any exclusivity—patent or non-patent—for a biological product if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new biological product in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, reporting updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. Once a BLA is approved, a product will be subject to certain additional post-approval requirements, such as quality control, biological product manufacture, packaging and labeling procedures that must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Biologic manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Manufacturers of biological products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control, quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. 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, including those focused on manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biological products, 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. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the United States and between states.

After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. 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 may also 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. As with drugs, after approval of a biological product candidate, manufacturers must address any safety issues that arise, are subject to recalls or a halt in manufacturing, and are subject to periodic inspection after approval.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our biological product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under 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 United State Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, 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 trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, signed into law in 2010, includes a subtitle called The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar 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 the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and 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 trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. However, complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes

by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation of the abbreviated approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA.

Under the BPCIA an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product may not be accepted by the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from 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. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product.

In addition to regulations in the United States and Europe, a variety of foreign regulations govern clinical trials, commercial sales and distribution of product candidates. The approval process varies from country to country and the time to approval may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA or European Commission approval.

In the United States, market acceptance and sales of any product candidates that we commercialize, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these drugs and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, managed care organizations, pharmacy benefit management organizations, and other private health insurers. Third-party payors decide which therapies they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is a covered benefit under its health plan; safe, effective and medically necessary; appropriate for the specific patient; cost-effective; and neither experimental nor investigational.

While no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. However, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any product candidates that we develop will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. Therefore, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the drug. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Each payor determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a therapy, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the therapy, and on what tier of its formulary it will be placed. The position on a payor’s list of covered drugs, or formulary, generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the therapy and can strongly influence the adoption of such therapy by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Further, third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Accordingly, third-party payors could require us to conduct additional studies, including post-marketing studies related to the cost-effectiveness of a product, to qualify for reimbursement, which could be costly and divert resources.

Outside of the United States, the commercialization of therapeutics is generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as our product candidates. In many countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, medical product prices are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental

authorities can take considerable time after a product receives marketing approval. 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 candidate to other available therapies. In general, product prices under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for products 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 revenue and profits.

Further, the commercial success of any approved products will also depend in large part on the availability of insurance coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and managed care organizations, which may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. Moreover, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. If government and other healthcare payors were not to provide adequate insurance coverage and reimbursement levels for one any of our products once approved, market acceptance and commercial success would be limited.

Healthcare providers, including physicians, and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our operations, including any arrangements with professionals, principal investigators, consultants, third-party payors and customers subject us to various federal and state fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws that may affect the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we would market, sell and distribute our products. Our current and future operations are subject to regulation by various federal, state, and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (including the Office of Inspector General, Office for Civil Rights and the Health Resources and Services Administration), or HHS, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. The healthcare laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

•

the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in return for, or to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or arrangement for, or recommendation of the purchase, lease, order, or arrangement for, 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. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute has also been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other hand. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, but the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection. Additionally, 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. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs. In addition, the ACA, signed into law in 2010, provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act;

•

federal civil and criminal false claims laws, such as the False Claims Act, which can be enforced by private citizens through civil qui tam actions, and civil monetary penalty laws prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false, fictitious or fraudulent claims for payment of or approval from the federal government, including Medicare, Medicaid and other government payors, and knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Drug manufacturers can be held liable under the False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. For example, pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under the False Claims Act in connection with their alleged off-label promotion of drugs,

purportedly concealing price concessions in the pricing information submitted to the government for government price reporting purposes, and allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal healthcare programs for the product. 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;

•

the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, among other things, imposes civil and criminal liability for knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense. HIPAA also creates federal criminal laws that prohibit knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

•

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, which impose privacy, security and breach reporting obligations with respect to individually identifiable health information upon entities subject to the law, such as health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and certain healthcare providers, known as covered entities, and their respective business associates and their covered subcontractors that perform services for them that involve individually identifiable health information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in U.S. federal courts to enforce HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions;

•

the federal transparency requirements under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under the ACA, which requires, among other things, certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies reimbursed under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to CMS information related to (i) payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors), other healthcare providers (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals and (ii) physician ownership and investment interests, including such ownership and investment interests held by a physician’s immediate family members;

•

state and foreign laws that are analogous to each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws, that may impose similar or more prohibitive restrictions, and may apply to items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, and state laws that require manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and pricing information; and

•

state and foreign laws that require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs, comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or to track and report gifts, compensation and other remuneration provided to physicians and other healthcare providers; state laws that require the reporting of marketing expenditures or drug pricing, including information pertaining to and justifying price increases; state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; state laws that prohibit various marketing-related activities, such as the provision of certain kinds of gifts or meals; state laws that require the posting of information relating to clinical trials and their outcomes; and other federal, state and foreign laws that govern the privacy and security of health information or personally identifiable information in certain circumstances, including state health information privacy and data breach notification laws which govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, thus requiring additional compliance efforts.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other current or future healthcare laws that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, 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, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could substantially disrupt our operations. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, 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, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

We operate in a highly regulated industry, and new laws, regulations and judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws, regulations and decisions, related to healthcare availability, the method of delivery and payment for healthcare products and services could negatively affect our business, financial condition and prospects. There is significant interest in promoting healthcare reforms, and it is likely that federal and state legislatures within the United States and the governments of other countries will continue to consider changes to existing healthcare legislation.

For example, the United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. In 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted the ACA, which included changes to the coverage and reimbursement of drug products under government healthcare programs such as:

•

established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective 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 the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;

There have been judicial, executive branch and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, in 2017, the U.S. Congress enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or Tax Act, which eliminated the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On June 17, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period 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 possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges and the health reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business.

In addition, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the United States federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs. In 2011, the U.S. Congress enacted the Budget Control Act, which included provisions intended to reduce the federal deficit. The Budget Control Act resulted in the imposition of 2% reductions in Medicare payments to providers beginning in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031, absent additional congressional action. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, and subsequent legislation, suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 3% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. In addition, in 2012, the U.S. Congress enacted the American Taxpayer Relief Act, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. If government spending is further reduced, anticipated budgetary shortfalls may also impact the ability of relevant agencies, such as the FDA, to continue to function at current levels, which may impact the ability of relevant agencies to timely review and approve research and development, manufacturing and marketing activities, which may delay our ability to develop, market and sell any product candidates we may develop. Moreover, any significant spending reductions affecting Medicare, Medicaid or other publicly funded or subsidized health programs that may be implemented, or any significant taxes or fees that may be imposed on us, as part of any broader deficit reduction effort or legislative replacement to the Budget Control Act, could have an adverse impact on our anticipated product revenues.

Furthermore, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several congressional inquiries and proposed legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, the former Trump administration used several means to propose implementing drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, President Trump signed several executive orders aimed at lowering drug prices. As a result, the FDA released a final rule and guidance in September 2020 providing pathways for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries. As a result of litigation challenging the Most Favored Nation model, on December 27, 2021, CMS published a final rule that rescinded the Most Favored Nation model interim final rule. In July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue to advance these principles. No legislation or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. In addition, Congress is considering drug pricing as part of other reform initiatives.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing 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. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 189 employees. Of these 189 employees, 156 are engaged in research and development activities and 33 are engaged in business development, finance, legal, information systems, facilities, human resources or administrative support. None of our employees is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees. The principal purpose of our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan is to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of equity-based compensation awards.

We believe that our long-term success requires a diverse and inclusive workforce. We value diversity at all levels of the organization and continue to focus on extending our diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives across our entire workforce, including through our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee, which is a cross-functional group designed to create programs focused on understanding employees’ intersecting identities, honoring differences and rooting out systemic inequity. In addition, we pride ourselves on an open culture that respects co-workers, values employees’ health and well-being and fosters professional development. We conduct regular employee engagement surveys, and our board of directors provides input on important decisions relating to these matters, including with respect to employee compensation and benefits and talent acquisition and retention.

We were originally incorporated in Delaware in November 2014 and until September 21, 2017, or the Merger Date, we conducted our business through Finch Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation. On the Merger Date, pursuant to the terms of the agreement and plan of merger, or the Merger Agreement, Finch Therapeutics, Inc. and Crestovo Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, completed a merger of equals. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each of Finch Therapeutics, Inc. and Crestovo Holdings LLC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Finch Therapeutics Group, Inc. Crestovo Holdings LLC was renamed Finch Therapeutics Holdings LLC in November 2020.

Our principal executive office is located at 200 Inner Belt Road, Suite 400, Somerville, Massachusetts 02143. Our telephone number is (617) 229-6499. Our website address is www.finchtherapeutics.com. Information contained in, or accessible through, our website does not constitute a part of, and is not incorporated into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We are subject to the informational requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and, accordingly, file reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The SEC maintains a website (http://www.sec.gov) that contains material regarding issuers that file electronically, such as ourselves, with the SEC.

We make available free of charge on our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC.

Our business is subject to numerous risks. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as well as our other public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. Any of the following risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects and cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

We have a limited operating history, have incurred net losses in every year since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur net losses in the future.

We are a clinical-stage microbiome therapeutics company with a limited operating history. Since our inception, we have focused primarily on developing and progressing our product candidates through clinical development, organizing and staffing our company, research and development activities, establishing and protecting our intellectual property portfolio, including for our Human-First Discovery platform, and raising capital. Consequently, we have no meaningful operations upon which to evaluate our business and predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing drug products. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through clinical trials, we have no products approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception. For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, we reported net losses of $58.2 million and $39.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $161.0 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for our therapeutic product candidates CP101, for the prevention of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, or CDI, FIN-211, to address symptoms of autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, and any other current or future product candidates we may develop.

To become and remain profitable, we, our collaborators and any potential future collaborators must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities as to which we can make no assurances that we will be successful, including resolving the clinical hold on our IND for CP101, addressing findings from the related quality investigation, completing related manufacturing activities with respect to both CP101 and FIN-211, and providing additional information to the FDA regarding our PRISM4 protocol and the validation package for one of our release tests, which is utilized for both CP101 and FIN-211. We will also need to be successful in completing preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining marketing approval for product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling products for which we may obtain marketing approval and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant or large enough to achieve profitability. 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.

Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We will require substantial additional funding to finance our operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or terminate certain of our product development programs or other operations.

To date, we have primarily funded our operations through the IPO, private placements of equity securities and upfront and milestone payments received pursuant to our collaboration agreement with Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, or Takeda. We expect to spend substantial amounts to advance our product candidates into clinical development and to complete the clinical development of, seek regulatory approvals for and, if approved, commercialize, our product candidates. We will require additional capital, which we may raise through equity offerings, debt financings, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements or other sources to enable us to complete the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our ability to raise capital is dependent on a number of factors, including the market demand for our common stock, which is uncertain. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative effect on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy. In addition, attempting to secure additional financing may divert the time and attention of our management from day-to-day activities and harm our product candidate development efforts. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs.

As of December 31, 2021, our cash and cash equivalents were $133.5 million. We believe that our existing cash on hand will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into mid-2023. However, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations and planned activities. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

•

the timing, costs, progress and results of our ongoing and planned clinical trials of CP101, FIN-211 and other product candidates, including our ability to resolve the clinical hold on our IND for CP101, address findings from our related quality investigation, complete related manufacturing activities with respect to both CP101 and FIN-211, and provide additional information to the FDA regarding our PRISM4 protocol and the validation package for one of our release tests, which is utilized for both CP101 and FIN-211;

•

the cost of potential stockholder litigation or regulatory investigations, which may involve past or future significant announcements, transactions or disclosures since our IPO; for example, several class action plaintiff law firms have issued press releases announcing that the firms are investigating securities law claims on behalf of our stockholders following our March 1, 2022 announcement that enrollment in PRISM4 was paused following receipt of the clinical hold letter on February 24, 2022;

•

the cost of potential intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement actions brought by third parties against us or any of our product candidates, such as the complaint filed by Rebiotix Inc. and Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity with respect to seven U.S. patents owned by us;

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 regulatory approval and achieve product sales. In addition, CP101, FIN-211 and any future product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our commercial revenues, if any, will be derived from sales of products that we do not expect to be commercially available for several 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. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or altogether terminate our research and development programs or future commercialization efforts.

Raising additional capital will cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, that we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our cash needs through public or private equity or debt financings, third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements, as well as other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements, or any combination of these approaches. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Debt and equity financings, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as redeeming our shares, making investments, incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, declaring dividends or placing limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights.

If we raise additional capital through future collaborations, strategic alliances or third-party licensing arrangements, we may have to relinquish certain valuable rights to our intellectual property, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional capital when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our clinical development or future commercialization efforts, or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise develop and market ourselves.

We are currently subject to a clinical hold on our IND for CP101. We need to resolve the FDA clinical hold issues in order to proceed with enrollment in our PRISM4 clinical trial and initiate our Phase 1b clinical trial in ASD. Our business may be adversely affected if the clinical hold is not resolved in a timely manner or if regulatory concerns lead to additional delays and/or FDA enforcement actions.

CP101 is our lead product candidate, and as announced on March 1, 2022, we paused enrollment in our Phase 3 clinical trial of CP101 in recurrent CDI, which we refer to as the PRISM4 trial, in response to receipt of a clinical hold letter from the FDA on February 24, 2022.

In March 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA issued a public safety alert regarding the potential risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus through the use of donor-derived investigational microbiome therapies and the need for additional safety precautions. At that time, the FDA placed our IND for CP101 on partial clinical hold, requiring us to implement new SARS-CoV-2 screening measures for any microbiota material donated on or after December 1, 2019 and to address the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the informed consent process. Following communications with the FDA in January 2022, on February 24, 2022, the FDA sent us a clinical hold letter, stating that the FDA required additional information about our SARS-CoV-2 screening protocols and related informed consent language, and that a clinical hold remains in effect until the FDA's requests have been satisfactorily addressed. We also received an additional letter from the FDA, dated March 17, 2022, requesting changes to the testing algorithm used to diagnose suspected CDI recurrences in PRISM4, as well as additional information regarding the proposed statistical analysis plan for PRISM4 and the validation package for one of our release tests, which is utilized for both CP101 and FIN-211.

We are unable to proceed with enrollment in the PRISM4 trial until: the FDA removes the clinical hold; we address findings from our ongoing quality investigation in connection with the clinical hold; we conduct additional manufacturing activities with respect to CP101 to satisfy certain of the FDA's requests related to SARS-CoV-2 screening and testing; and we satisfactorily address the FDA's additional questions regarding PRISM4 and the validation package for one of our release tests. Because FIN-211, our product candidate designed to address symptoms of ASD, includes donor-derived components, the clinical hold will also delay initiation of our Phase 1b clinical trial of FIN-211 and will require us to conduct additional manufacturing activities with respect to components of FIN-211 in order to satisfy the FDA's requests. If we are delayed longer than anticipated in successfully addressing the FDA’s concerns underlying the clinical hold and the subsequent letter regarding PRISM4, our costs and timelines associated with our clinical trials in recurrent CDI and ASD would change, potentially in a significant manner.

In November 2021, we began dosing participants in our PRISM4 trial with CP101. Since we dosed participants while the clinical hold was in effect, we may be subject to an additional clinical hold or FDA administrative, advisory, or enforcement actions, which could include, among other things, a warning letter, and the participants dosed during this time may not be considered part of the per protocol population and/or efficacy analysis for PRISM4. An additional clinical hold or FDA administrative, advisory, or enforcement actions could result in a significant delay in our development of CP101, FIN-211 and other current or future product candidates, a significant increase in costs, could delay or potentially jeopardize our ability

to commence product sales and generate revenue, could result in adverse publicity, and could cause a decline in our stock price, any of which may adversely affect our business. In addition, if we are unable to resolve the clinical hold favorably or if the FDA or other regulatory agencies express any concerns regarding the use of donor material in microbiome therapeutics, it could adversely affect our ability to develop CP101, FIN-211 and other current or future product candidates.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. We are early in our product candidate development efforts, as CP101 is our only product candidate to reach clinical development to date. Because CP101 is our lead product candidate, and the IND for CP101 is currently under clinical hold by the FDA, if CP101 encounters safety or efficacy problems, development delays or regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed.

Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for several years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of CP101, FIN-211 and any other current or future product candidates we develop, which may never occur. CP101, FIN-211 and any other product candidates we develop will require additional preclinical and clinical development, management of clinical, preclinical, manufacturing and quality activities, marketing approval in the United States and other jurisdictions for specific indications for use, demonstrating effectiveness to pricing and reimbursement authorities, obtaining sufficient manufacturing supply for both clinical development and commercial production, building of a commercial organization and substantial investment and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenues from product sales. The success of our current and future product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

•

our ability to resolve the clinical hold on our IND for CP101, address findings from our related quality investigation, complete related manufacturing activities with respect to both CP101 and FIN-211, and provide additional information to the FDA regarding our PRISM4 protocol and the validation package for one of our release tests, which is utilized for both CP101 and FIN-211;

•

our ability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority that the applicable product candidate is safe and effective as a treatment for our targeted indications or, in the case of an applicable product candidate that is regulated as a biological product, that the applicable product is safe, pure, and potent and controlled for our targeted indications and in either case, that our quality management systems are sufficient to ensure such results;

Many of these risks are beyond our control, including the risks related to clinical development, the regulatory review process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and the manufacturing, marketing and sales efforts of any future collaborators. If we are unable to develop, receive regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize our current or future product candidates, or if we experience delays as a result of any of these risks or otherwise, our business could be materially harmed.

If we are not successful with respect to one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize CP101, FIN-211 or any other current or future product candidates we develop, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive marketing approvals for our current and future product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

Our product candidates are based on microbiome therapeutics, which is an unproven approach to therapeutic intervention.

All of our product candidates are based on microbiome therapy, a therapeutic approach that is designed to treat disease by restoring the function of a dysbiotic microbiome. We have not, nor to our knowledge, has any other company, received regulatory approval for a therapeutic based on this approach. We cannot be certain that our approach will lead to the development of approvable or marketable products. In addition, the efficacy potential of our microbiome therapeutics may vary based on indication and use in different patient populations including geographical areas. Finally, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may lack experience in evaluating the safety and efficacy of products based on microbiome therapeutics, which could result in a longer than expected regulatory review process or evolving FDA standards and guidance, increase our expected development costs and delay or prevent commercialization of our product candidates. Regulatory requirements governing microbiome therapies are still developing and may change in the future or may be influenced by our competitors’ product candidates if they receive FDA approval before we do. Regulatory authorities and advisory groups, and the new guidelines they promulgate, may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our current or future product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions.

Microbiome therapies in general may not be successfully developed or commercialized or gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. Our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of diseases targeted by our product candidates that we pursue as drugs, prescribing potential treatments that involve the use of our product candidates in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Our success will also depend on consumer acceptance and adoption of our products that we commercialize. Adverse events in non-IND human clinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, or in non-IND human clinical studies and clinical trials of others developing similar products or products that are perceived to be similar to ours, such as fecal microbiota transplant, or FMT, materials, as well as any other adverse findings that arise in connection with research and development in the microbiome field, could result in negative publicity and a decrease in demand for any product that we may develop. In addition, responses by the federal, state or foreign governments to negative public perception or ethical concerns may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval, identify alternate regulatory pathways to market or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop.

Our microbiome therapeutics platform relies in part on third parties for biological materials, including human stool. Some biological materials have not always met our expectations or requirements, and any disruption in the supply of these

biological materials could materially adversely affect our business. For example, if any supplied biological materials are contaminated with pathogens or disease organisms, we would not be able to use such biological materials. Although we have control processes and screening procedures, biological materials are susceptible to damage and contamination and may contain active pathogens. While we screen for a broad set of pathogens as a part of our manufacturing process, the donated human stool may contain organisms of which we are not aware and that could have an adverse effect on the safety of our product candidates and on the outcomes of our preclinical studies or clinical trials. For example, our SARS-CoV-2 donor screening protocols may not be satisfactory to regulatory authorities, as the FDA has requested information about our protocols in the clinical hold letter we received in February 2022. Improper storage or shipment of these materials, by us or any third-party suppliers, may require us to destroy some of our raw materials or products which could create supply shortages, interruptions or other delays or require identification and contracting of additional third-party suppliers which we may not be able to do in a timely manner or on favorable terms.

Our relationship with OpenBiome may adversely affect our ability to develop our product candidates and subject us to increased liability.

The Microbiome Health Research Institute, Inc., or OpenBiome, is a non-profit organization that was co-founded in 2012 by our Chief Executive Officer and member of our board of directors, Mark Smith, Ph.D. OpenBiome operates a stool bank and sells and distributes fecal microbiota transplant products, or OpenBiome FMT Materials, for clinical research and for use in treating CDI not responding to standard therapy under its interpretation of the FDA’s policy of enforcement discretion. In July 2013, the FDA issued guidance stating that it intended to exercise a policy of enforcement discretion regarding the IND regulatory requirements for the use of FMT used to treat CDI not responding to standard therapies, provided that the treating physician obtains appropriate informed consent from the patient or his or her legally authorized representative. We have historically had a close relationship with OpenBiome and are currently and have previously been party to several agreements with OpenBiome related to, among other things, the license of various technology and intellectual property rights. In addition, Carolyn Edelstein, the co-founder and former Executive Director of OpenBiome, is married to Dr. Smith. Although we believe our agreements with OpenBiome have been negotiated at an arms-length basis, there may be a perception that the terms of any such agreements have not been fairly negotiated, which could increase regulatory scrutiny, adversely impact our reputation or otherwise impair our ability to operate effectively.

In 2016, we entered into a Master Strategic Affiliation Agreement with OpenBiome, or the Strategic Agreement, pursuant to which, among other things, we manufactured OpenBiome FMT Materials to specifications defined by OpenBiome for distribution and sale by OpenBiome through February 2019. These OpenBiome FMT Materials have been and may continue to be distributed and sold by OpenBiome, and administered to patients. The FDA may not agree with OpenBiome’s interpretation or application of the FDA’s enforcement discretion policy to its product distribution. We terminated the Strategic Agreement in 2020 as part of signing an asset purchase agreement, or the OpenBiome Agreement, and license agreement with OpenBiome, pursuant to which we acquired certain biological materials, equipment, and other assets, and cross-licensed certain intellectual property. The OpenBiome Agreement also retained certain existing intellectual property and biological materials licenses from the Master Strategic Affiliation Agreement into a stand-alone agreement. Although we are indemnified for causes of action relating to the distribution and sale of the OpenBiome FMT Materials, we may nonetheless become parties to potential product liability claims that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and use of pharmaceutical products such as OpenBiome FMT Materials.

Moreover, the availability of OpenBiome FMT Materials under the FDA’s policy of enforcement discretion, and for use in clinical research, may negatively prejudice and slow enrollment of clinical trials sponsored by us or our collaborators that are directed at the same or similar disease or condition, such as CDI. Additionally, while each of CP101 and FIN-211 is an orally administered biologic consisting of a complete microbiome and a distinct product from OpenBiome FMT Materials, with additional testing, manufacturing and control steps, it is possible that the FDA and others might perceive CP101, FIN-211 or any of our other product candidates as similar owing to their common raw material. The FDA has issued three safety alerts since 2019 related to the use of FMT treatment, including in March 2020 after OpenBiome reported occurrences of enteropathogenic E. coli and shigatoxin-producing E. coli in FMT recipients. This and similar adverse safety events associated with OpenBiome FMT Materials or other similar products manufactured or supplied by other third-party stool banks, physicians or others may cause the FDA to perceive CP101 or FIN-211 as unsafe and bring increased regulatory scrutiny to our clinical and manufacturing operations more broadly, lead to decreased confidence by patients and physicians in our product candidates, and result in reduced demand for any product that we may develop.

OpenBiome has also supplied us with biological materials derived from human stool, which we have used as raw materials, subject to additional testing, screening and processing, in the manufacture of our product candidates, such as CP101 and FIN-211, for use in our current and planned clinical trials. During the time we engaged OpenBiome to supply us with such human stool material, OpenBiome received a clinical hold from the FDA with respect to the need for new screening measures to

mitigate the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from donor to recipient of its OpenBiome FMT materials, and the need for additional information regarding OpenBiome’s quality systems. This clinical hold was removed in January 2021. Although the OpenBiome clinical hold did not preclude us from receiving OpenBiome-supplied biological materials for our manufacturing activities, given that some materials were received while OpenBiome was under clinical hold, we may not be able to use these materials for such purposes if the FDA or other parties perceive such materials to be unsuitable for use in an investigational drug. For example, the FDA or other regulatory agencies may determine that the materials should not be used for reasons underlying the clinical hold, or different reasons. In addition, while we have tested these materials and reviewed manufacturing records to ensure they meet our quality standards, we are using an assay to screen for COVID-19 that the FDA may not deem acceptable; moreover, in its February 2022 clinical hold letter for our CP101 IND, the FDA requested additional information regarding this assay. In addition, we may not be able to recoup the costs associated with acquiring these biological materials from OpenBiome.

In addition, in connection with the closing of the transactions contemplated by the OpenBiome Agreement, we acquired certain capital equipment and assumed the contracts with certain service providers to which OpenBiome was a party. Although the OpenBiome Agreement is structured to exclude the assumption of any liabilities of OpenBiome, we may be subject to unknown liabilities with respect to the assets we have acquired or contracts we have assumed.

Clinical trials are difficult to design and implement, and they involve a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes. We may experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of CP101, FIN-211 or any other current or future product candidates.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process and our future clinical trial results may not be successful. We cannot guarantee that any of our ongoing and planned clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all; for example, we have decided to pause development of CP101 in HBV at this time, which we believe will allow us to maximize our working capital available for investment in our wholly-owned recurrent CDI and ASD programs. Moreover, even if these trials are initiated or conducted on a timely basis, issues may arise that could result in the suspension or termination of such clinical trials.

We may experience delays in our ongoing clinical trials or preclinical studies and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll patients on time or in sufficient numbers, have sufficient drug supply for our product candidates on a timely basis or be completed on schedule, if at all. For example, enrollment in PRISM4 is currently paused following receipt from the FDA of a clinical hold letter on February 24, 2022. Further, because FIN-211 includes donor-derived components, the clinical hold will also delay initiation of our Phase 1b clinical trial in ASD. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our ongoing and future clinical trials may not be successful. We also may experience numerous unforeseen events during our clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize CP101, FIN-211 or any other current or future product candidates, including:

•

delays in reaching a consensus with regulatory agencies as to the design or implementation of our clinical trials; for example, we plan to have further discussions with the FDA regarding the size and make-up of the safety database for CP101 and we recently received a letter from the FDA requesting changes to the testing algorithm used to diagnose suspected CDI recurrences in PRISM4, as well as additional information regarding the proposed statistical analysis plan for PRISM4 and the validation package for one of our release tests, any of which could result in the need for additional studies or delays in our development timelines;

In addition, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, conducting or completing our planned and ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials, as applicable. We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or recommended for suspension or termination by the Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial. A suspension or termination may be imposed due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product or treatment, failure to establish or achieve clinically meaningful trial endpoints, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. Further, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our clinical trial design and our interpretation of data from clinical trials, or may change the requirements for approval even after they have reviewed and commented on the design for our clinical trials.

Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in clinical testing or marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations. Any delays in our clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

Our business and operations may be adversely affected by the evolving and ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic.

Our business and operations may be adversely affected by the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, which has resulted in various restrictions aimed at containing the virus, including public health directives and orders that, among other things and for various periods of time, directed individuals to shelter in place, directed businesses and governmental agencies to cease non-essential operations at physical locations, prohibited certain non-essential gatherings and events, and ordered cessation of non-essential travel. Future remote work policies and similar government orders or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including as a result of variants of COVID-19, may negatively impact productivity and may disrupt our ongoing research and development activities and our clinical programs and timelines, the magnitude of which will depend, in part, on the length and severity of the restrictions and other limitations on our ability to conduct our business in the ordinary course. Further, such orders also may impact the availability or cost of materials, which would disrupt our supply chain and manufacturing efforts and could affect our ability to conduct ongoing and planned clinical trials and preparatory activities.

In connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, we experienced a slowdown to enrollment in our PRISM-EXT and PRISM4 clinical trials, as well as interruptions to operations at our donor centers, including certain periods during which we accepted limited donations due to staffing constraints. We may experience additional COVID-19 related disruptions in the future that could severely impact our clinical trials, including:

Known or unanticipated impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, including as a result of variants of COVID-19, may have a material adverse effect on our business. While the ultimate economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic are difficult to assess or predict, the pandemic has resulted, and could further result, in significant disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic could materially affect our business and the value of our common stock.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic impacts our business and operations, including our clinical development and regulatory efforts, will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence at the time of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, the duration of the outbreak, the impact of emerging variants, the duration and effect of business disruptions and the short- and long-term effects and ultimate effectiveness of the travel restrictions, quarantines, social distancing requirements, occupancy limits, vaccine mandates and business closures in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease, and the effectiveness and acceptance of vaccines. Accordingly, we do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical and regulatory activities, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these impacts could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

The demand for vaccines for COVID-19 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. Moreover, since the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA, which is responsible for review and approval of microbiome product candidates, is responsible for the review of COVID-19 vaccines, responses from FDA may be delayed. Many Review Divisions at FDA, including the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA, have experienced delays in some timelines related to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act due to demands brought about by COVID-19.

In addition, to the extent the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business and results of operations, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks and uncertainties described in this “Risk Factors” section.

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of our product candidates or any future product candidates, which would prevent or delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and commercialization.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, including CP101, FIN-211 and any other current or future product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our investigational drug products are safe and effective for use in each targeted indication. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical development process. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. We may be unable to establish clinical endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful, and a clinical trial can fail at any stage of testing. For example, in addition to gastrointestinal endpoints, our development program for FIN-211 in ASD includes exploration of behavioral endpoints, which are not yet well-established. If we fail to validate behavioral instruments for use in our ASD clinical protocols, we would not be able to rely upon those instruments or endpoints to support FDA approval. Further, the process of obtaining regulatory approval is expensive, often takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved, as well as the target indications, patient population and regulatory agency. Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize CP101, FIN-211 and any other current or future product candidates in the United States or abroad, we, our collaborators or our potential future collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. For example, we plan to have further discussions with the FDA regarding the size and make-up of the safety database for CP101 which could result in the need for additional studies or delays in our development timelines.

Clinical trials that we conduct may not demonstrate the efficacy and safety necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. If the results of our ongoing or future clinical trials are inconclusive with respect to the efficacy of our product candidates, if we do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical and clinically meaningful significance, or if there are safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we may be delayed in obtaining marketing approval, if at all. Additionally, any safety concerns observed in any one of our clinical trials in our targeted indications could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of our product candidates in those and other indications.

Even if the trials are successfully completed, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and we cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do. More trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval, especially for indications such as ASD, for which clinical endpoints are not well-established. We cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will view our product candidates as having efficacy even if positive results are observed in clinical trials. Moreover, results acceptable to support approval in one jurisdiction may be deemed inadequate by another regulatory authority to support regulatory approval in that other jurisdiction. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, approval of CP101, FIN-211 and any other current or future product candidates may be significantly delayed, or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for a product candidate, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of the specific product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential.

The results of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Initial success in third-party studies or our ongoing clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when these trials are completed or in later-stage trials.

The results of nonclinical and preclinical studies and clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Furthermore, we have relied on third-party clinical research in order to inform certain aspects of our own clinical trials and preclinical studies. We have not independently verified the accuracy, safety or other results of such third-party studies, and we may be unable to replicate the results from such third-party studies. For example, insights gained from the use of FMT materials, including FMT clinical data, may not be predictive of our clinical trials, particularly given that the dosage form and potency, delivery mechanisms and manufacturing process vary significantly.

Accordingly, there can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our product candidates. There is a high failure rate for product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Many companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including certain of our competitors in microbiome therapeutics, have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway, or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA approval. For example, we recently received a letter from the FDA requesting changes to the testing algorithm used to diagnose suspected CDI recurrences in PRISM4, which had been used in PRISM3. Additionally, products used in small early-stage studies may be from a limited number of donors, and it is possible that efficacy might be linked to the microbial community found in a specific donor or a limited set of donors, such that the results might not apply for a broader group of donors with varying microbial compositions. Any such setbacks in our clinical development could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, some of the clinical trials we conduct, including a portion of the PRISM4 trial, may include open-label trials 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 product 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. 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 of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Given that we plan to in the future conduct open-label clinical trials, the results from these clinical trials may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with these or other product candidates for which we include an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

Our product candidates may be associated with serious adverse, undesirable or unacceptable side effects or other properties or safety risks, which may delay or halt their clinical development, or prevent marketing approval. If such side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates or following approval we may suspend or abandon our development of such product candidates, the commercial profile of any approved label may be limited, or we may be subject to other significant negative consequences following marketing approval.

Undesirable side effects that may be caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. While we have observed no treatment-related serious adverse events, or SAEs, to date in clinical trials of our lead product candidate CP101, the results from future preclinical studies and clinical trials of our other product candidates may identify safety concerns or other undesirable properties of our product candidates. Additionally, if we expand our product development for current or future product candidates into new patient populations or disease areas, side effects or adverse events not seen by our product candidates in earlier clinical research could emerge.

The results of our clinical trials of CP101, FIN-211 and future clinical trials of our other product candidates may show that our product candidates cause undesirable or unacceptable side effects or even death. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

Moreover, if our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in preclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may elect to abandon their development or limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, which may limit the commercial expectations for the product candidate, if approved.

Additionally, adverse developments in clinical trials of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products conducted by others or with commercial products offered by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory oversight bodies to suspend or

terminate our clinical trials or change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates or otherwise adversely impact the clinical and commercial development of our product candidates. Such adverse developments may cause the FDA to perceive CP101 or other current or future product candidates as unsafe and bring increased regulatory scrutiny to our clinical operations more broadly, lead to decreased confidence by patients, physicians and contract research organizations, or CROs, in our product candidates, and result in reduced demand for any product that we may develop if approved. For example, in June 2019, the FDA issued a safety alert regarding the risk of serious adverse reactions due to the transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms in connection with FMT treatment provided by a local, hospital-based FMT program. Two immunocompromised adults, one of whom later died, received FMT treatment from this hospital-based FMT program and subsequently developed infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing E. coli. In March 2020, the FDA issued another safety alert regarding the potential of serious or life-threatening infections with the use of FMT treatment after OpenBiome reported occurrences of enteropathogenic E. coli and shigatoxin-producing E. coli in FMT recipients. Also in March 2020, FDA issued a safety alert regarding the potential risks of transmission of COVID-19 by FMT and placed our IND for CP101 on partial clinical hold.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us, our collaborators or our potential future partners from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenue from the sale of our product candidates, if approved.

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

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timely completion of our clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to recruit a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate and remain in the trial until its conclusion. Patients may be unwilling to participate in our clinical trials because of negative publicity from adverse events related to novel therapeutic approaches, competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, the existence of current treatments, such as FMT, or for other reasons, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and negative perceptions of our product candidates. For example, enrollment in PRISM4 commenced later than we anticipated due to, among other things, vendor delays and staffing shortages in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. Enrollment in PRISM4 is currently paused following receipt from the FDA of a clinical hold letter on February 24, 2022, requesting additional information about our SARS-CoV-2 donor screening protocols. Further, because FIN-211 includes donor-derived components, the clinical hold will also delay initiation of our Phase 1b clinical trial in ASD. Any delays related to patient enrollment 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. We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with the required or

desired characteristics, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrollment and trial completion is affected by many factors, including the:

Enrollment risks are heightened with respect to indications that are rare or orphan diseases, which may limit the pool of patients that may be enrolled in our planned clinical trials. For example, we are developing CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI, which does not have a large patient population, and, as a result, we may encounter difficulties enrolling subjects in our clinical trials evaluating CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI due, in part, to the small size of this patient population.

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with products that are available for use in the same therapeutic areas of our product candidates, and other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. For example, the availability of FMT materials for CDI not responding to standard therapies may affect our ability to enroll patients in our studies of CP101 in CDI. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site.

Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our future clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.

Interim, topline and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publish interim, topline or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Preliminary and interim data from our clinical trials may change as more patient data become available. Preliminary or interim data from our clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of final results. Preliminary and interim data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues, more patient data become available and we issue our final clinical trial report. Interim, topline and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result,

preliminary, topline and interim data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data compared to the interim data could significantly harm our business prospects. In addition, certain patient and product samples from our clinical trials are or will be retained by third parties and used by them for further research and studies, and the data from such studies may be inconsistent or contrary to the results from our earlier clinical trials.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, interpretations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product, if any, and our company in general. For example, regulatory agencies may disagree with our inclusion or exclusion of certain trial subjects from our clinical trial data or our interpretation of such data. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular preclinical study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product, if any, product candidate or our business. If the preliminary and interim data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Preclinical development is uncertain. Our preclinical programs may experience delays or may never advance to clinical trials, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize these programs on a timely basis or at all, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

Before we can commence clinical trials for any product candidate, we may be required to complete extensive preclinical studies that support any future Investigational New Drug, or IND, applications in the United States, or similar applications in other jurisdictions. Conducting preclinical testing is a lengthy, time-consuming and expensive process and delays associated with product candidates for which we are directly conducting preclinical testing and studies may cause us to incur additional operating expenses. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies for CP101, FIN-211 or our other current or future product candidates and cannot predict if the FDA will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and foreign clinical trials will ultimately support the further development of our other product candidates. As a result, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or similar applications for our preclinical programs on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or similar applications will result in the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, laws or regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

•

the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials, including requiring us to enroll more patients than originally expected, including with respect to the anticipated size of the safety database to be collected to support a biologics license application, or BLA, filing and possible approval;

•

we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate is safe and effective as a treatment for our targeted indications, or, in the case of a product candidate regulated as a biological product, that the product candidate is safe, pure and potent and controlled for its proposed indication, or, in either case, that our quality management systems are sufficient to ensure such results;

This lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process, and determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for any of our product candidates. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, if any, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of a product candidate, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with such product candidate.

If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, testing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, we will be subject to continued compliance with cGMP and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

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. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any BLA, other marketing application, and previous responses to inspection

observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to 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 safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a REMS program as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, we will have to comply with requirements including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration.

The FDA may impose consent decrees or withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing and testing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability including, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA approved labeling.

The holder of a BLA must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling, or manufacturing process. We could also be asked to conduct post-marketing clinical trials to verify the safety and efficacy of our products in general or in specific patient subsets. If original marketing approval was obtained via the accelerated approval pathway, we could be required to conduct a successful post-marketing clinical trial to

confirm clinical benefit for our products. An unsuccessful post-marketing study or failure to complete such a study could result in the withdrawal of marketing approval.

The policies of the FDA and of comparable foreign regulatory authorities 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.

We may in the future conduct clinical trials for product candidates outside the United States, and the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We have previously conducted, and plan in the future to conduct, one or more clinical trials outside the United States, including in, but not limited to, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. Results for our clinical trials may differ by jurisdiction as a result of varying standards of care or local restrictions on reimbursement from third-party payors for clinical trials, thereby affecting the willingness of the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority to accept such data. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction. In addition, conduct of clinical trials on a global basis may expose us to geopolitical risks impacting the ability of institutions and patients to participate in our trials.

We may pursue the development of certain of our product candidates in combination with other therapies, and regulatory approval, safety or supply issues with these other therapies may delay or prevent the development and approval of our product candidates.

In the near future, we may explore the use of our product candidates in combination with other therapies, including those that are not yet approved. If we choose to develop a product candidate for use in combination with an approved therapy, we are subject to the risk that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could revoke approval of, or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with, the therapy used in combination with our product candidate. If the therapies we use in combination with our product candidates are replaced as the standard of care, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical trials, or we may not be able to obtain adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our product candidates, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

Where we develop a product candidate for use in combination with a therapy that has not been approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we will not be able to market our product candidate for use in combination with such an unapproved therapy, unless and until the unapproved therapy receives regulatory approval. These unapproved therapies face the same risks described with respect to our product candidates currently in development, including serious adverse effects and delays in their clinical trials. In addition, other companies may also develop their products or product candidates in combination with the unapproved therapies with which we are developing our product candidates for use in combination. Any setbacks in these companies’ clinical trials, including the emergence of serious adverse effects, may delay or prevent the development and approval of our product candidates.

If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities do not approve or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, therapies we choose to evaluate in combination with any of our product candidates, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval of or to commercialize such product candidates in combination with these therapies.

The manufacture of our product candidates is complex and we may encounter difficulties in production, particularly with respect to process development or scaling-up of our manufacturing capabilities.

Our product candidates are biologics that consist of bacteria and may include other microorganisms. The process of manufacturing our products is complex, highly regulated and subject to multiple risks. The manufacture of our product candidates involves complex processes, including obtaining biological material (human stool) from qualified third-party donors for CP101 and FIN-211. As a result of these complexities, the cost to manufacture our product candidates in particular is generally higher than traditional small molecule chemical compounds, and the manufacturing process is less reliable and is more difficult to reproduce.

Further, as our product candidates are developed through early- to late-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, we may make alterations to these products and their method of manufacture and use, including changes to our manufacturing processes, in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently than they did in the past and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials. In such circumstances, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may require that we conduct bridging comparability testing or other additional clinical studies to confirm the clinical relevance of prior data. For example, early prototype versions of CP101 were manufactured by investigators at the University of Minnesota using certain different techniques and equipment than we have used and intend to use as we continue to advance CP101.

Historically, early versions of CP101 were manufactured using unoptimized processes by third-party research collaborators that we have not used, or do not intend to use, in more advanced clinical trials or commercialization. We have, and may continue to, alter our manufacturing processes, product release criteria, dose strength or dosing regimen, and other aspects of CP101 to optimize it for late-stage clinical trials or commercialization. Although we are working to develop commercially viable processes, doing so is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-out, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency, and timely availability of reagents or raw materials. As a result of these challenges, we may experience delays in our clinical development and/or commercialization plans. For example, in recent correspondence, the FDA has asked for additional information regarding the validation package for one of our release tests, which is utilized for both CP101 and FIN-211; that validation package will need to be reviewed by the FDA before we are able to proceed with enrollment in PRISM4, which could delay the trial. If we receive additional questions from the FDA regarding the validation package, the timelines for our trials could be further delayed.

We are still in the process of developing and scaling-up our manufacturing processes and quality systems for certain of our other product candidates. These products contain proprietary bacterial strains that have never been manufactured in a scale sufficient for use in a clinical trial or for commercialization. We can make no assurances that we will be able to manufacture these products, or components of these products, in a cost effective manner or at the level required for clinical trials or commercialization.

Further, we plan in the future to conduct one or more clinical trials outside the United States. Jurisdictions outside of the United States, including Europe, have distinct regulatory requirements that our facilities, materials, manufacturing processes, and quality systems may not satisfy. If we are unable to meet required standards, we may be unable to conduct trials or commercialize our product candidates in certain jurisdictions outside of the United States.

We rely on third-party donors of biological material to manufacture certain product candidates such as CP101 and FIN-211, and if we do not obtain an adequate supply of acceptable material from those qualified donors, the clinical and commercial supply of these product candidates may be adversely impacted.

We use human stool from extensively-screened third-party donors as starting material in the manufacture of several of our product candidates, including CP101 and FIN-211. The stool that is received from these third-party donors is tested for certain pathogens and processed without the use of replication or culturing to form an active ingredient in our products. Our ability to manufacture CP101, FIN-211 and other product candidates using donor-derived materials at clinical and commercial scale depends on obtaining a consistent and adequate supply of stool material. We are not currently aware of alternative sources of supply that would be sufficient to meet our clinical and commercial needs. Therefore, any delay of our ability to manufacture using donor-derived materials could significantly impact our clinical timelines.

In the past, we have relied on stool donor programs operated by OpenBiome and the University of Minnesota for the supply of human stool material used in the manufacture of our product candidates, including CP101. In connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement with OpenBiome, we have licensed certain technology and have acquired assets that enable our internal stool donor program in support of the clinical development and commercialization of CP101 and our other product candidates.

The stool donor program on which we rely involves the screening of potential human stool donors using defined screening criteria. Only a small fraction of potential human donors that we will evaluate will be able to meet these criteria and enroll in our donor program. There can be no assurances that we will have enough qualified third-party donors within our donor program, or enough material derived from donors in our program, to meet clinical or commercial demand. We may also have difficulty enrolling and retaining enough qualified donors in our donor program. If we are unable to enroll a sufficient number of qualified donors in our stool donor program, or if we are unable to retain donors within our program or receive enough stool from donors within our program, our ability to manufacture CP101, FIN-211 and other product candidates may be delayed or adversely impacted.

While the stool donor program on which we rely involves extensive screening of potential entrants, we can make no assurances that it will screen for, or be able to identify, all diseases and conditions that could adversely affect the health of persons who use or consume products that contain biological material from those donors. The screening processes may fail to identify certain existing diseases or conditions in the humans that we evaluate for entry into our donor program. In addition, donors enrolled in our donor program may develop new diseases or conditions, or the worsening of pre-existing or underlying diseases or conditions, that we may fail to identify. The use of stool material from a third-party donor who has a certain condition or disease may result in material adverse effects to our business, including supply chain disruptions resulting from the recall or destruction of affected starting material or product, or adverse reactions in patients who use or consume products derived from that donor. For example, in March 2020, the FDA required retrospective testing and the recall and destruction of the affected product after OpenBiome, a supplier of human stool material, reported occurrences of enteropathogenic E. coli and shigatoxin-producing E. coli in FMT recipients.

While we extensively test the biological materials that we receive from qualified third-party donors or suppliers for the presence of certain pathogens and other microorganisms, there can be no assurances that we will detect all pathogens and other microorganisms in our products, which could result in an adverse reaction in persons who use or consume our products. Our testing processes may fail to identify pathogens in the stool that we receive from donors within our donor program, or such testing processes may be unacceptable to regulatory authorities. For example, in the clinical hold letter we received on February 24, 2022 for our CP101 IND, the FDA requested more information with respect to, among other things, our SARS-CoV-2 testing methods. In addition, the emergence of new pathogens could affect the availability of stool donors, or require us to develop new testing processes to test both new and existing material and product, either of which could cause delays or shortage in the manufacture and distribution of our products. The presence of pathogens in the stool material that we receive from third-party donors may also result in adverse reactions in persons who use or consume products that are derived from that material. Additionally, regulatory or industry pathogen testing requirements may change over time, possibly making it more challenging to locate qualified donors, or requiring the development and validation of new test methods, which could adversely affect our ability to collect adequate supply and increase costs related to product manufacturing. For example, screening for enteropathogenic E. coli has resulted in exclusion of otherwise qualified donors.

We operate our own manufacturing facility for certain product candidates, which requires significant resources and we may fail to successfully operate our facility, which could adversely affect our clinical trials and the commercial viability of our product candidates.

We recently completed construction of our manufacturing facility to support the manufacture of our product candidates, including CP101 and FIN-211, for use in clinical development or for potential commercial sale. We may not be able to manufacture enough product at this facility to meet the clinical and commercial demand for our product candidates. We also cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes employed by us will result in products that will be safe and effective or that we will be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or other regulatory authorities that our quality management systems are sufficient to ensure such results. Moreover, we may run into delays or cost overruns in connection with the qualification and validation of our manufacturing facility, including the transfer of technology into that recently completed facility, which would increase our net losses and have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. For example, the FDA may find deficiencies in our technology transfer process or require one or more comparability studies of our drug product using test methods that we would need to develop. The actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could be greater than we expect and could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates, if approved. There is a lack of third-party CMOs willing or able to manufacture whole community product candidates like CP101 and FIN-211. If we are unable to successfully manufacture and process our product candidates, we

might not be able to produce some of our products at a level that would be sufficient to meet our clinical and commercial needs.

The manufacture of microbiome therapeutics is complex and requires significant expertise, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of products derived from human biological material often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling out and validating initial production and ensuring the absence of contamination. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if contaminants are discovered in our supply of raw materials or in our manufacturing facilities or manufacturing facilities operated by our third-party suppliers, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We cannot assure you that any stability or other issues relating to the manufacture of our product candidates will not occur in the future.

Our operations will remain subject to review and oversight by the FDA and the FDA could object to our use of our manufacturing facility. Prior to licensure to manufacture our product candidates, we must first receive approval from the FDA, which we may never obtain. Such approval may be contingent on a pre-approval inspection of our manufacturing facility. Even if approved, we would be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with cGMP and other government regulations. Our license to manufacture product candidates will be subject to continued regulatory review.

In addition, we may fail to manage the logistics of storing and shipping our product candidates, particularly as our product candidates are required to be stored at certain pre-defined refrigerated temperatures. Storage failures and shipment delays and problems caused by us, our vendors or other factors not in our control, such as weather, could result in loss of usable product or prevent or delay the delivery of product candidates to patients. We may also experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disputes. If we were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates would be jeopardized.

We have never commercialized a product candidate and may experience delays or unexpected difficulties in obtaining regulatory approval for our current or future product candidates for our initial or potential additional indications.

We have never obtained regulatory approval for, or commercialized, a drug. It is possible that the FDA may refuse to accept any or all of our planned BLAs for substantive review or may conclude after review of our data that our application is insufficient to obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates. If the FDA does not approve any of our planned BLAs, it may require that we conduct additional costly clinical, nonclinical or manufacturing validation studies before it will reconsider our applications. Depending on the extent of these or any other FDA-required studies, approval of any BLA or other application that we submit may be significantly delayed, possibly for several years, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. Any failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approvals would prevent us from commercializing our current or future product candidates, generating revenues and achieving and sustaining profitability. It is also possible that additional studies, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA to approve any BLA or other application that we submit. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to abandon the development of our product candidates, which would materially adversely affect our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. We face similar risks for our applications in foreign jurisdictions.

We currently have no marketing and sales organization and have no experience as a company in marketing products. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, if approved, we may not be able to generate product revenue.

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities and have no experience in marketing products. We intend to develop an in-house marketing organization and sales force, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.

If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we will pursue arrangements with third-party sales, marketing, and distribution collaborators regarding the sales and marketing of our products, if approved. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such arrangements on favorable terms or at all, or if we are able to do so, that these third-party arrangements will provide effective sales forces or marketing

and distribution capabilities. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product in the United States or overseas.

We have received Fast Track designation for CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI, and we may seek Fast Track designation for our other product candidates. Even if received, Fast Track designation may not actually lead to a faster review or approval process and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We have received Fast Track designation for CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI, and we may seek Fast Track designation for our other product candidates. If a drug or biologic is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the sponsor may apply for Fast Track designation for a particular indication. There is no assurance that the FDA will grant this status to any of our other proposed product candidates. If granted, Fast Track designation makes a product eligible for more frequent interactions with FDA to discuss the development plan and clinical trial design, as well as rolling review of the application, which means that the company can submit completed sections of its marketing application for review prior to completion of the entire submission. Marketing applications of product candidates with Fast Track designation may qualify for priority review under the policies and procedures offered by the FDA, but the Fast Track designation does not assure any such qualification or ultimate marketing approval by the FDA. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant Fast Track designation, so even if we believe a particular 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 any assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation at any time if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

We have received Breakthrough Therapy designation for CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI, and we may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for our other product candidates. Even if received, Breakthrough Therapy designation may not actually lead to a faster review or approval process and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We have received Breakthrough Therapy designation for CP101 for the prevention of recurrent CDI, and may, in the future, apply for Breakthrough Therapy designation for other product candidates in the United States. A Breakthrough Therapy product candidate is defined as a product candidate that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that such product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a Breakthrough Therapy product candidate receives: (i) intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program; (ii) intensive involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review; and (iii) a rolling review process whereby the FDA may consider reviewing portions of a BLA before the sponsor submits the complete application. Product candidates designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may be eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data.

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. 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 products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and, in any event, does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even though CP101 has been designated as a Breakthrough Therapy product candidate, the FDA may later decide that it no longer meets the conditions for designation or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must, and have in the past decided to, prioritize development of certain product candidates over other potential product candidates. These decisions may prove to have been wrong and may adversely affect our ability to develop our own programs, our attractiveness as a commercial partner and may ultimately have an impact on our commercial success.

Because we have limited resources and access to capital to fund our operations, we must decide which product candidates to pursue and the amount of resources to allocate to each. For example, we have decided to pause development of CP101 in HBV, which we believe will allow us to maximize our working capital available for investment in our wholly-owned recurrent CDI and ASD programs. Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular product candidates or therapeutic areas may not lead to the development of viable commercial products and may divert resources away from better opportunities. Similarly, our decisions to delay, terminate or collaborate with third parties in respect of certain product development programs may also prove not to be optimal and could cause us to miss valuable opportunities. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the market potential of our product candidates or misread trends in the biopharmaceutical industry, in particular for our lead product candidate, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected and may cause us to reprioritize our planned trials and use of funds for planned trials.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals and others in the medical community.

The use of microbiome therapies is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals and others in the medical community. Various factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including:

If our product candidates are approved for commercialization but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue.

In addition, although our product candidates differ in certain ways from other microbiome approaches, SAEs or deaths in other clinical trials involving the microbiome, or in clinical trials involving therapeutic approaches similar to ours, even if not ultimately attributable to our product or product candidates, could result in increased government regulation, unfavorable public perception and publicity, potential regulatory delays in the testing or licensing of our product candidates, stricter labeling requirements for those product candidates that are licensed, and a decrease in demand for any such product candidates.

Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, even assuming approval of a product candidate, our business may suffer.

Our projections of both the number of people who are affected by diseases within our potential target indications, as well as the subset of these people who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, healthcare utilization databases and market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Likewise, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others developing or commercializing drugs before or more successfully than us.

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our competitors may be able to develop other drugs that are able to achieve similar or better results that our product candidates. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly as they develop novel approaches to treating disease indications that our product candidates are also focused on treating. 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. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our product candidates are efficacy, safety, tolerability, reliability, convenience of use, price and reimbursement.

We face competition from segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue the development of microbiome therapies. We are aware of a number of companies focused on developing microbiome therapeutics in various indications. For CP101, we are aware that Seres Therapeutics, Inc. and Rebiotix, Inc. each have a product candidate that has completed Phase 3 trials for recurrent CDI and are pursuing FDA approval to enable subsequent commercialization. In November 2021, Rebiotix filed a BLA for RBX-2660, their lead product in recurrent CDI, and Seres has indicated that they plan to file a BLA in 2022. In addition, we face competition from other therapies which are designed to treat the indications targeted by our product candidates.

We anticipate that we will continue to face intense and increasing competition as new treatments enter the market and advanced technologies become available. There can be no assurance that our competitors are not currently developing, or will not in the future develop, products that are equally or more effective or are more economically attractive than any of our current or future product candidates. Competing products may gain faster or greater market acceptance than our products, if any, and medical advances or rapid technological development by competitors may result in our product candidates becoming non-competitive or obsolete before we are able to recover our research and development and commercialization expenses. If we or our product candidates do not compete effectively, it may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

If any of our product candidates are approved for commercialization, we may seek to enter into agreements with third parties to market them in certain jurisdictions outside the United States. We expect that we would be subject to additional risks related to international pharmaceutical operations, including:

•

business interruptions resulting from geopolitical actions, including war and terrorism, natural disasters including earthquakes, typhoons, floods and fires, or from economic or political instability, or public health emergencies, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and related shelter-in-place orders, travel, social distancing and quarantine policies, boycotts, curtailment of trade and other business restrictions;

As an organization, we have no prior experience in these areas. In addition, there are complex regulatory, tax, labor and other legal requirements imposed by individual countries in Europe with which we may need to comply. If we are unable to successfully manage the challenges of international expansion and operations, our business and operating results could be harmed.

Coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for CP101, FIN-211 or any other current or future product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell profitably or at all, if approved.

Market acceptance and sales of any product candidates that we commercialize, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these drugs and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, managed care organizations, pharmacy benefit management organizations, and other private health insurers. Microbiome therapy is a novel therapeutic approach and neither we nor, to our knowledge, any other company has received regulatory approval for a therapeutic based on this approach. We cannot be certain that third-party payors will provide sufficient reimbursement for any product candidates that we commercialize, if approved. Third-party payors decide which therapies they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

While no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. However, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any product candidates that we develop will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. Therefore, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the drug. Obtaining positive Medicare coverage and reimbursement will be critical to the commercial success of CP101, if approved, as a large portion of the patient population with CDI are Medicare beneficiaries. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for CP101 or any current or future product candidate for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Thus, if we are not able to secure coverage and Medicare reimbursement at sufficient levels, we may not be able to reach our intended target market for CP101, if approved, which would adversely affect our revenue and profits. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Each payor determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a therapy, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the therapy, and on what tier of its formulary it will be placed. The position on a payor’s list of covered drugs, or formulary, generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the therapy and can strongly influence the adoption of such therapy by patients and physicians. We expect that the price of CP101, if approved, will be substantial, so the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors will be necessary to make CP101 assessable to patients. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products.

Third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any drug that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Inadequate coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any drug for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize CP101 or any other current or future product candidates that we develop. Outside the United States, the commercialization of therapeutics is generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as our product candidates. In many countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, medical product prices are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after a product receives marketing approval. 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 candidate to other available therapies. In general, product prices under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for products 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 revenue and profits.

Even if we are successful in obtaining regulatory approval, commercial success of any approved products will also depend in large part on the availability of insurance coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and managed care organizations, which may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. Third-party payors could require us to conduct additional studies, including post-marketing studies related to the cost-effectiveness of a product, to qualify for reimbursement, which could be costly and divert our resources. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. If government and other healthcare payors were not to provide adequate insurance coverage and reimbursement levels for one any of our products once approved, market acceptance and commercial success would be limited.

We may become exposed to costly and damaging liability claims, either when testing our product candidates in the clinic or at the commercial stage, and our product liability insurance may not cover all damages from such claims.


Delaware	82-3433558
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
200 Inner Belt Road, Suite 400 Somerville, Massachusetts	02143
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)


		Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	3
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	46
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	99
Item 2.	Properties	99
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	99
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	99

PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	100
Item 6.	[Reserved]	100
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	101
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	113
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	114
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	149
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	149
Item 9B.	Other Information	150
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	151

PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	152
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	152
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	152
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	152
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	152

PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibit and Financial Statement Schedules	153
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	154


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


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


Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐
Non-accelerated filer	☒	Smaller reporting company	☒
		Emerging growth company	☒


CP101 Achieved 33.8% Relative Risk Reduction for CDI Recurrence in PRISM3	Sustained Clinical Cure at Week 8 Was Maintained Through Week 24 in PRISM3


CP101 Engraftment Shows a Bimodal Distribution	CP101 Engraftment Correlates with Sustained Clinical Cure


Remission Rates in Active Ulcerative Colitis among Four Placebo-Controlled FMT Trials and a TNF Biologic Trial	Platform Used to Identify “Super Donor” Strains as Potential Therapeutic Candidates



Selecting a strain associated with positive FMT outcomes starts with machine learning models of clinical data. For TAK-524, an analysis of data from over 1000 patients was used to quantify the relationship between each clade of bacteria (each represented as a dot) and ulcerative colitis. On the x-axis, the degree to which each clade is depleted from a patient’s microbiome relative to healthy controls is shown. On the y-axis, the impact of each clade in driving remission when added to a patient’s microbiome by FMT is shown. Colors indicate the higher-level phylogenetic group each dot is assigned to. The bacterial clades with the greatest effect (top right quadrant) are the targets we isolated for in-vitro validation.