SEC Filing - Pharvaris N.V.

View:

Download DOC

Download PDF

Download XLS

6-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-16 OR 15D-16 UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the month of June 2023

Commission File Number: 001-40010

Pharvaris N.V.

(Translation of registrant’s name into English)

Emmy Noetherweg 2

2333 BK Leiden

The Netherlands
(Address of principal executive office)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

Form 20-F ☒ Form 40-F ☐

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ☐

Note: Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1) only permits the submission in paper of a Form 6-K if submitted solely to provide an attached annual report to security holders.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ☐

Note: Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7) only permits the submission in paper of a Form 6-K if submitted to furnish a report or other document that the registrant foreign private issuer must furnish and make public under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the registrant is incorporated, domiciled or legally organized (the registrant’s “home country”), or under the rules of the home country exchange on which the registrant’s securities are traded, as long as the report or other document is not a press release, is not required to be and has not been distributed to the registrant’s security holders, and, if discussing a material event, has already been the subject of a Form 6-K submission or other Commission filing on EDGAR.

PHARVARIS N.V.

On June 1, 2023, Pharvaris N.V. (the “Company”) issued a press release announcing its 2023 annual general meeting of shareholders to be held on June 23, 2023 and made available to its shareholders certain other materials in connection with such meeting. A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated by reference herein. The materials made available to the Company’s shareholders are attached as Exhibits 99.2 and 99.3 hereto and are incorporated by reference herein. Exhibit 99.4 contains the Company’s Annual Report for the year ended December 31,

2022, which is furnished herewith.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


	PHARVARIS N.V.

Date: June 1, 2023	By:	/s/ Berndt Modig
	Name:	Berndt Modig
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer

EXHIB INDEX


Exhibit No.		Description
99.1		Press Release dated June 1, 2023.
99.2		Convening Notice, including Agenda and Explanatory Notes.
99.3		Voting Proxy
99.4		Pharvaris N.V. Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2022 (prepared in accordance with IFRS-EU).

EX-99.1

Exhibit 99.1

Pharvaris Announces Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Zug, Switzerland, June 1, 2023 – Pharvaris (Nasdaq: PHVS), a clinical-stage company developing novel, oral bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonists to treat and prevent hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks, today announced the annual general meeting of shareholders will take place on Friday, June 23, 2023, at 15:00 CEST (9:00 a.m. EDT).

All relevant documents and information relating to the annual general meeting, including the notice and agenda for the annual general meeting, are or will be made available in the “Investors” section of Pharvaris’ website under “Events & Presentations”. The documents will also be made available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Shareholders who wish to attend the meeting should register as described in the notice and agenda for the annual general meeting.

About Pharvaris

Building on its deep-seated roots in hereditary angioedema (HAE), Pharvaris is a clinical-stage company developing novel, oral bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonists to treat and prevent HAE attacks. By directly targeting this clinically proven therapeutic target with novel small molecules, the Pharvaris team aspires to offer people with all sub-types of HAE safe, effective, and convenient alternatives to treat attacks, both on-demand and prophylactically. The company brings together the best talent in the industry with deep expertise in rare diseases and HAE. For more information, visit https://pharvaris.com/.

Contact
Maggie Beller

Head of Public Relations and Communications

maggie.beller@pharvaris.com

EX-99.2

Exhibit 99.2

CONVENING NOTICE

This is the convening notice for the annual general meeting of shareholders of Pharvaris N.V. (the "Company") to be held on June 23, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. CEST at the offices of NautaDutilh N.V., Beethovenstraat 400, 1082 PR Amsterdam, the Netherlands (the "AGM").

The agenda for the AGM is as follows:

Opening

Discussion of Dutch statutory board report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (discussion item)

Adoption of Dutch statutory annual accounts for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (voting item)

Instruction to PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. for the external audit of the Company's statutory annual accounts for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2023 (voting item)

Discharge from liability for the Company's directors with respect to the performance of their duties during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (voting item)

Discussion of the Company's dividend and reservation policy (discussion item)

Extension of authorization for the Board to acquire shares and depository receipts for shares in the Company's capital (voting item)

Closing

No business shall be voted on at the AGM, except such items as included in the above-mentioned agenda.

The record date for the AGM is May 26, 2023 (the "Record Date"). Those who are shareholders of the Company, or who otherwise have voting rights and/or meeting rights with respect to shares in the Company's capital, on the Record Date and who are recorded as such in the Company's shareholders' register or in the register maintained by the Company's U.S. transfer agent (the "Registers") may attend and, if relevant, vote at the AGM ("Persons with Meeting Rights"), irrespective of changes to their shareholdings or rights after the Record Date.

Those who beneficially own shares in the Company's capital in an account at a bank, a financial institution, an account holder or other financial intermediary (the "Beneficial Owners") on the Record Date, must also have their financial intermediary or their agent with whom the underlying shares are on deposit issue a proxy to them which confirms they are authorized to take part in and vote at the AGM.

82044620 M 52331893 / 1

Persons with Meeting Rights and Beneficial Owners who wish to attend the AGM, in person or represented by proxy, must notify the Company in writing of their identity and intention to attend the AGM (an "Attendance Notice") no later than 6:00 a.m. CEST on the day prior to the AGM (the "Cut-off Time"). The Attendance Notice must contain the name and number of shares the person will represent in the AGM. Beneficial Owners must also enclose with their Attendance Notice (i) proof of their beneficial ownership of the relevant underlying shares in the Company's capital, such as a recent account statement, and (ii) their signed proxy from their financial intermediary or agent with whom the shares are on deposit.

Persons with Meeting Rights and Beneficial Owners who have duly provided an Attendance Notice to the Company may have themselves represented at the AGM through the use of a written or electronically recorded proxy. Proxyholders must submit a signed proxy to the Company no later than the Cut-off Time and present a copy of their proxy upon entry to the AGM. A proxy form can be downloaded from the Company's website (http://www.pharvaris.com).

Any Attendance Notice, proof of beneficial ownership or signed proxy to be sent to the Company as part of the procedures described above must be provided via regular mail or e-mail to:

Pharvaris N.V.

c/o General Counsel

J.H. Oortweg 21

2333CH Leiden

the Netherlands

investor.relations@pharvaris.com

Any Attendance Notice, proof of beneficial ownership or signed proxy received after the Cut-off Time may be ignored. Persons with Meeting Rights, Beneficial Owners and proxyholders who have not complied with the procedures described above may be refused entry to the AGM.

Broadridge Voting Instructions

The Company has engaged Broadridge to assist in soliciting voting proxies in connection with the AGM. Broadridge will mail this notice and a voting proxy card to all Persons with Meeting Rights. Persons with Meetings Rights who choose to give voting instructions through Broadridge may do so on the internet, by telephone or by returning the proxy card as explained in more detail below.

Beneficial Owners will not be mailed by Broadridge, but should receive a notice containing voting instructions from their bank, a financial institution, an account holder or other financial intermediary. Follow the instructions from your bank, a financial institution, an account holder or other financial intermediary, or contact such organization to request a proxy card.

Voting Online

Persons with Meeting Rights may provide voting instructions through the internet before the AGM. Go to www.proxyvote.com to complete an electronic proxy card. You will be asked to provide the 16-digit control number from the proxy card. Your voting instruction must be received by 5:59 a.m. CEST on 23 June 2023 to be counted.

82044620 M 52331893 / 1

Voting by Telephone

Persons with Meetings Rights may provide voting instructions over the telephone from a location in the United States by dialing toll-free 1-800-690-6903, using a touch-tone phone and follow the recorded instructions. You will be asked to provide the 16-digit control number from the proxy card. Your voting instruction must be received by 5:59 a.m. CEST on 23 June 2023 to be counted.

Voting by Mail

Persons with Meetings Rights may provide voting instructions using a proxy card by simply completing, signing and dating the proxy card mailed to you and returning it promptly in the envelope provided. If you return your signed proxy card to us before the AGM, we will vote your shares as you direct. Your vote must be received by 5:59 a.m. CEST on 23 June 2023 to be counted.

82044620 M 52331893 / 1

EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE AGENDA

2. Discussion of Dutch statutory board report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (discussion item)

The Company's statutory board report over the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 has been made available on the Company's website (http://www.pharvaris.com) and at the Company's office address.

3. Adoption of Dutch statutory annual accounts for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (voting item)

The Company's annual accounts over the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 have been made available on the Company's website (http://www.pharvaris.com) and at the Company's office address. It is proposed that these annual accounts be adopted.

4. Instruction to PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. for the external audit of the Company's annual accounts for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2023 (voting item)

Under Dutch law, the General Meeting is, in principle, the corporate body authorized to annually appoint the external independent auditor for the audit of the Company's annual accounts. It is now proposed to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. as the external independent auditor for the audit of the Company's annual accounts for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2023.

5. Discharge from liability for the Company's directors with respect to the performance of their duties during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (voting item)

It is proposed that the Company's directors be released from liability for the exercise of their duties during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022. The scope of this release from liability extends to the exercise of their respective duties insofar as these are reflected in the Company's statutory board report or annual accounts over the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 or in other public disclosures.

6. Discussion of the Company's dividend and reservation policy (discussion item)

The Company has never paid or declared any cash dividends on its shares, and the Company does not anticipate paying any cash dividends on its shares in the foreseeable future. The Company intends to retain available funds and future earnings to fund the development and expansion of its business. Under Dutch law, the Company may only pay dividends to the extent its shareholders' equity (eigen vermogen) exceeds the sum of the Company's paid-up and called-up share capital plus the reserves required to be maintained by Dutch law or by the Company's articles of association (if any). Subject to such restrictions, any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of the Company's board (the "Board") and will depend upon a number of factors, including the Company's results of operations, financial condition, future prospects, contractual restrictions, restrictions imposed by applicable law and other factors the

82044620 M 52331893 / 1

Board deem relevant. If and when the Company does intend to distribute a dividend, such dividend may be distributed in the form of cash only or shares only, through a combination of the foregoing (cash and shares) or through a choice dividend (cash or shares), in each case subject to applicable law.

7. Extension of authorization for the Board to acquire ordinary shares and depository receipts for ordinary shares in the Company's capital (voting item)

The General Meeting has (i) authorized the Board, for a period of 18 months following 29 June 2022, to resolve for the Company to acquire fully paid-up ordinary shares in the Company's capital (and depository receipts for such ordinary shares), by any means, including through derivative products, purchases on a stock exchange, private purchases, block trades, or otherwise, for a price which is higher than nil and does not exceed 110% of the average market price of the Company's ordinary shares on the Nasdaq Stock Market (such average market price being the average of the closing prices on each of the five consecutive trading days preceding the date the acquisition is agreed upon by the Company), up to 10% of the Company's issued share capital (determined as at the close of business on 29 June 2022) and/or (ii) has authorized the Board, for a period ending 18 months following 29 June 2022, to resolve for the Company to acquire fully paid-up preferred shares (and depository receipts for such preferred shares) in the Company's issued share capital, by any means, including through derivative products, purchases on a stock exchange, private purchases, block trades, or otherwise, for a price which is higher than nil and does not exceed the nominal value of the preferred shares concerned.

It is proposed that these authorizations under (i) and (ii) be renewed for a period of, an effectively extended to expire, 18 months following the date of this AGM, provided that the authorization referred to under (i) shall be limited to 10% of the Company's issued share capital determined as at the close of business on the date of the AGM. If the resolution proposed under this agenda item 7. is passed, the proposed authorizations shall replace the currently existing authorizations.

82044620 M 52331893 / 1

EX-99.3

Exhibit 99.3

VOTING PROXY

THE UNDERSIGNED

Name :

Address :

acting on behalf of (only to be completed if relevant)

Name :

Address :

(the "Principal").

DECLARES AS FOLLOWS

The Principal hereby registers for the annual general meeting of shareholders of Pharvaris N.V. (the "Company") to be held on June 23, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. CEST at the offices of NautaDutilh N.V., Beethovenstraat 400, 1082 PR Amsterdam, the Netherlands (the "AGM") and, for purposes of being represented at the AGM, grants a power of attorney to each civil law notary and candidate civil law notary working with NautaDutilh N.V. (the "Proxyholder").

The scope of this power of attorney extends to the performance of the following acts on behalf of the Principal at the AGM:

to exercise the voting rights of the Principal in accordance with paragraph 3 below; and

to exercise any other right of the Principal which the Principal would be allowed to exercise at the AGM.

This power of attorney shall be used by the Proxyholder to exercise the Principal's voting rights in the manner directed as set out below. If no choice is specified in respect of the sole voting item on the agenda, the Proxyholder shall vote "FOR" such agenda item.


Agenda item	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
Adoption of Dutch statutory annual accounts for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022
Instruction to PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. for the external audit of the Company's statutory annual accounts for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023
Discharge from liability for the Company's directors with respect to the performance of their duties during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

82044620 M 52301839 / 2


Extension of authorization for the Board to acquire shares and depository receipts for shares in the Company's capital

This power of attorney is granted with full power of substitution.

The relationship between the Principal and the Proxyholder under this power of attorney is governed exclusively by the laws of the Netherlands.

(signature page follows)

82044620 M 52301839 / 2

SIGN HERE

Please return this signed proxy via regular mail or e-mail to:

Pharvaris N.V.

c/o General Counsel

J.H. Oortweg 21

2333CH Leiden

the Netherlands

investor.relations@pharvaris.com

If the Principal is a beneficial owner of shares in the Company's capital, please enclose:

(i) proof of beneficial ownership of the underlying shares, such as a recent account statement; and

(ii) a signed proxy from its financial intermediary or its agent with whom the shares are on deposit.

82044620 M 52301839 / 2

EX-99.4

Table of Contents

Exhibit 99.4

Pharvaris N.V.

Annual Report

for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

Table of Contents

Pharvaris N.V.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


		Page

Report of Board of Directors

1	Introduction	3
1.1	Preparation	3
1.2	Forward-looking statements	3
2	Business	4
2.1	History and development of the company	4
2.2	Overview	5
2.3	Organizational structure	35
2.4	Property, plants and equipment	36
2.5	Operating results	36
2.6	Material subsequent events	45
3	Risk factors	45
3.1	Summary of key risk factors	45
3.2	Risk factors	46
4	Controls and procedures	81
4.1	Risk management and control systems	81
4.2	In control statement	82
5	Corporate Governance	82
5.1	Dutch Corporate Governance Code	82
5.2	Code of business conduct and ethics and other corporate governance practices	83
5.3	Risk management and control systems	83
5.4	General Meeting	83
5.4.1	Functioning of the General Meeting	83
5.4.2	Powers of the General Meeting	83
5.4.3	Shareholder rights	84
5.5	Board	84
5.6	Committees	86
5.6.1	General	86
5.6.2	Audit committee	86
5.6.3	Compensation committee	87
5.6.4	Nomination and corporate governance committee	88
5.7	Evaluation	88
5.8	Diversity	89
5.9	Corporate values and code of business conduct and ethics	89
6	Compensation	90
6.1	Compensation policy	90
6.2	Compensation of directors	90
6.3	Pay ratio	90
7	Related party transactions	90
8	Protective Measures	90

Financial Statements		92

	Consolidated Financial Statements	92
	Company only Financial Statements	118

Other information		128

Table of Contents


		Independent auditor's report		128
		Profit appropriation provisions		128
		Shares carrying limited economic entitlement		128
		Branches		128

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Preparation

In this report, the terms "we", "us", "our" and "the Company" refer to Pharvaris N.V. and, where appropriate, its subsidiaries.

This report has been prepared by the Company's board (the "Board") pursuant to Section 2:391 of the Dutch Civil Code ("DCC") and also contains (i) the Company's statutory annual accounts within the meaning of Section 2:361(1) DCC and (ii) to the extent applicable, the information to be added pursuant to Section 2:392 DCC. The 2022 consolidated financial statements are prepared according to the International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS") as issued by the European Union ("IFRS-EU") and the Company financial statements, including the accompanying notes, have been prepared in accordance with Part 9 of Book 2 of the Dutch Civil Code, Section 2:362 (8), which allows companies that apply IFRS-EU in their consolidated financial statements to use the same measurement principles in their Company financial statements. This report relates to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 and, unless explicitly stated otherwise, information presented in this report is as at December 31, 2022.

1.2 Forward-looking statements

This report contains certain statements that are or may be forward-looking statements with respect to us, our industry and our business that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical fact contained in this report, including statements regarding our future financial condition, results of operations and/or business achievements, including, without limitation, statements containing the words “believe,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “may,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “will,” “intend” and similar expressions are forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. Such forward-looking statements involve unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, financial condition, performance or achievements, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to:

•

uncertainty in the outcome of our interactions with regulatory authorities, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or FDA, with respect to the clinical hold on PHA121, or deucrictibant, clinical trials in the U.S.;

•

the expected timing, progress, or success of our clinical development programs, especially for PHVS416 and PHVS719, which are in mid-stage global clinical trials and are currently on hold in the U.S. as a result of the clinical hold;

•

risks arising from epidemic diseases, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which may adversely impact our business, nonclinical studies and clinical trials, the timing of regulatory approvals and the value of our ordinary shares;

•

the timing, costs and other limitations involved in obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates PHVS416 and PHVS719 or any other product candidate that we may develop in the future;

•

our ability to market, commercialize and achieve market acceptance for our product candidates PHVS416 and PHVS719 or any of our other product candidates that we may develop in the future, if approved;

•

our ability to establish commercial capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market, sell and distribute our product candidates;

•

our dependence on third parties to perform critical activities related to the research, nonclinical safety and toxicology studies, development and manufacturing of our product candidates;

•

disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies;

•

the expense, time and uncertainty involved in the development and consistent manufacturing and supply of our product candidates, some or all of which may never reach the regulatory approval stage;

•

our ability to raise capital when needed and on acceptable terms;

•

our ability to enter into any new licensing agreements or to maintain any licensing agreements with respect to our product candidates;

•

our reliance on collaboration partners and licensees, whose actions we cannot control;

•

the willingness of private insurers and other payors to provide reimbursement for our products;

•

regulatory developments in the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions;

•

the outcome and timing of price negotiations with governmental authorities;

•

our ability to compete in the pharmaceutical industry and with competitive generic products;

•

our ability to protect our intellectual property and know-how and operate our business without infringing the intellectual property rights or regulatory exclusivity of others;

Table of Contents

•

side effects or adverse events associated with the use of our product candidates;

•

our ability to defend against costly and damaging liability claims resulting from the testing of our product candidates in the clinic or, if, approved, any commercial sales;

•

the loss of any of our key personnel;

•

our estimates of market sizes and anticipated uses of our product candidates;

•

our estimates of future performance;

•

our estimates regarding anticipated operating losses, future revenues, expenses, capital requirements and our needs for additional financing;

•

our ability to comply with existing or future laws and regulations in a cost-efficient manner;

•

our ability to manage negative consequences from changes in applicable laws and regulations, including tax laws;

•

our ability to successfully remediate the material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting and to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting;

•

our expectations regarding the time during which we will be an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act or a foreign private issuer; and

•

changes and uncertainty in general market, political and economic conditions, including as a result of inflation and the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

You should refer to the risk factors included in chapter 3.2 of this report for a discussion of important factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements. As a result of these factors, we cannot assure you that the forward-looking statements in this report will prove to be accurate. Furthermore, if our forward-looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. In light of the significant uncertainties in these forward-looking statements, you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame or at all. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and other similar statements reflect our belief 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.

You should read this report and the documents that we reference in this report, completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

2. Business

2.1 History and development of the company

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for rare diseases with significant unmet need, initially focused on angioedema and other bradykinin-mediated diseases. Our first molecule, deucrictibant (PHA121, PHA-022121), is a novel, small-molecule bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist for the treatment of hereditary angioedema, or HAE. Bradykinin-B2-receptor inhibition is a clinically validated mechanism for the treatment of HAE, as demonstrated by icatibant, which is a bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist approved in Europe in 2008 and in the United States in 2011 (as FIRAZYR). We designed deucrictibant to improve upon the therapeutic profile of existing therapies and, through oral delivery, to provide patients with quality of life and convenience that is superior to current standard-of-care HAE treatments, which are injectables. We believe deucrictibant has the potential to provide a safe, effective and convenient option for both acute and prophylactic treatments of HAE, in the form of our PHVS416 on-demand rapid exposure product candidate, and for prophylaxis of HAE, in the form of our PHVS719 small daily dose extended-release product candidate. We believe that our product candidates may address a broader range of angioedema attacks than other available treatments since deucrictibant blocks the actual signal that leads to angioedema (the interaction of bradykinin, or BK, with the bradykinin B2 receptor), rather than an upstream signal. By blocking the action of bradykinin, we can prevent its aberrant signaling regardless of the pathway that generates BK. In our completed Phase 1 trials to date, we have observed that deucrictibant was orally bioavailable and well tolerated at all doses studied, with approximately dose-proportional exposure. We also have successfully demonstrated proof-of-mechanism through a clinical pharmacodynamics, or PD, assessment with the bradykinin challenge, which had been utilized as a validated surrogate assessment for dose selection in the icatibant development program.

We have demonstrated clinical efficacy and tolerability in a Phase 2 study (RAPIDe-1) treating attacks of HAE. The data allowed us to compare the projected therapeutic performance of deucrictibant with that of icatibant. However, we have not conducted a head-to-head comparison of icatibant to deucrictibant in a clinical study. We plan to efficiently progress deucrictibant through clinical development for on-demand and prophylactic use with our on-demand product candidate, PHVS416, and prophylactic extended-release product candidate, PHVS719, respectively. We commenced our RAPIDe-1 Phase 2 clinical trial of PHVS416 in February 2021 and reported topline Phase 2 data for the acute treatment of patients with HAE attacks in December 2022. We also commenced the CHAPTER-1 Phase 2 clinical trial for

Table of Contents

prophylaxis in 2021 using twice-daily dosing of the PHVS416 softgel capsules. Our primary objective with this trial is to assess the efficacy and safety profile of PHVS416 dose regimens for prophylactic treatments in HAE patients. We expect to have Phase 2 data from CHAPTER-1 by the end of 2023. In February 2022, we reported Phase 1 clinical data with PHVS719 demonstrating pharmacokinetics of the extended-release formulation and the potential for once-daily dosing. Our legal and commercial name is Pharvaris N.V. In connection with our initial public offering in the first quarter of 2021, we converted the legal form of our company under Dutch law from a private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) to a public company with limited liability (naamloze vennootschap) and changed our name from Pharvaris B.V. to Pharvaris N.V. Pharvaris B.V. was founded in 2015 in Leiden, The Netherlands. Our principal executive offices are located in Emmy Noetherweg 2, 2333 BK Leiden, The Netherlands, telephone: +31 (0)71 2036 410.

Our principal expenditures since inception have been our research and development expenses, as more fully described elsewhere in this report. To date, we have relied solely on the issuance of equity securities to finance our operations and internal growth. For more information, please see Liquidity and Capital Resources in chapter 2.5.

The SEC maintains an Internet website that contains reports and other information about issuers, like us, that file electronically with the SEC. The address of that website is www.sec.gov. Our website can be found at www.pharvaris.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this report, and you should not consider information contained on our website to be a part of this report.

2.2 Overview

Deucrictibant (PHA121, PHA-022121) is a novel, highly potent inhibitor and selective small molecule bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist and, to our knowledge, the only orally available bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist currently in development. Deucrictibant has been observed to be a potent inhibitor in vitro as assessed using human recombinant bradykinin B2 receptors (150 pM);ex vivo as studied against endogenous bradykinin B2 receptors in a human umbilical vein model (350 pM); and in vivo in the human bradykinin-challenge model (170 pM). Potency as used in this report refers to the amount of drug required to produce a pharmacological effect of given intensity and is not a measure of therapeutic efficacy. We have released topline data demonstrating efficacy and tolerability in a Phase 2 clinical trial for treatment of attacks in our RAPIDe-1 study but have not completed assessment of efficacy for prevention of attacks in our CHAPTER-1 study. PHA121 demonstrated 5000-fold selectivity for the bradykinin B2 receptor when compared to approximately 170 other molecular targets, including the bradykinin B1 receptor. We designed deucrictibant as a new chemotype with properties compatible with oral delivery. We are developing deucrictibant for the on-demand indication as PHVS416, which is delivered in a softgel capsule designed to rapidly treat symptoms with a single dose. We are also developing deucrictibant for the prophylactic indication as PHVS719, which is a small daily dose tablet with an extended-release formulation designed for the patient to maintain therapeutic levels for at least 24 hours and to achieve a steady-state plasma concentration within 72 hours.

In our Phase 1 clinical trials to-date, we have observed rapid exposure and predictable linear pharmacokinetics, or PK, with and without food. In addition, we observed deucrictibant to be a potent antagonist of the bradykinin B2 receptor, in vitro and in vivo with healthy volunteers. In our models based on PK data from our Phase 1 clinical trial of deucrictibant and published data for icatibant, both in the BK challenge assessment, deucrictibant was shown to be consistently 25-fold more potent at inhibiting the effects of administered bradykinin than icatibant on a molar basis. We have not conducted a head-to-head comparison of icatibant to deucrictibant in a clinical trial but have compared the published data for icatibant to data from our Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials of deucrictibant. While we believe this comparison to icatibant to be useful and appropriate, the value of this and other comparisons to icatibant in this report may be limited because they are not derived from a head-to-head trial and they are from trials that were conducted under different protocols at different sites and at different times. Without head-to-head data, we will be unable to make comparative claims for our product candidates, if approved.

In our Phase 2 placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of PHVS416 for on-demand treatment of attacks in patients with HAE type 1 and 2 (RAPIDe-1), a statistically significant and clinical meaningful reduction of the patient-reported symptoms of HAE was observed for the attacks treated with all doses of PHVS416 (10, 20, 30 mg) compared to placebo-treated attacks. The study’s primary endpoint—symptom relief at four hours after treatment with study drug—as well as all key secondary efficacy endpoints were met. Consistently with its pharmacokinetic profile, PHVS416 demonstrated rapid onset of action, symptom relief, and resolution of the manifestations of HAE attacks as well as sustained clinical effects, with consistent findings across outcome measures. In addition, PHVS416 substantially reduced the use of rescue medication compared to the placebo. PHVS416 was generally well tolerated at all dose levels with three treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) reported for one PHVS416 30-mg-treated attack (2.8%) and one TRAE reported for one placebo-treated attack (1.9%); there were no treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs), no treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of severe severity, and no AEs leading to treatment discontinuation. We believe these positive Phase 2 data support further development of PHVS416 as a potential oral on-demand therapy for HAE attacks.

HAE is a rare and potentially life-threatening genetic condition with symptoms that include episodes of debilitating and often painful swelling in the hands, feet, face (lips and tongue), gastrointestinal tract, urogenital region, or airways. Attacks are unpredictable in frequency, location, timing, and severity, with multiple types of triggers. According to scientific publications, patients experience a median of 14 attacks per year, and half of patients experience a potentially life-threatening airway attack at least once in their lifetime. Airway attacks are particularly dangerous and can lead to asphyxiation. If left untreated, attacks can last multiple days and are commonly painful, leading to multiple sick days and even hospitalization. According to HAE International, as of October 2014, HAE affected from 1:50,000 to 1:10,000 individuals globally, or at least 6,600 patients in the U.S. and at least 8,900 patients in the EU.

Global sales of treatments for HAE in 2022 are estimated at approximately $2.7 billion based on publicly available information and, according to public research reports, are forecast to grow at an approximately 9% compound annual growth rate to $4.3 billion through 2027. Current approved products treat acute HAE attacks in an on-demand setting or seek to prevent or reduce future HAE attacks in a prophylactic setting. Each of these products generally works in one of the following ways: inhibiting the bradykinin B2 receptor, replacing

Table of Contents

the deficiency in C1-INH activity, or inhibiting plasma kallikrein. Currently most standard-of-care therapies are administered by injection, which patients can find challenging despite their efficacy because these therapies often result in painful injection-site reactions (leading some patients to delay treatment and risk attacks), are time consuming to receive (as some need to be administered in a clinic), and are difficult to carry and/or store. We believe HAE patients need alternatives that better meet their objectives for ease of disease treatment, disease control, and improved quality of life. We anticipate that there will be strong interest in safe and effective, orally delivered, small-molecule treatments that can match or improve upon the efficacy profile of existing therapies.

Based on results observed from our four completed clinical trials to-date, we believe our product candidates that contain deucrictibant will demonstrate advantages and differentiation relative to currently approved HAE therapies and other oral therapies in clinical development. Deucrictibant’s bradykinin- B2-receptor-inhibition mechanism has a well-established clinical therapeutic profile in a currently approved product in the rapid treatment of acute HAE attacks. We have observed greater potency for deucrictibant compared to icatibant using a surrogate endpoint in the bradykinin challenge study, potentially resulting in both a smaller therapeutic dose and a longer duration of effect. We evaluated the PD and PK of deucrictibant in a bradykinin-challenge model in healthy subjects. The bradykinin challenge was validated as a surrogate assessment for dose selection in the original development program for icatibant, as reviewed by the FDA and the EMA. The clinical dose of icatibant established with the bradykinin challenge has demonstrated successful treatment of HAE attacks in multiple randomized clinical trials and over 10 years of clinical experience. We conducted a proof-of-concept clinical trial testing the effects of BK in healthy volunteers in our bradykinin-challenge trial, where we evaluated the effect of deucrictibant on cardiovascular parameters affected by bradykinin such as blood pressure, heart rate and cardiac output in healthy volunteers. We observed that deucrictibant was more potent in blocking the effects of BK in humans than icatibant, when comparing the deucrictibant results of the trial to published data on icatibant.

The data from this trial allowed us to generate a PK/PD correlation model. Based on this model and published data on icatibant, we predict the duration of effect for a single oral dose of 12 mg deucrictibant to exceed that of 30 mg of icatibant and a single oral dose of 22 mg deucrictibant will cover the same duration of effect as two icatibant injections of 30 mg administered six hours apart. Furthermore, analysis based on the results from this trial suggest that therapeutic doses of deucrictibant may be at least 10-fold smaller than the doses required for oral kallikrein inhibitors in development. In addition, we believe that the observed PK profile of our compound demonstrates the potential of PHVS719 as a prophylactic treatment of HAE by achieving steady-state plasma concentrations within 72 hours. The BK-challenge data was generated in a Phase 1 clinical trial. The topline data from our deucrictibant Phase 2 RAPIDe-1 trial treating HAE attacks were consistent with the predictions of the BK challenge in both onset of symptom relief and duration of effect (use of rescue medication). However, we have not conducted a head-to-head comparison of icatibant to deucrictibant in a clinical trial but have compared the published data for icatibant to data from our Phase 1 clinical trial of deucrictibant. Potency as used in this report refers to the amount of drug required to produce a pharmacological effect of given intensity and is not a measure of therapeutic efficacy.

In August 2022, the FDA placed a hold on the clinical trials of deucrictibant in the U.S. based on its review of nonclinical data. The FDA requested that Pharvaris conduct an additional long-term rodent toxicology study and update the Investigator’s Brochure. Pharvaris participated in a Type A meeting with the FDA to discuss paths to address the on-demand and prophylactic holds. A protocol for a 26-week rodent toxicology study has been aligned with the FDA and the study has initiated. We expect to submit results for this study to the FDA by the end of 2023. However, we cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to resolve the clinical holds.

The FDA also agreed to partially lift the clinical hold on on-demand to allow two remaining U.S. participants in RAPIDe-1 to complete treatment of a final HAE attack per protocol. All other clinical studies of deucrictibant are currently on hold in the U.S.

Outside the U.S., the regulatory status remains unchanged for the CHAPTER-1 study and other studies, including an open-label, long-term extension study (RAPIDe-2). Pharvaris notified country-specific regulatory authorities in Canada, Europe, Israel, and the UK of the U.S. clinical holds. All active sites outside of the U.S. continue to recruit participants in the CHAPTER-1 clinical study. We anticipate announcing top-line data for CHAPTER-1 by the end of 2023.

Additional trials may be required by the FDA, EMA or other regulators even with positive data from RAPIDe-1. We are also planning to conduct a registration-directed trial in the on-demand setting and a registration-directed trial with patients who will be randomized to receive PHVS719 or placebo to assess safety and efficacy in HAE patients. In addition, we also plan to run an open-label extension study in the prophylactic setting with both rollover and non-rollover subjects to collect longer duration safety data.

Differentiation of deucrictibant

We believe that deucrictibant, as the active ingredient in underlying both PHVS416 and PHVS719, has the potential to be highly differentiated for both the on-demand and prophylactic settings with the key benefits below:

PHVS416. We believe that PHVS416, an on-demand, rapid exposure softgel capsule, has the potential to be highly differentiated for patients suffering from acute HAE attacks with the following benefits:

Table of Contents


Complete Symptom Resolution	• Clinically validated mechanism of bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonism
	• Utilizing same in vivo surrogate assessment for dose selection as the development program for icatibant (validity confirmed in the RAPIDe-1 Phase 2 trial)
	• More potent inhibitor than icatibant
	• Longer half-life than icatibant
Rapid Onset of Activity	• Exposure exceeds the anticipated threshold therapeutic plasma level (EC85) in 30 minutes, with or without food
Potential Reduced Treatment Burden / Enhanced	• No injection needed
Patient Convenience	• Convenient oral formulation removes barriers inherent in current injectable treatments to facilitate early treatment of acute HAE attacks and overall treatment of more attacks than currently reported
	• Capsule reduces treatment burden
	• Potential lowest dosage of any oral HAE on-demand treatment

PHVS719. We believe that PHVS719, a prophylactic extended-release tablet designed to be taken in small, daily doses, has the potential to be highly differentiated for HAE patients with the following benefits:


Protection From Attacks	• Validated, proven mechanism to address all bradykinin, regardless of pathway
Ideal Release Profile for Prophylactic Use	• Reaches and maintains steady-state concentration within 72 hours
	• Appropriate pharmacokinetic profile with or without food
Potential Reduced Treatment Burden / Enhanced	• Convenient oral daily dosing with extended-release tablet
Patient Convenience	• Potential for once-a-day dosing
	• Potential lowest dosage of any oral HAE treatment; ease of administration
	• Well tolerated throughout therapeutic ranges as demonstrated by multiple clinical trials to-date
	• No injection needed

In addition to the differentiation of our individual products, having on-demand and prophylactic products with the same active ingredient enables patients to maintain a trusted active medicine when they change their dosing regimen and delivery mechanism moving from on-demand to prophylactic treatment (or back). This may be particularly valued by children or adolescents who typically get treated on-demand

Table of Contents

only and graduate to prophylaxis as attack frequency increases (commonly after puberty). To our knowledge, we are the only company that will offer this option to patients.

We plan to develop separate products for on-demand and prophylactic use, PHVS416 and PHVS719 respectively, with both products utilizing the same active ingredient, deucrictibant. PHVS416 will be a softgel capsule, and PHVS719 will be an extended-release tablet. We reported topline data from our RAPIDe-1 Phase 2 clinical trial of PHVS416 in December 2022. We also commenced a Phase 2 clinical trial for prophylaxis in 2021 using twice-daily dosing of the PHVS416 softgel capsules (CHAPTER-1). Our primary objective with this trial is to assess the effectiveness and safety profile for prophylaxis with bradykinin- B2-receptor-antagonism in HAE patients. We also reported data from a Phase 1 clinical trial with PHVS719 in 2022 showing once-daily pharmacokinetics and tolerability of the extended-release formulation.

Expansion of the Portfolio

Our goal is to expand our portfolio with additional programs addressing other BK-mediated diseases, building on our strategic strength and expertise in the bradykinin-B2-receptor pathway. Our approach is to identify additional disease areas and indications with strong scientific rationale, high unmet medical need, a defined target population and significant differentiation potential. We are actively pursuing new synthesis, medicinal chemistry, and lead optimization to identify additional and/or follow-on product candidates. In collaboration and discussion with key opinion leaders, we are considering exploratory proof-of-concept studies to validate the potential of bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonism in new indications such as cardiovascular, allergy and immunology, neurological disease and others.

Our Strengths

Our Company is built upon the following strengths:

•

Broad strength and expertise in the bradykinin-B2-receptor pathway. Members of the management team include an inventor of icatibant, the leadership team that developed FIRAZYR through European approval, and a key member from the TAKHZYRO development team;

•

Deucrictibant is an orally available product candidate with a clinically validated mechanism of action that addresses serious unmet medical need in HAE;

•

Deucrictibant has demonstrated physicochemical properties suitable to formulations as both an on-demand product candidate, PHVS416, and a distinct prophylactic product candidate, PHVS719;

•

Deucrictibant, compared to icatibant, the currently approved bradykinin B2-receptor inhibitor, demonstrated higher preclinical potency in blocking bradykinin signaling at the bradykinin B2-receptor, and good oral bioavailability and a longer half-life in humans, which has resulted in longer duration of the BK-blocking pharmacodynamic effect in humans;

•

We wholly own intellectual property – including allowed and in-process patent applications – covering deucrictibant and additional molecules; and

•

Our scientific experience allows us to leverage deep insight and experience in the bradykinin- B2-receptor pathway to expand our portfolio into other BK-mediated angioedema and BK-mediated diseases beyond angioedema.

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to develop and commercialize therapies that are superior to currently available treatment options and improve patient quality of life and convenience. Our initial approach for HAE and potential expansions into other BK-mediated angioedema and diseases is based upon extensive patient, physician, and payer research to identify the key needs in the market. According to our analysis, oral therapy remains the highest unmet need for both on-demand and prophylactic use in HAE. Importantly, our research shows that patients are not willing to accept significantly reduced efficacy or safety with a switch to oral therapy. A therapy for HAE, whether for on-demand or prophylaxis, needs to offer strong efficacy, high tolerability & safety, and convenient administration. Our intention with PHVS416 and

Table of Contents

PHVS719 is to develop products for the on-demand and prophylactic setting that can meet all of these needs. We are not aware of any other therapies on the market or in development that are able to provide such a comprehensive value proposition across the spectrum for HAE.

The key elements of our strategy include:

•

Continue to advance deucrictibant through clinical development for on-demand treatment of HAE utilizing a fast-onset formulation, known as PHVS416. We intend to develop and commercialize PHVS416 as a fast- acting, orally available, potent inhibitor and selective treatment for acute HAE

•

Advance the development of deucrictibant for prophylactic treatment of HAE utilizing an extended-release formulation, known as PHVS719. We intend to advance PHVS719 through clinical development as an extended-release prophylactic treatment of HAE. We plan to leverage our clinical data and experience from the development of PHVS416 in the on-demand setting to expedite our efforts in the prophylactic setting. We expect the efficacy, safety and PK data from our Phase 2 trials RAPIDe-1 and CHAPTER-1 of PHVS416 to help select and refine our prophylactic dose for the PHVS719 clinical trials.

•

Expand the range of bradykinin-mediated angioedema indications to which PHVS416 and PHVS719 can be applied. In addition to Type 1 or Type 2 HAE, bradykinin is also an important mediator for other types of non-histaminergic angioedema, such as: hereditary angioedema with normal C1-INH and acquired angioedema (AAE) due to C1-INH deficiency. Currently there are still no treatments approved for these angioedema patients who are unresponsive to conventional antihistamine/glucocorticoid treatment and have a high unmet medical need for effective therapies. Several clinical reports indicate that off-label use of icatibant has successfully treated acute attacks of these non-histaminergic angioedema patients, which provides a strong rationale to expand the development PHVS416 and PHVS719 to address such a high unmet medical need.

•

Expand upon our expertise in the bradykinin-B2-receptor pathway. We intend to leverage the strategic strengths, insight, and deep experience of our team in the bradykinin-B2-receptor pathway to identify additional disease areas and indications with strong scientific rationale, high unmet medical need, a defined target population and significant differentiation potential. As such, we will seek to develop follow-on product candidates that serve additional BK-mediated diseases beyond angioedema, such as cardiovascular, allergy and immunology, neurological disease or others.

•

Commercialize our product candidates. We intend to retain economic and commercial ownership of our current product candidates. If approved, we expect to independently commercialize both PHVS416 and PHVS719 in the United States, Europe and certain other countries. As we advance towards regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will establish a focused commercialization and sales infrastructure suitable for HAE.

Hereditary Angioedema

Disease Overview

HAE is a rare and potentially life-threatening genetic condition. HAE is an autosomal dominant disease, meaning that a defect in only one copy of the gene leads to symptoms and that it occurs at similar rates in both males and females. It is mainly caused by one or more mutations (inherited or spontaneous) in the SERPING1 gene, which codes for the C1-esterase inhibitor protein C1-INH. Deficiency or malfunction of C1-INH leads to uncontrolled synthesis and activity of plasma kallikrein and unconstrained BK production. Excessive BK production is recognized to be the key mediator of symptoms in patients with HAE and manifests as edema attacks, most commonly in the limbs, face (lips and tongue), intestinal tract, urogenital region and airways. HAE patients with a deficiency in C1-INH activity are classified as Type 1 or Type 2. Type 1 is the most common form and results in low levels of circulating C1-INH, and Type 2 results in production of a low function protein. An additional form of HAE, called normal C1-INH HAE, can occur in patients with normal levels of C1-INH for a variety of reasons including mutations in genes for Factor XIIa, plasminogen, angiopoietin-1, or kininogen-1. Moreover, bradykinin-induced acute attacks of angioedema can occur idiopathically in individuals for which a hereditary cause has not yet been identified. Excessive amounts of BK can also be caused by increased circulation of estrogens, reduced C1-INH levels due to underlying diseases, reduced elimination of BK, or through use of medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme, or ACE, inhibitors and tissue plasminogen activator, or tPA.

Excessive BK generation and increased risks for edema attacks in HAE may occur during conditions associated with inflammation, infections, ischemia and allergic reactions. Attacks often lead to discomfort, pain and nausea but can become life-threatening in the case of airway obstruction, with a 30% risk of asphyxiation if the attack remains untreated. The number and severity of attacks vary highly between patients, and the most severely affected patients can experience attacks every few days. Attacks can occur spontaneously although they often are associated with anxiety, stress, minor trauma, surgery, or illnesses. Commonly, patients are alerted to an impending attack by prodromal symptoms which include rash, fatigue, and muscle aches. The severity of attacks is unpredictable and not related to their underlying frequency. Airway swelling is particularly dangerous and can lead to death by asphyxiation. Although rare, at least half of HAE patients have experienced a life-threatening airway swelling attack and airway attacks remain a major cause of mortality in HAE patients. Swelling typically develops over 24 hours and resolves within five days without treatment. Symptoms typically present in young children and may take 5-10 years or until early adolescence or young adulthood to be diagnosed. HAE affects 1:50,000 to 1:10,000 individuals globally, or at least 6,600 patients in the U.S. and at least 8,900 patients in the EU.

As a result of the lifelong nature of HAE and the challenges related to the use of many of the injected therapies, patient surveys consistently indicate an overwhelming desire for an oral therapy. We believe that a safe and effective oral agent has the potential to transform treatment for this disease. We also believe that opportunities exist for both acute and prophylactic treatments, and we intend to develop drug candidates for both on-demand and prophylactic use with the goal of providing patients with a set of oral options to prevent and treat their disease.

Table of Contents

Current Treatments and Their Limitations

There are currently two treatment approaches to the management of HAE: acute (on-demand) treatment of attacks and prevention of attacks with short- or long-term prophylactic therapy.

•

On-Demand Treatment: The currently approved products for treatment of acute HAE attacks are all injectable products and include C1-INH replacement products such as human plasma-derived C1-INH concentrates (BERINERT, CINRYZE, and CETOR) or recombinant human C1-INH (RUCONEST); the bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonist icatibant (FIRAZYR, and available as a generic product); and, the plasma kallikrein inhibitor ecallantide (KALBITOR), which has been known to cause allergic reactions including anaphylaxis and must be administered by a doctor or nurse in a healthcare setting. Human plasma-derived C1-INH concentrate products are isolated from donated human plasma and historically have been impacted by supply shortages. Subcutaneous, or s.c., icatibant is the only available bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist indicated for treatment of acute HAE attacks Type 1 or Type 2 with C1-INH deficiency. In acute HAE attacks, icatibant has been shown to provide a significantly faster onset of relief than placebo (2.0 h versus 19.8 h). Icatibant is recommended as a first-line treatment option for the treatment of acute HAE attacks in patients with HAE.

•

Prophylactic Treatment: Currently approved prophylactic therapies for HAE include C1-INH replacement products, such as intravenously delivered CINRYZE and subcutaneously delivered HAEGARDA/ BERINERT 2000/3000 (both of which require twice-weekly injections); the monoclonal antibody plasma kallikrein inhibitor lanadelumab-flyo (TAKHZYRO); and the recently approved small-molecule plasma kallikrein inhibitor berotralstat (ORLADEYO). Current treatment guidelines recommend against the use of the traditional oral medications for HAE, such as antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid or epsilon aminocaproic acid) for HAE due to their limited efficacy. Attenuated androgens (e.g., danazol, stanozolol, and oxandrolone) are recommended only as second-line treatments for the prevention of HAE attacks, since there are numerous contraindications, therapeutic class adverse events or AEs, and overall suboptimal control of HAE in many patients. The use of attenuated androgens is limited by numerous safety issues, including seborrhea, altered libido, depression, fatigue, menstrual abnormalities, and masculinization.

To our knowledge, one other angioedema-specific oral medication for on-demand use is in clinical development, a kallikrein inhibitor, sebetralstat, developed by Kalvista and currently in phase 3.

We believe that the properties and mechanism of deucrictibant enable us to develop oral product candidates that will be generally more convenient for patients to take, without sacrificing efficacy for treatment or prevention of angioedema attacks. For example, the known oral kallikrein inhibitor tested in on-demand settings to date have utilized doses that are more than twenty-fold higher than the efficacious dose we observed for PHVS416 in the RAPIDe-1 study and have not yet demonstrated efficacy matching the approved injectable products. In the prophylactic setting, oral kallikrein inhibitors have not yet demonstrated efficacy similar to the approved injectable products and have used or are projected to use doses much higher than we project for PHVS719.

Related indications to BK

In addition to Type 1 or Type 2 HAE, bradykinin is also an important mediator for other types of non-histaminergic angioedema, such as: hereditary angioedema with normal C1-INH and acquired angioedema (AAE) due to C1-INH deficiency. Unlike HAE Types 1 and 2, for other BK-mediated angioedema, an unclear pathophysiology and lack of consistent diagnostic criteria have limited the opportunity for the clinical investigation and new treatment development. While some products have been approved broadly for the treatment of HAE, actual coverage and reimbursement is limited due to the lack of positive clinical evidence included in labelling documents for normal C1-INH and acquired angioedema (AAE) due to C1-INH deficiency. Recently the clinical research for non-histaminergic angioedema has made significant progress. Similar to Type 1 or 2 HAE, the kinin pathway potentially plays a critical role in the underlying pathophysiology of non-histaminergic angioedema, for example, bradykinin has been shown to be elevated in plasma from non-histaminergic angioedema patients during acute attacks and several clinical reports indicate that icatibant has successfully treated acute attacks in either hereditary angioedema patients with normal C1-INH or AAE due to C1-INH deficiency patients. All these provide strong rationales to expand the development PHVS416 and PHVS719 to these types of BK-mediated angioedema and address the high unmet medical need.

To our knowledge, one kallikrein inhibitor (lanadelumab-flyo, injected subcutaneously) has been in development for hereditary angioedema with normal C1-INH. A Phase 3 study for prophylaxis did not meet its primary endpoint.

Deucrictibant

Overview

Since the 1990s, many companies have tried but failed to discover oral bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonists, as the bradykinin B2 receptor has proved to be a difficult target for the development of orally available antagonists. Historically, compounds targeting the bradykinin B2 receptor with adequate potency have had physicochemical properties inconsistent with oral bioavailability. The bradykinin B2 receptor is a G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) that binds to the peptide bradykinin in an elongated fashion. It has been challenging to identify a small molecule that can bind in this pocket potently enough to compete with bradykinin while still being small enough with appropriate properties to demonstrate oral bioavailability. Starting with modeled structures of the bradykinin-binding pocket of the bradykinin B2 receptor, we designed and synthesized a novel lead series (a set of molecules with the potential to be further optimized). Through our lead optimization program, we synthesized over 600 compounds to select a small molecule that is designed to fit in the bradykinin- binding pocket at the bradykinin B2 receptor, preventing or halting its signaling activity, while also possessing desirable physicochemical properties and other profiling characteristics.

Table of Contents

Bradykinin is the principal mediator of the signs and symptoms that represent acute HAE and other bradykinin-mediated angioedema attacks, acting as a potent and selective agonist of the bradykinin B2 receptor.

In HAE and other bradykinin-mediated angioedema, contact activation triggers increased activity of plasma kallikrein, resulting in excessive breakdown of high-molecular-weight kininogen (HMWK) and increased production of cleaved HMWK (cHMWK) and bradykinin.

Excessive bradykinin generation, as in HAE, promotes vascular permeability by activating the bradykinin B2 receptor, leading to plasma extravasation and subcutaneous or submucosal tissue swelling typical of an angioedema attack.

As the figure below illustrates, treatment with deucrictibant, an orally bioavailable low-molecular weight, potent, competitive and selective antagonist of the human bradykinin B2 receptor, is intended to block and prevent activation of the bradykinin B2 receptor by elevated bradykinin levels and prevent or halt the angioedema process, with reduced or resolved swelling as a consequence. Deucrictibant therefore has the therapeutic potential for both acute on-demand treatment and long-term prevention of attacks in patients with bradykinin- mediated angioedema.

Deucrictibant combines the preclinical selectivity of bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonism with oral bioavailability and extended exposure upon a single dose. Deucrictibant is being developed to become the first effective orally administered antagonist of BK activity with therapeutic potential for both acute on-demand treatment and long- term prevention of attacks in patients with HAE and other BK-mediated angioedema.

Deucrictibant is an orally bioavailable competitive antagonist of the bradykinin B2 receptor with high affinity and high antagonist potency. Deucrictibant has been observed to be a potent inhibitor in vitro as assessed using human recombinant bradykinin B2 receptors (150 pM); ex vivo as studied against endogenous bradykinin B2 receptors in a human umbilical vein model (350 pM); and in vivo in the human bradykinin-challenge model (170 pM).

Deucrictibant demonstrated 4000-fold selectivity for the bradykinin B2 receptor when compared to approximately 170 other molecular targets, including the bradykinin B1 receptor. As shown in the graphs below depicting mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) in a bradykinin challenge study in monkeys (back-translated from human), deucrictibant showed clear dose-dependent activity. While differences between human and monkey PK prevent direct extrapolation to human dose, deucrictibant demonstrated longer duration and faster onset of activity than injected icatibant in the same study. However, we have not conducted a head-to-head comparison of icatibant to deucrictibant in a clinical trial but have compared the published data for icatibant to data from our Phase 1 clinical trial of deucrictibant. While we believe this comparison to icatibant to be useful and appropriate, the value of this and other comparisons to icatibant in this report may be limited because they are not derived from a head-to-head trial and they are from trials that were conducted under different protocols at different sites and at different times. Without head-to-head data, we will be unable to make comparative claims for our product candidates, if approved.

BK-Challenge in Pre-Clinical Animal Model

Table of Contents

In a published study conducted by the Company, a dose of 0.6 mg/kg sc icatibant was used in monkeys, as PK data indicated that this dose would provide an exposure (Cmax 1,044 ng/mL, AUC 2,155 ng*h/mL) similar to the exposures seen in humans at a therapeutic dose of 30 mg sc (Cmax 979 ng/mL, AUC 2,191 ng*h/mL). The dose was found to effectively antagonize the BK challenge in monkeys up to six hours after dosing, similar to its duration of action in humans. The maximal effect of icatibant in this model was reached at the second measure time point, two hours after dosing. The vehicle in the icatibant study was saline.

Deucrictibant inhibited the BK-induced changes in MABP at all doses tested (0.1, 0.3, 1, 3 and 10 mg/kg given orally). The data show an early onset of activity, as the efficacy was already maximal at the first time point measured, one hour after oral dosing. This is a faster onset of action as compared to icatibant (0.6 mg/kg sc), which was maximally active on the BK-induced changes in MABP at two hours after dosing.

Nonclinical Safety

The conducted nonclinical package for deucrictibant includes secondary pharmacodynamics, safety pharmacology, genotoxicity, reproductive and developmental studies and general toxicity studies up to 6 months in rats and up to 9 months in monkeys. Deucrictibant did not demonstrate any in vitro or in vivo genotoxicity nor in vitro phototoxic potential. No findings considered relevant to humans were observed in GLP (Good Laboratory Practices)-compliant general toxicity studies in rats up to 3-months duration and in cynomolgus monkeys up to 9-months duration at doses up to the maximum tolerated in each species. Deucrictibant has not demonstrated any adverse effects on embryo-fetal survival and development in the humanized bradykinin-B2-receptor transgenic rat or in the rabbit. Furthermore, male and female fertility studies showed no adverse effects of deucrictibant on gonadal function, mating behavior, and reproductive performance.

Findings were observed in the repeat-dose rat data package that were considered not to be related to bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonism. Based on review of these nonclinical findings, the FDA put a clinical hold on trials of deucrictibant in the U.S. Pharvaris aligned with the FDA on the protocol and has initiated a 6-month rat exploratory study to further investigate the findings and address the clinical holds.

Clinical Trial Program

Table of Contents


Study Number	Short Description	Design	Status
Phase 1
C001	Single ascending dose (SAD) and BK challenge/SAD-proof of mechanism (POM)	Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose to assess safety and proof-of-mechanism through BK-challenge	Completed
C002	SAD extension	Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose to assess safety	Completed
C003	Absorption, metabolism, and excretion (mass balance)	Open-label, single dose 14 C-deucrictibant to characterize the absorption, metabolism, and excretion	Completed
C004	Drug-drug interaction (DDI)— CYP3A4 inhibitor (itraconazole) interaction	Open-label, single-sequence, crossover DDI study	Completed
C005	DDI—CYP interaction (cocktail)	Open-label, single-sequence, crossover DDI study	Completed
C006	Multiple ascending dose (MAD)	Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple ascending dose to assess safety and different doses	Completed
C009	Japanese PK bridging	Double-blind, randomized, single oral dose, two-period crossover comparing pharmacokinetics between Japanese and Caucasian volunteers	Completed
C010	Exploratory XR PK bridging	Open-label, randomized five-period crossover single-dose to assess bioavailability of two different extended-release formulations with and without food	Completed
C012	Hepatic impairment	Open-label, single dose to assess the effect of hepatic impairment on pharmacokinetics	Completed
C013	Renal impairment	Open-label, single dose to assess the effect of renal impairment on pharmacokinetics	Completed
C015	Confirmatory XR PK	Open-label, multiple doses to assess PK and safety of extended-release formulation	Ongoing
C016	DDI CYP3A4	Open-label, single-sequence, drug-drug interaction study to evaluate the effect of multiple oral doses of the moderate CYP3A4 inhibitor verapamil on the single dose PK of PHA-022121	Ongoing
C018	XR Food Effect	Open-label, randomized, two-period, two-way cross-over study to assess the influence of a high-calorie, high-fat meal on the bioavailability of extended-release formulation	Ongoing
C019	XR multi-ethnicity study	Open-label, multiple dose study to compare PK of extended-release formulation between healthy Japanese, Chinese, and Caucasian volunteers	Planned

Phase 2
C201 RAPIDe-1	PHVS416 on-demand	Phase 2, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, dose ranging study to assess safety and efficacy	Completed
C303 RAPIDe-2	PHVS416 on-demand open-label extension	Phase II/III, Extension Study to evaluate the safety of long-term on-demand treatment with PHA-022121 for acute HAE attacks	Ongoing
C301 CHAPTER-1	PHVS416 prophylaxis	Phase 2, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, dose ranging study to assess safety and efficacy	Ongoing
C306 RAPIDe-3	PHVS416 on demand	Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of PHVS416 compared with placebo as on demand treatment for achieving symptom relief of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks	Planned

PHA121-C001 (SAD and BK challenge / SAD-POM)

Deucrictibant-C001 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose and proof-of-mechanism study to examine the safety, tolerability, PK and PD of orally administered deucrictibant in healthy subjects. A total of 52 subjects received single ascending oral doses of deucrictibant up to 22 mg. The 16 remaining subjects received placebo. No adverse event, or AE, was reported as serious, no premature withdrawals due to AEs occurred and no severe AEs were reported. In addition, no clinically relevant fluctuations of blood pressure and no orthostatic hypotension linked to deucrictibant groups occurred. The overall incidence of AEs was similar between the placebo and deucrictibant. Treatment-related AEs were reported for three subjects who received deucrictibant (12 or 22 mg), all within

Table of Contents

the gastrointestinal system and of mild severity: upper abdominal pain, vomiting, and nausea. There were no apparent trends or dose-related changes in hematology, clinical chemistry, vital signs, or ECG.

Pharmacokinetics Analysis

Dose proportional PK was observed after single oral administration under fasting condition of deucrictibant in the dose range of 1 mg to 22 mg for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. Median tmax in the dose range of 1 mg to 22 mg was between 0.50 hour and 1.00 hour, with comparable ranges of individual values (ranging between 0.25 hour and 1.02 hours). Less than 1% of the dose was excreted unchanged in urine within 72 hours after administration.


Dose (mg)	Cmax (ng/mL)		C0.25h (ng/mL)		C12h (ng/mL)		Tmax (h)		t1/2 (h)
1		11		6		0.5		0.5	3.5
2		20		13		0.8		0.75		4.3
4.5		33		13		1.9		1.0		4.4
12		97		60		5.6		0.5		4.3
22		213		143		8.3		0.75		5.6
22 (high calorie, high-fat meal)		145		48		19.6		3.0		5.3

In this study, a high-calorie, high-fat (HCHF) meal reduced peak exposure and slightly increased overall exposure of deucrictibant: after a 22 mg dose, the mean Cmax of deucrictibant was lower (~32%) while AUCinf was higher (~ 42%) when deucrictibant was administered after a high calorie, high-fat breakfast (fed conditions) compared to administration under fasted conditions. While the median Tmax of deucrictibant was delayed by approximately two hours after administration under fed conditions, the plasma concentration for deucrictibant still reached the projected therapeutic levels (EC85, as determined in the bradykinin challenge described below) within 15 minutes. As shown in the table, the concentration of deucrictibant twelve hours post-dosing at 12 mg or 22 mg remained above projected therapeutic levels under both fed and fasted conditions.

Bradykinin Challenge Study

In addition, we also evaluated the PD of deucrictibant in a bradykinin challenge model, which was designed to demonstrate deucrictibant-mediated inhibition of the drop in blood pressure and increase in heart rate resulting from injection of a bradykinin bolus in healthy subjects. The bradykinin challenge is administered at specific intervals after the deucrictibant or placebo dose, and the inhibition of bradykinin-induced hemodynamic effects is a validated surrogate assessment that was used to select the dose in the original development program for icatibant, as reviewed by FDA and EMA. The clinical dose of icatibant established with the bradykinin challenge has demonstrated successful resolution of HAE attacks in randomized clinical trials and over 10 years of data post- approval.

In the bradykinin challenge, we assessed the inhibition of bradykinin effects at single doses of 12 and 22 mg deucrictibant. Bradykinin was injected intravenously before deucrictibant to calibrate each subject’s response, and then at 1, 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours after dosing with deucrictibant. We monitored cardiovascular responses at each time point (see figure above). At the same time, blood samples were drawn for PK assessment. Bradykinin injection induced a short-term change in mean arterial blood pressure, or MABP, heart rate, or HR, and cardiac output. In the presence of deucrictibant, this cardiovascular response was dampened to an extent depending on the concentration of deucrictibant.

We conducted a PK/PD analysis using the same approach as used by FDA in their evaluation of icatibant. The composite EC50 and EC85 values estimated from the combination of each PD response associated with the BK challenge are provided in the table below. Deucrictibant demonstrated higher PD potency based on plasma concentrations (roughly four-fold) than icatibant relative to published data for icatibant. Adjusting for the differences between molecular weight and plasma protein binding, we found that deucrictibant is 24-fold more potent (170 pM) in the bradykinin challenge than icatibant (4.1 nM) on a molecule-by-molecule basis, consistent with our preclinical in vitro measurements.


Composite average	deucrictibant		icatibant
EC50 (ng/mL)		2.4		9.5
EC85 (ng/mL)		13.8		53.8

Table of Contents

EC50: concentration at which compound induces a response half of its maximum possible response; EC85: concentration at which a compound induces 85% of its maximum response.

The data also allowed us to compare the projected therapeutic performance of deucrictibant with that of the icatibant study. However, we have not conducted a head-to-head comparison of icatibant to deucrictibant in a clinical trial but have compared the published data for icatibant to data from our Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trial of deucrictibant. While we believe this comparison to icatibant to be useful and appropriate, the value of this and other comparisons to icatibant in this report may be limited because they are not derived from a head-to-head trial and they are from trials that were conducted under different protocols at different sites and at different times. Without head-to-head data, we will be unable to make comparative claims for our product candidates, if approved. Clinical trials have shown for icatibant that the therapeutic response to an acute HAE attack wanes approximately 6 hours after dosing, coinciding with the drop in icatibant concentration below therapeutic levels due to the short half-life (1.4 hours) of the drug. More precisely, it was shown that icatibant plasma concentrations with a 75% probability to be above EC50 and a 50% probability to be above EC85 correlate with therapeutic efficacy.

Applying these criteria as exposure targets for deucrictibant leads us to project that due to deucrictibant’s longer half-life, we believe deucrictibant will stay above these therapeutic targets for much longer than icatibant. The 12 mg dose of deucrictibant showed rapid absorption and then stayed above EC50 for 10-12 hours and above the EC85 for 7 hours, suggesting that this dose may be at least as effective as a 30 mg s.c. injection of icatibant. A 30 mg s.c. icatibant dose has been documented to effectively treat 93% of acute HAE attacks (Icatibant Outcome Survey, or IOS, Maurer et al 2020: Long-term effectiveness and safety of icatibant for the on-demand treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks: 10 years of the icatibant outcome survey; EAACI Poster #1118, June 6-8, 2020).

The table below compares 30 mg of icatibant to 12 mg and 22 mg of deucrictibant based on BK-challenge modeling and simulation.


Response	icatibant 30 mg		deucrictibant 12 mg (oral)		deucrictibant 22 mg (oral)
	Time (h) plasma level above EC50 at a 75% confidence level
Diastolic blood pressure (DBP)		6.0		11.5		14
MABP		6.0		12		15.5
Heart rate		6.5		10		13
	Time (h) plasma level above EC85 at a 50% confidence level
DBP		5.5		7.5		10
MABP		5.5		7.0		10
Heart rate		5.5		6.5		9.5

The chart below shows the simulation of PK and PD resulting from single (left) or double (right) doses of icatibant as compared to single doses of deucrictibant at 12 mg (left) or 22 mg (right), using a non-linear mixed-effect model built from published data of icatibant and our bradykinin challenge study. As shown in the bottom row, the modeled PD effect of deucrictibant surpasses that of icatibant at less than half the dose, and equals two 30 mg injections of icatibant with a single oral dose of 22 mg. As demonstrated in a post-commercialization observational study (Maurer et al 2020: Long-term effectiveness and safety of icatibant for the on-demand treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks: 10 years of the icatibant outcome survey; EAACI Poster #1118, June 6-8, 2020), a single dose of icatibant was shown to treat 93% of attacks and two doses treated 99% of over 5,000 attacks in the 10 years survey.

In conclusion, deucrictibant was well tolerated when administered orally at the doses tested without any dose- limiting toxicity in Phase 1 clinical studies. Deucrictibant was rapidly absorbed in either fasting or fed conditions and showed dose proportional PK for deucrictibant. The BK challenge demonstrated that deucrictibant potently blocks the effects of bradykinin-induced hemodynamic changes and provided the robust rationale for dose selection in future on-demand and prophylactic HAE trials.

PHA121-C002 (SAD extension)

Table of Contents

PHA121-C002 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose extension trial designed to examine the safety, tolerability, and PK of single ascending oral doses of 22, 33, and 50 mg of deucrictibant after a standard caloric meal and 40 mg in fasting conditions. A total of 32 subjects received either deucrictibant, with respect to 24 subjects, or placebo, with respect to 8 subjects.

The trial results showed that deucrictibant was well tolerated at doses up to 40 mg under fasting and 50 mg under fed conditions. There were no SAEs reported. Treatment-related AEs that were reported as possibly related to deucrictibant were mild nausea (22 mg) (one subject), mild headache (50 mg) (one subject), and moderate headache associated with vomiting (50 mg) (one subject). There were no clinically significant changes in vital signs, laboratory or ECG parameters.

Over the investigated dose range from 22 to 50 mg (factor 2.27 increase) after a standardized breakfast, deucrictibant showed dose-proportional PK with a 2.4-fold increase for mean Cmax and AUC0-24h. Administration of deucrictibant after a standardized breakfast resulted in 40-50% decrease in Cmax without a change in AUCinf as compared to administration under fasting conditions. As a result, C12h and C24h plasma concentration for deucrictibant were higher under fed conditions. These observations support the potential use of this formulation for initial studies in a prophylactic setting by dosing with food.


	22 mg of deucrictibant		22 mg of deucrictibant		22 mg of deucrictibant
	Fasted		HCHF		Standard Meal
C12h, ng/mL		8.3		19.6		17.3
C24h, ng/mL		1.1		5.4		2.5
Cmax, ng/mL		213		145		115
AUC0-24h, ng.h/mL		671		966		750
tmax, h	0.25-1.02		2.00-3.00		0.50-4.00
t1/2, h		5.6		5.3		4.3

PHA121-C004 (DDI-CYP3A4 inhibitor, itraconazole, interaction)

Cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) plays an important role in the metabolism of deucrictibant. Deucrictibant-C004 was designed as an open-label, single sequence crossover drug-drug interaction trial to evaluate the effect of multiple doses of itraconazole, a potent CYP3A4 inhibitor, at steady-state on the PK of a single dose of deucrictibant in healthy subjects. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect of multiple doses of the strong CYP3A4 inhibitor itraconazole on the PK of deucrictibant in healthy adult subjects. The secondary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of deucrictibant alone and in combination with multiple doses of the CYP3A4 inhibitor itraconazole in healthy adult subjects. The study has been completed in 13 subjects and deucrictibant was well tolerated with no drug-related adverse events reported. Preliminary analyses show that the exposure of deucrictibant increased when co-administered with itraconazole, as expected from in vitro data showing that deucrictibant is a substrate of CYP3A4. Other potential drug-drug interactions will be further assessed by the deucrictibant-C005 cocktail interaction study and in in vitro assays recommended by FDA guidance.

PHA121-C006 (MAD)

PHA121-C006 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple ascending dose trial to examine the safety, tolerability and PK of deucrictibant in healthy subjects, which demonstrated deucrictibant’s pharmacokinetics and tolerability. The trial included 38 subjects and four cohorts, ranging from 12 to 50 mg of healthy subjects who were studied sequentially. Within each cohort, eight subjects received deucrictibant and two subjects received placebo, except for the final cohort with six subjects receiving deucrictibant and two subjects receiving placebo. The trial evaluated multiple ascending doses of twice daily for 10 days to establish safety and tolerability and to assess the PK characteristics of deucrictibant after standard caloric meals. Deucrictibant was supplied as an oral solution.

Table of Contents

The study showed deucrictibant was well tolerated at all doses studied (including up to the highest dose of 50 mg twice daily (BID)), with approximately dose-proportional exposure. During the study, there have been no SAEs or severe treatment-emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, reported. All reported TEAEs were mild in intensity and resolved completely. There were no clear differences between the different dosing regimens vs. placebo with respect to the total TEAEs and the frequency of TEAEs reported for the different system organ classes. Lab safety, vital signs, and ECG parameters remained well within normal limits in all subjects. The pharmacokinetic profile suggests that therapeutic drug levels of deucrictibant were achieved in day 1 and steady-state plasma concentrations were reached within 72 hours.

Table of Contents

PHA121-C010 (SD)

PHA121-C010 was an open-label randomized five-period crossover single-dose study to assess bioavailability of two different extended-release formulations with and without food, in comparison to a single dose of PHVS416 without food. The study included 8 healthy volunteers who received in randomized order a single dose of PHVS416 (20 mg, as two 10-mg softgel capsules) without food, a single tablet of PHVS719 XR1 (20 mg) without food; a single tablet of PHVS719 XR1 (20 mg) with a high-calorie, high-fat meal; a single tablet of PHVS719 XR2 (40 mg) without food; and a single tablet of PHVS719 XR2 (40 mg) with a high-calorie, high-fat meal.

The study showed PHVS416 and PHVS719 were well tolerated. During the study, there were no SAEs or severe treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported.

The pharmacokinetic profile observed for PHVS416 confirmed that the softgel capsule formulation under fasting conditions achieved rapid exposure of the deucrictibant active ingredient consistent with previous pharmacokinetic studies using deucrictibant in a solution formulation, rising above clinically relevant exposure (in particular, the EC85 determined from the bradykinin challenge, 13.8 ng/mL) within 15 minutes. A single dose of PHVS719 (40 mg) under fasted conditions yielded exposure above 13.8 ng/mL by the two-hour timepoint and maintained this exposure for at least an additional 28 hours. The overall exposure was not affected by food. The 24-hour area under the curve (AUC24h) exposure of deucrictibant using PHVS719 (40 mg) is similar to that observed in Phase 1 studies with PHVS416 softgel capsules dosed 20 mg twice a day with food (one of the doses used in the CHAPTER-1 prophylactic proof-of-concept study).

The observed pharmacokinetic profile of PHVS719 is consistent with a true extended-release formulation designed to provide long-term exposure to deucrictibant. In particular, PHVS719 appears to be suitable for once-daily dosing.

PHA121-C201 (RAPIDe-1 On-Demand).

The availability of an immediate-release softgel capsule formulation, PHVS416, provides a good pharmacokinetic profile for on-demand treatment: rapid oral absorption independent of fed status resulting in almost immediate onset of action with longer expected duration of efficacy than subcutaneous injections of icatibant. We have observed in nonclinical animal studies that the PHVS416 softgel capsule provides similar pharmacokinetic profile as the solution formulation we used in Phase 1 trials and have now seen this also in humans from the C010 Phase 1 study.

In December 2022, we announced positive top-line data from RAPIDe-1, a Phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover, dose-ranging study of PHVS416 softgel capsule for the acute treatment of HAE type 1 and type 2 (HAE-1/2) attacks. The study, initiated in February 2021, enrolled 74 patients across 13 countries who were randomized into one of three single dose levels of PHVS416 and placebo. The study compared symptom relief during HAE attacks and the safety of each dose of PHVS416 with placebo. In Part I of the study, participants in a non-attack state received the assigned single dose of PHVS416 at the study center to assess its pharmacokinetics and safety. In Part II, participants self-administered blinded study drug at home to treat three physician-confirmed HAE attacks with PHVS416 or placebo.

The primary endpoint of the study is the change of a three-symptom composite (skin pain, skin swelling, abdominal pain) visual analogue scale (VAS-3) score from pre-treatment to four hours post-treatment, as captured electronically using numerically assisted input. The top-line data from 147 attacks collected by 62 participants show that all three dose levels of PHVS416 significantly reduce attack symptoms.

Table of Contents

Composite and individual VAS-3, mean symptom complex severity, or MSCS, and treatment outcome score, or TOS, were assessed up to 48-hours post-dose. All key secondary endpoints in the study were met, demonstrating that PHVS416 significantly shortens the time to onset of symptom relief by a ≥30% reduction in VAS-3 score from the pre-treatment score, decreases time to a ≥50% reduction in VAS-3 score from the pre-treatment score, reduces time to almost complete or complete symptom relief by VAS-3, reduces the MSCS score from pre-treatment to four hours post-treatment, and improves the TOS at four hours post-treatment. All other secondary endpoints were met. Participants on PHVS416 also used substantially less rescue medication compared to placebo.

PHVS416 was generally well tolerated with no treatment-related serious adverse events and no adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. In the non-attack phase, two treatment-related adverse events were experienced by two patients; in the attack treatment phase, three treatment-related adverse events were reported for one attack treated with PHVS416 30mg (2.8%) and one treatment-related adverse event was reported for one attack treated with placebo (1.9%).

Future Development Path

We intend to develop deucrictibant for on-demand and prophylactic indications in parallel using two different product formulations, with clinical trials in the on-demand setting commencing first in order to provide critical data for further development for the prophylaxis indication.

On-Demand

The availability of an immediate-release softgel capsule formulation, PHVS416, provides a good pharmacokinetic profile for on-demand treatment: rapid oral absorption independent of fed status resulting in almost immediate onset of action with longer expected duration of efficacy than subcutaneous injections of icatibant. We have observed in nonclinical animal studies that the PHVS416 softgel capsule provides the same pharmacokinetic profile as the solution formulation we used in Phase 1 trials and have now seen this also in humans from the C010 Phase 1 study and in patients from the C201 Phase 2 study.

Based on the positive results of the primary analysis of RAPIDe-1, we are actively planning a confirmatory global Phase 3 trial of PHVS416 in acute treatment of HAE attacks.

Prophylaxis Trials

Currently there is no bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist available for HAE prophylaxis. Icatibant has a very short half-life and would require multiple injections each day, making it generally unsuitable for prophylactic use, especially with injection site pain reported for most patients.

Unlike on-demand use, prophylaxis requires maintenance of drug concentration over long periods of time – rapid absorption is unnecessary. In order to project a potential dose for use in prophylactic trials using our projected dose from the bradykinin challenge model (an acute treatment model), we relied on a similar acute-to-prophylactic extrapolation utilized for products in the plasma kallikrein mechanism. Ecallantide is a polypeptide inhibitor of plasma kallikrein used for treatment of attacks. Similar to icatibant, the short half-life of ecallantide makes it generally unsuitable for use in prophylaxis.

Lanadelumab-flyo is a monoclonal antibody with the same target as ecallantide but with higher potency and longer half-life. Lanadelumab-flyo is used for prevention of attacks. Clinical trials and published literature correlate the steady-state concentrations of lanadelumab-flyo (relative to its EC50) to the observed prophylactic control of attacks. Based on the observed potency of deucrictibant in the bradykinin challenge, we believe we can utilize a similar concentration-above-EC50 approach to predict the required exposure of deucrictibant to control attacks prophylactically.

We believe we can achieve the concentrations desired for prophylactic activity with twice-daily dosing of the PHVS416 softgel capsules. Therefore, in addition to the RAPIDe-1 on-demand trial, we are also planning clinical trials of PHVS416 to evaluate the effectiveness and safety profile for prophylaxis with bradykinin- B2-receptor-inhibition. These include an evaluation of patients randomized to placebo or active doses for a treatment period with the primary objective to assess the efficacy and safety profile of PHVS416 dose regimens for prophylactic treatments in HAE patients.

We also intend to conduct a registration-directed randomized, placebo-controlled evaluation in HAE prophylaxis to provide the key efficacy and safety evaluation of prophylactic treatment. We anticipate that PHVS719, as described below, will be included in this pivotal trial, with doses selected based on the PK performance of PHVS719 in Phase 1 trials. We also expect that the data from RAPIDe-1 and CHAPTER-1 will support the final dose selection for the prophylactic trials. Additional trials may be required by the FDA, EMA or other regulators even if we receive positive data from RAPIDe-1.

In order to provide a differentiated product featuring more consistent exposure of deucrictibant for the prophylactic setting, we are developing an extended-release, or XR, formulation (PHVS719) that will feature continuous slow release maintaining deucrictibant concentrations above the levels we predict to provide protection against attacks. Deucrictibant has demonstrated properties favorable to the development of XR formulations, and we initiated human pharmacokinetics trials with PHVS719 in 2021 to enable use of this product candidate in the pivotal prophylactic trial. With the results of the C010 study, which were described above, we believe we have identified an extended-release formulation that enables once-daily dosing in a prophylactic setting.

In addition, we also plan to run an open-label extension study in the prophylactic setting with both rollover and non-rollover subjects to collect longer duration safety data, which will be further discussed with FDA and EMA.

Table of Contents

Intellectual Property

We seek to protect and enhance the proprietary technologies, inventions, product candidates, methods of manufacture and methods of usage of our product candidates, and improvements thereof that are commercially important to the development of our business. We protect our proprietary intellectual property by, among other things, filing patent applications in the United States and internationally covering our proprietary technologies, inventions, product candidates, methods of manufacture and use, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We will also seek to rely on regulatory protection afforded by orphan drug designations, inclusion in expedited development and review, data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions where available.

As of March 1, 2023, we own two U.S. patents and 50 national patents, including in Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom, that expire on November 23, 2038, and 48 pending patent applications worldwide, including two pending U.S. applications, one pending U.S. continuation application, 45 pending non-U.S. applications, including applications in Europe and Japan, and three pending PCT applications. The U.S. and national patents and 41 of our pending patent applications contain composition-of-matter claims to the deucrictibant small molecule and derivatives thereof; deucrictibant is the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in, and therefore extends our patent applications to, our PHVS416 and PHVS719 product candidates. Each such patent application can generally be categorized into one of three patent families: (1) those relating to the novel bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonists, (2) those relating to the cyclic bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonists, and (3) those relating to the new cyclic bradykinin-B2-receptor antagonists. One pending PCT application contains claims directed to the use of deucrictibant in on- demand treatment of HAE and in prophylaxis for HAE, and accordingly extends the patent applications to methods of use of the PHVS416 and PHVS719 product candidates. A second pending PCT application contains claims directed to the formulation of our PHVS416 product candidate, and another one contains claims directed to the crystal form of the API. Three pending EP applications are directly or indirectly directed to the formulation of our PHVS719 product candidate and its use in chronic or prophylactic treatment of HAE. Not accounting for any patent term adjustment, regulatory extension or terminal disclaimers, and assuming that all annuity and/or maintenance fees are paid timely, these patent applications, if granted, will not expire until November 24, 2038. We also rely upon trade secrets that may be important to the development of our business. Trade secrets are difficult to protect and provide us with only limited protection. There can be no assurance that any of our pending patent applications will issue or that we will benefit from any patent term extension or favorable adjustment to the term of any patents that may be issued in the future.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we have filed, including the U.S., the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the U.S., a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug or biological product may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted for a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period, subject to certain limitations and provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met.

Any such patent term extension can be for no more than five years, only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing, it may be extended. We may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents we may obtain in the future covering deucrictibant, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each product and other factors.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to establish and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position for our product candidates will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims if granted. There can be no assurance that any of our current or future patent applications will result in the issuance of patents or that our future issued patents (if any) will provide meaningful protection of our product candidates or technology. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see chapter 3.2 of this report.

License Agreement

On March 31, 2016, we entered into a license agreement (the "AnalytiCon License"), and a research agreement with AnalytiCon to collaborate for the development of an orally available bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist. Pursuant to the AnalytiCon License, we acquired a worldwide, exclusive license from AnalytiCon to use (i) a certain proprietary substance class of bradykinin B2 receptor antagonists with the potential of oral activity ("OB2RA"), and (ii) any derivatives, improvements, analogs, isomers, metabolites, or conjugates therefrom (together, the "OB2RA Class"), in each case, for the purpose of developing, manufacturing and marketing compounds on a global basis from the OB2RA Class for the treatment of, among others, hereditary angioedema. Certain rights associated with deucrictibant, PHVS416 and PHVS719 are subject to the AnalytiCon License. In consideration for the license, we paid AnalytiCon a non-refundable up-front payment of €250,000.

Under the AnalytiCon License, we are required to pay AnalytiCon one-time payments in an aggregate amount of up to €11.4 million upon the achievement of certain development, regulatory, and sales milestones. To date, we have paid AnalytiCon an aggregate amount of €1,150,000 (€250,000 up-front plus €900,000 in milestone payments). Under the AnalytiCon License, up to €10.5 million in aggregate potential milestone payments remain outstanding. In addition, we will be required to pay AnalytiCon low to medium single-digit tiered royalties on direct or indirect net sales of licensed products. The royalties that we are required to pay AnalytiCon under this agreement may be reduced on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis if sales of a generic version of a product account for 1% or more of the relevant market.

Table of Contents

Our agreement with AnalytiCon will expire upon the expiry of the last patent of the licensed intellectual property. Not accounting for any regulatory extension or terminal disclaimers, and assuming that all annuity and/ or maintenance fees are paid timely, the applicable expiration date is November 23, 2038. Either party may terminate the agreement prematurely for cause, in particular, for the other party’s (i) uncured material breach, (ii) bankruptcy or insolvency, or (iii) challenge to the validity or ownership of the intellectual property rights relating to the compounds that form the object of the collaboration with AnalytiCon. If AnalytiCon were to (a) terminate the AnalytiCon License for cause and (b) exercise contractual remedies available to it thereunder, then we could be required to grant to AnalytiCon an exclusive worldwide license to our intellectual property generated under the collaboration with AnalytiCon for use in all applications, including HAE. In addition, we could be prevented from competing with AnalytiCon until five years after the commercial launch of any product containing a compound from the OB2RA Class.

Manufacturing and Supply

We currently have two contract CDMOs for the production of deucrictibant API. A robust and scalable synthetic route has been established. All raw materials can be purchased from multiple suppliers. We also collaborate with a leading CDMO for the manufacturing of the on-demand treatment product PHVS416. Another well-established CDMO produces the prophylactic treatment product PHVS719. The two CDMOs that manufacture both PHVS416 and PHVS719 are responsible for packaging and worldwide distribution of other commercial drug products.

Sales and Marketing

The Pharvaris team, including its founders, have experience developing and commercializing drug products for rare diseases including HAE specifically. We intend to develop a fully integrated sales and marketing organization ahead of marketing approval for PHVS416 or PHVS719. Even though HAE is a competitive market, orphan product companies have demonstrated successful first launches with excellent preparation and execution. We believe that our products will provide patients with significant new treatment options, and we will evaluate options to optimize the commercial opportunity.

Competition

The biotechnology industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We face competition from different sources, including from academic centers as well as from a number of large and specialty biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

Currently, there are several licensed therapies for HAE, including the following:

•

FIRAZYR: The bradykinin BR2 receptor antagonist FIRAZYR (icatibant) is approved by the FDA in the U.S. and by regulators globally for the treatment of acute attacks and is administered by subcutaneous administration. Seven generic forms of icatibant have been approved in the U.S. since July 2019 and more may be approved in the future.

•

C1-INH: C1-INH replacement therapy is available in the U.S. and globally as an acute therapy (BERINERT, CINRYZE, and CETOR) and as a prophylactic therapy (HAEGARDA/BERINERT 2000/3000 and CINRYZE). These therapies are dosed subcutaneously and intravenously. Recombinant C1-INH (Ruconest) is also available in the U.S. and in Europe as an acute therapy.

•

Kallikrein Inhibitors: KALBITOR (ecallantide) is a specific recombinant plasma kallikrein inhibitor that is dosed subcutaneously by healthcare providers in the U.S. to treat acute HAE attacks. TAKHZYRO (lanadelumab-flyo) is a monoclonal antibody approved in the U.S. and a growing number of countries for prophylaxis of HAE attacks and can be self-administered as a subcutaneous injection. ORLADEYO (berotralstat) is a kallikrein inhibitor that was approved in the U.S. in the fourth quarter of 2020 and is dosed orally once daily for the prevention of HAE attacks.

•

Other Medications: Prophylactic administration of synthetic attenuated androgens (generically available as danazol or stanozolol) has been utilized to reduce the frequency or severity of attacks. However, long-term use of danazol or stanozolol may result in liver damage, virilization and arterial hypertension. Six-month liver function tests, annual lipid profiles, and biennial hepatic ultrasound are recommended for patients on chronic androgen therapy.

We are also aware of a number of HAE therapies in clinical development. Currently, there is one orally delivered plasma kallikrein inhibitor being developed clinically: Kalvista’s sebetralstat (KVD900) for acute treatment. In prophylaxis, CSL is developing garadacimab, an anti-factor XIIa mAb for prophylactic treatment, which is delivered subcutaneously or intravenously, and Ionis is developing donidalorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide inhibitor of prekallikrein for prophylactic treatment, which is delivered subcutaneously. Earlier stage products in development are STAR-0215 from Astria, a long-lived monoclonal antibody inhibitor of plasma kallikrein dosed subcutaneously, and two gene therapies – NTLA-2002 from Intellia, using CRISPR technology to knock out the gene for kallikrein, and BMN331 from Biomarin using AAV gene therapy technology to deliver C1-INH protein.

Many of our competitors and potential competitors have substantially greater scientific, research and product development capabilities as well as greater financial, manufacturing, commercialization and human resources than we do. In addition, there is intense competition on the clinical trial sites and the enrollment of HAE patients for clinical trials. Many specialized biotechnology firms have formed collaborations with large, established companies to support the research, development and commercialization of products that may be competitive with ours, and many other biotech and pharmaceutical companies are competing for the same potential employees. Accordingly,

Table of Contents

our competitors may be more successful than we may be in developing, manufacturing, commercializing their products and in achieving widespread market acceptance.

Government regulation and product approval

In each country where we conduct our research and development, manufacture our products and intend to market our product candidates, if approved, we must comply with laws and regulations, including regulations issued by regulatory agencies and by other national or supra-national regulatory authorities, or collectively, the Competent Authorities, as well as industry standards, that govern nearly all aspects of our activities. Among others, the FDA, the EMA and the national Competent Authorities of each Member State of the European Union are the key regulatory agencies that exercise oversight over all aspects of our products.

Our pharmaceutical product candidates are subject to substantial requirements that govern, among other things, their research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, safety, efficacy, labelling, storage, record keeping, commercialization, distribution, import and export, post-approval monitoring and reporting, advertising, promotion, reimbursement and pricing. The process of maintaining continued compliance with the regulatory requirements requires the expenditure of substantial amounts of time and money.

The nonclinical and clinical development paths for product candidates are broadly similar in the European Union and the United States.

Nonclinical Studies

Development of the product candidates starts with preclinical studies that enable the first-in-human clinical Phase I trial. The preclinical studies include tests for assessment of primary pharmacodynamics (the mode of action), secondary pharmacodynamics and safety pharmacology and general toxicology studies. Once in clinical development, additional nonclinical in vivo tests are conducted until adequate proof of safety is established (e.g., animal testing for reproductive and general toxicity and carcinogenicity). The conduct of the nonclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with regulations and requirements set by the Competent Authorities, including compliance with GLP. Acceptance of the nonclinical study packages by regulatory agencies is necessary for the initiation and progression of the product candidate through Phase I, Phase II and Phase III clinical trials.

Pharmaceutical development

Laboratory tests are conducted to develop a suitable formulation for clinical use and marketing. Product development includes formulation and stability testing, and a robust product manufacturing process. The conduct of pharmaceutical development must comply with regulations and requirements set by the Competent Authorities, including compliance with GLP.

Clinical Studies

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a drug candidate, sponsors typically must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the Competent Authorities, that such drug candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with the requirements of the Competent Authorities; (ii) in compliance with GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of subjects and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. The number of clinical studies and trials that will be required for approval varies depending on, e.g., the drug candidate and the disease or condition that the drug candidate is designed to address.

Prior to initiating clinical trials, a request for clinical trial authorization (national Competent Authorities in the European Union) or an IND application in the United States must be submitted to the relevant Competent Authorities. These submissions must be supported by an investigational medicinal product dossier or equivalent as detailed in applicable regulations and guidance documents from the Competent Authorities. Extensive information about the proposed clinical studies, as well as the results of the nonclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are included in these submissions. In the United States, a 30-day waiting period after the submission of an IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin.

Manufacturing of investigational products is subject to authorization and must be carried out in accordance with cGMP. Furthermore, a clinical trial may only be started after an IRB (United States) or a competent Ethics Committee (European Union) has issued a favorable opinion on the clinical trial application.

During all phases of clinical development, Competent Authorities require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the progress of the clinical trials must be submitted to the Competent Authorities. Important new safety information, that suggests a significant risk for human patients, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure, must also be provided to clinical investigators.

The Competent Authorities, sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research exposes patients to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB or Ethics Committee can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the institutional requirements or if the drug candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Table of Contents

The following section describes specific regulatory regimes and regulations applicable in certain jurisdictions.

United States

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, and implementing regulations. These laws, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-marketing monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of drug products. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with the many statutory and regulatory provisions require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as clinical hold, FDA refusal to approve pending regulatory applications, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution.

The FDA Approval Process

Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the product candidate is usually into healthy human subjects, and the product candidate is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence on effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the product candidate for a particular indication, dosage tolerance, and optimal dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a product candidate demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of subjects, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the product candidate and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product candidate. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the product candidate. A single Phase 3 trial may be sufficient in certain circumstances.

During the development of a new product candidate, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points; specifically, prior to the submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date and for the FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meeting at the end of Phase 2 to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support the approval of the new product candidate.

The results of drug candidate development, nonclinical testing, clinical trials and proposed labeling are submitted to the FDA as part of the NDA. An NDA must include all information regarding and data from pertinent nonclinical and clinical studies, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the drug’s chemistry, manufacturing and controls. The FDA will accept, as support for an IND or NDA a well-designed, well-conducted, non-IND foreign clinical trial if it was conducted in accordance with GCP and the FDA is able to validate the data from the trial through an on-site inspection, if necessary. Regulatory applications based solely on foreign clinical data meeting these criteria may be approved if the foreign data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice, the trials have been performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence, and the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by FDA or, if FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Failure of an application to meet any of these criteria may result in the application not being approvable based on the foreign data alone. To support marketing approval and authorization, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug to the FDA’s satisfaction.

The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. The submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee payment to the FDA, and the manufacturer and/or sponsor under an approved NDA are also subject to certain annual program user fees. The FDA typically increases these fees annually.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether it will accept the application for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may refuse to file any NDA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information and the resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the FDA accepts the filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA has a goal of responding to standard review NDAs within ten months from the 60-day filing date. The review process 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. This late- submitted information is typically requested by the FDA.

The FDA may also refer applications for novel drugs or product candidates that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an FDA Advisory Committee. An Advisory Committee is an outside panel that typically includes clinicians and other experts in the field that will review and evaluate the questions posed by the FDA, and provide recommendations, sometimes including whether the FDA should approve the application. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an Advisory Committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.

Table of Contents

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical study sites to assure compliance with GCP. The FDA may also inspect one or more nonclinical study sites. In addition, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities involved in the manufacture of the drug to determine if the facilities, processes and quality are compliant with cGMP. The FDA will not approve an NDA unless compliance with cGMP is satisfactory.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter indicates that the FDA has completed its review of the NDA, and the agency has determined that it will not approve the application in its present form. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the NDA, which may be minor or substantial, and may delineate the requirements needed to successfully progress the NDA to approval. This may require substantial additional clinical data and/or other significant, expensive, and time-consuming requirements related to clinical studies, nonclinical studies and/or manufacturing. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. The FDA has committed to reviewing resubmissions of the NDA addressing such deficiencies in two or six months, depending on the type of information included. Even if such data is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug, with specific prescribing information for specific indications. Even if FDA approves the NDA, the approval may be significantly limited to specific indications and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. In addition, the FDA may require confirmatory post-marketing trials, sometimes referred to as “Phase 4” clinical trials, designed to further assess a product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

Expedited Approval in the U.S.

The FDA has a number of programs that are intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition. These are: Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Accelerated Approval and Priority Review Designation.

Fast Track Designation can be requested early in the development process, if evidence of activity in a nonclinical model, a mechanistic rationale or pharmacologic data demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. In the later stages of development, available clinical data should demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need. Fast Track Designation provides opportunities for applicants to have frequent interactions with the relevant FDA review teams. In addition, a fast-track product can be eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time of NDA submission. If the FDA determines that a fast-track product may be effective after preliminary evaluation of the NDA, it may consider reviewing portions of a marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application. Fast Track Designation can be requested after the IND is first submitted but before receiving approval of the NDA. As a practical matter, the FDA should ordinarily receive a Fast Track Designation request no later than the sponsor’s pre-NDA meeting with the agency because many of the features of Fast Track Designation will not apply after that time. The FDA will respond to Fast Track Designation requests within 60 calendar days of receipt of the request.

The FDA’s Breakthrough Therapy Designation is intended to expedite the development and review of drugs which may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. A drug that receives Breakthrough Therapy Designation is eligible for all Fast Track Designation features, intensive guidance from FDA on an efficient drug development program, beginning as early as Phase 1, and organizational commitment involving senior managers. Breakthrough Therapy Designation is requested by the manufacturer. A sponsor needs to submit a request to the agency for Breakthrough Therapy Designation, but in some cases the FDA may suggest that the sponsor consider submitting a request after reviewing submitted data and information (including preliminary clinical evidence), the FDA thinks the drug development program may meet the criteria for Breakthrough Therapy Designation; and the remaining drug development program can benefit from the designation. Ideally, a Breakthrough Therapy Designation request should be received by the FDA no later than the End-of-Phase 2 meetings if any of the features of the designation are to be obtained. The FDA will respond to Breakthrough Therapy Designation requests within 60 days of receipt of the request.

Accelerated approval may be granted for a product based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. For drugs granted accelerated approval, post-marketing confirmatory trials will be required to verify and describe the anticipated effect on the IMM or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway has been used primarily in settings in which the disease course is long and an extended period of time would be required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a drug. Accelerated approval is also potentially useful in acute disease settings where the intended clinical benefit can be demonstrated only in a very large study because the clinical event that would need to be evaluated to demonstrate clinical benefit occurs rarely.

The FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under the accelerated approval pathway if e.g., the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit, the evidence demonstrates that the product is not shown to be safe and effective under the

Table of Contents

conditions of use, the applicant fails to conduct the post- approval trials with due diligence or the applicant disseminates false or misleading promotional materials related to the product.

A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of an application for a drug that treats, prevents or is used in the diagnosis of a serious condition and if approved would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. Eligibility for priority review is determined by the FDA at the time of an NDA or efficacy supplement filing. Where an application receives a priority review designation, the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months from the 60-day filing date (as compared to within 10 months under standard review). The FDA determines whether an application qualifies for priority review (versus standard review) for every application it reviews, not just when priority review is requested by the applicant. However, an applicant may expressly request priority review. The FDA will inform the applicant in writing of a priority review designation by day 60 of the review.

Orphan Designation

An orphan drug designation qualifies the manufacturer for certain tax credits and may lead to market exclusivity for seven years following the date of the drug’s approval by the FDA. The FDCA provides that a drug shall be designated as an orphan drug if its manufacturer can establish that the drug is for a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the drug in the United States. More than one manufacturer may receive orphan drug designation for the same drug for the same rare disease or condition, but each manufacturer seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation.

In the United States, a manufacturer may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved drug or new orphan indication for a different use for an already marketed drug. In addition, a manufacturer of a drug that is otherwise the same drug as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent drug for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its drug may be clinically superior to the first drug. FDA may grant the drug orphan exclusivity upon approval, if clinical superiority is demonstrated. Orphan drug exclusivity cannot otherwise be granted for the same drug made by another manufacturer for the same indication during the market exclusivity period unless the original manufacturer consents or the original manufacturer is unable to ensure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the needs of persons with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated.

An application for orphan drug designation can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. The period of orphan exclusivity, if granted, begins on the date that the marketing application is approved. The exclusivity is limited to the indication for which the drug has been approved.

Post-Marketing Requirements

FDA may withdraw approval of an NDA if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product, product recalls or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market.

After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval; such changes may require the approval of a new NDA or an NDA supplement. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing new NDAs. As with new NDAs, the FDA often significantly extends the review process with requests for additional information or clarification. In addition, the FDA may, under some circumstances, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the effect of approved products that have been commercialized, and the FDA under some circumstances has the power to prevent or limit further commercialization of a product based on the results of these post-marketing programs.

In addition, drug products manufactured or distributed pursuant to the FDA approvals, are subject to additional and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things:

•

record-keeping requirements;

•

reporting of adverse experiences associated with the product;

•

providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information;

•

distribution of drug samples;

•

notifying the FDA and gaining its approval of specified manufacturing or labeling changes;

•

drug establishment registration and drug listing requirements; and

•

complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among other things, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling, limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet.

Drug manufacturers are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws. There are strict regulations regarding changes to the manufacturing process, and, depending on the

Table of Contents

significance of the change, it may require prior FDA approval before it can be implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon drug manufacturers. Drug manufacturers must also satisfy the product tracing, verification and reporting requirements in the Drug Quality and Security Act and have procedures in place to identify and properly handle suspect and illegitimate product. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production, distribution and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Although rare, the FDA may withdraw approval of an NDA if a company does not comply with its extensive regulatory requirements or if significant safety, efficacy or manufacturing issues arise after the drug reaches the market. More typically, if a company or the FDA discovers previously unknown problems with a drug, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency or issues with manufacturing processes, the FDA may revise the approved labeling to add new safety information; require additional clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or impose distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences may include:

•

restrictions on the commercialization or manufacturing of the drug, market withdrawals or recalls;

•

fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical studies;

•

the FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs;

•

drug seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of drugs; or

•

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the testing, approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations and policies are often revised or interpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and product candidates. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative changes will be enacted or whether FDA regulations, guidance, policies or interpretations will be changed or what the effect of such changes, if any, may be.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration

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

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs are subject to anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the false claims laws, the privacy provisions of HIPAA, transparency reporting laws, and similar state laws, each as amended. Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to these broadly applicable healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements.

The applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include, without limitation, the following:

•

The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute – An intent-based federal criminal statute that prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order, recommendation, or arranging of, any item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, by a federal health care program such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act ("the PPACA"), among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute to clarify that a person or entity need not have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. The Anti-Kickback Statute applies to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and individuals, such as prescribers, patients, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other hand, including, for example,consulting/speaking arrangements, discount and rebate offers,

Table of Contents

grants, charitable contributions, and patient support offerings, among others. A conviction for violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute can result in criminal fines and/or imprisonment and requires mandatory exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. Exclusion may also be imposed if the government determines that an entity has committed acts that are prohibited by the Anti-Kickback Statute. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute that protect certain common industry activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and arrangements may be subject to scrutiny or penalty if they do not fully satisfy all elements of an available exception of safe harbor. The Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbors are the subject of possible regulatory reforms. Any changes to the safe harbors may impact our future contractual and other arrangements with pharmacy benefit managers, group purchasing organizations, third-party payors, wholesalers and distributors, healthcare providers and prescribers, and other entities, as well as our future pricing strategies.

•

The Federal Civil False Claims Act—Imposes civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment to a federal health care program or knowingly making using or causing to be made or used a false statement or record material to payment of a false claim or avoiding, decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government, with potential liability including mandatory treble damages and significant per-claim penalties, currently set at $11,665 to $22,331 per false claim or statement for penalties assessed after June 19, 2020, with respect to violations occurring after November 2, 2015. Pharmaceutical companies have been investigated and/or subject to government enforcement actions asserting liability under the federal civil 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 (e.g., under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program), and allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal health care programs for the product. In addition, 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. 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. In addition, manufacturers can be held liable under the federal 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. There is also the Federal Criminal False Claims Act, which is similar to the Federal Civil False Claims Act and imposes criminal liability on those that make or present a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim to the federal government.

•

The Federal Criminal Statute on False Statements Relating to Health Care Matters—Makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up a material fact, make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use any materially 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.

•

Criminal Health Care Fraud Statute—Enacted as part of the HIPAA, makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully execute, or attempt to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud any health care benefit program or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

•

The Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law—Authorizes the imposition of substantial civil monetary penalties against an entity, such as a pharmaceutical manufacturer, that engages in activities including, among others (1) knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a claim for services not provided as claimed or that is otherwise false or fraudulent in any way; (2) arranging for or contracting with an individual or entity that is excluded from participation in federal health care programs to provide items or services reimbursable by a federal health care program; (3) violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; or (4) failing to report and return a known overpayment.

•

HIPAA Health Information Privacy and Security—HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 ("HITECH"), imposes privacy, security, and breach reporting obligations on certain covered entity healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouse as well as their business associates that perform certain services involving the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information, including, among other requirements, mandatory contractual terms and technical safeguards to protect the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information, and require notification to affected individuals and regulatory authorities of certain breaches of security of individually identifiable health information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in U.S. federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

•

The Federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act—Requires “applicable manufacturers” of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, among others, to track and report annually to the federal government (for disclosure to the public) certain payments and other transfers of value they make to “covered recipients.” The term covered recipients includes U.S.-licensed physicians, teaching hospitals, and, for reports submitted on or after January 1, 2022, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse midwives. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties.

•

Analogous State Laws—There are state law equivalents of the above federal laws, such as the Anti- Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act, which may apply to items and services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers (i.e., so-called “all-payor anti-kickback laws”).

Table of Contents

•

State Laws Regulating Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Compliance Programs, Drug Price Transparency, and Other Practices—Some state laws 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, or other remuneration to physicians and other healthcare providers. Several U.S. states and localities have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports, and/or make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials, and other activities. Other state laws prohibit certain marketing-related activities including the provision of gifts, meals or other items to certain healthcare providers, and restrict the ability of manufacturers to offer co-pay support to patients for certain prescription drugs. In addition, several recently passed state laws require disclosures related to state agencies and/or commercial purchasers with respect to certain price increases that exceed a certain level as identified in the relevant statutes. Some of these laws and regulations contain ambiguous requirements that government officials have not yet clarified. Given the lack of clarity in the laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent federal and state laws and regulations.

•

We are also required to satisfy the product tracing, verification and reporting requirements set out in the Drug Quality and Security Act.

We expect that one or more of our products, if approved, may be eligible for coverage under Medicare, the federal health care program that provides health care benefits to the aged and disabled, including coverage for outpatient services and supplies, such as certain drug products, that are medically necessary to treat a beneficiary’s health condition. In addition, one or more of our products, if approved, may be covered and reimbursed under other federal health care programs, such as Medicaid and the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and pay quarterly rebates based on utilization of the manufacturer’s drugs under the program as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients. Under the 340B Drug Pricing Program, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities that participate in the program. As part of the requirements to participate in these government programs, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average manufacturer price and best price.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, guidance, case law or other applicable law. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in federal health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations pursuant to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to market our products, if approved, and adversely impact our financial results. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws and regulations, 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. 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, it may be costly to us in terms of money, time and resources, and they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs.

U.S. Healthcare Reform

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability, or the ability of our future collaborators, to effectively sell any drugs for which we, or they, obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and additional downward pressure on the price that we, or our future collaborators, may receive for any approved drugs. For example, the PPACA substantially changed and continues to impact healthcare financing and delivery by both government payors and private insurers. Among the PPACA provisions of importance to the pharmaceutical industry, in addition to those otherwise described above, are the following:

•

an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs;

•

an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to 23.1% and 13.0% of the average manufacturer price for branded and generic drugs, respectively;

•

expansion of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute, which include, among other things, new government investigative powers and enhanced penalties for non-compliance;

•

establishment of the Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program that, as a condition for the manufacturers’ outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D, requires manufacturers to provide a now 70% point-of-sale discount off the negotiated price of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period;

•

expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability;

Table of Contents

•

expansion of the types of entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program (i.e., the 340B program);

•

reporting of certain financial arrangements between manufacturers of drugs, biologics, devices, and medical supplies and physicians and teaching hospitals under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act;

•

a requirement to annually report certain information regarding drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to licensed practitioners; and

•

creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research.

Since its enactment there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA to repeal or replace certain aspects of the PPACA.

While Congress has not enacted legislation to comprehensively repeal the PPACA, at least two bills affecting the implementation of the PPACA have been signed into law, including the repeal, effective January 1, 2019, of the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the PPACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year, which is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” In December 2018, a federal district court in Texas ruled that the PPACA’s individual mandate, without the penalty that was repealed effective January 1, 2019, was unconstitutional and could not be severed from the PPACA. As a result, the court ruled the remaining provisions of the PPACA were also invalid. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but it remanded the case back to the district court for further analysis of whether the mandate could be severed from the PPACA (i.e., whether the entire PPACA was therefore also unconstitutional). The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on March 2, 2020, heard oral arguments on November 10, 2020, and on June 17, 2021 issued its opinion ruling that Texas and other states that initially challenged the individual mandate did not have standing.

During his tenure, President Trump also signed several Executive Orders, directives, and legislation affecting certain provisions of the PPACA. For example, effective January 1, 2019, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, further amended portions of the Social Security Act implemented as part of the PPACA to increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in the Medicare Part D Coverage Gap Discount Program must provide to eligible Medicare Part D beneficiaries during the coverage gap phase of the Part D benefit, commonly referred to as the “donut hole,” and to reduce standard beneficiary cost sharing in the coverage gap from 30% to 25% in most Medicare Part D plans. Additionally, on December 20, 2019, President Trump signed appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2020 that repealed the PPACA’s so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high-cost employer-sponsored health insurance plans, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2019; the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers, for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2020; and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices, for sales after December 31, 2019. While the Biden administration has repealed or rolled-back certain of the actions taken by the Trump administration, in the future, there may be additional challenges and/or amendments to the PPACA. It remains to be seen precisely what any new legislation will provide, when or if it will be enacted, and what impact it will have on the availability and cost of healthcare items and services, including drug products.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, led to aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year effective April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislation, will stay in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken, with the exception of a temporary suspension of the payment reduction from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 enacted as part of the CARES Act. Further, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments from providers from three to five years. These legislative changes may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products in the United States. Congress is considering various legislative proposals to further increase transparency around prices and price increases, lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers, and decrease spending on prescription drugs by government programs. On September 13, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to pursue implementation of two new payment models under which Medicare would test whether paying no more than the “most-favored-nation” price for certain included drugs and biological products covered under Part B and Part D, respectively, would mitigate poor clinical outcomes and increased Medicare expenditures associated with high drug costs. If this executive order is implemented, the “most-favored-nation” price would generally reflect the lowest price, after certain adjustments, for a pharmaceutical product sold in an economically comparable member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. On December 28, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction halting implementation of the executive order nationwide pending completion of the notice and comment process, and on August 10, 2021, the CMS published a proposed rule that would rescind the “most-favored nation” pricing model for Medicare Part B drugs. However, the U.S. Congress continues to conduct inquiries into the prescription drug industry’s pricing practices, and at the state level in the United States, legislatures are also increasingly passing legislation and states are implementing regulations designed to control spending on, and patient out of pocket costs for, drug products. Recently, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the IRA, which included several measures intended to lower the cost of prescription drugs and limit out-of-pocket spending, including by requiring drug manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare if they increase prices faster than inflation for drugs used by Medicare beneficiaries. We cannot be certain what impact, if any, such changes will have on the profitability of any of our drug candidates, if approved for commercial use in the future.

Table of Contents

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and states are implementing regulations designed to control spending on, and patient out-of-pocket costs for, drug products. Implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms that affect the pricing and/or availability of drug products may impact our ability to generate revenue, attain or maintain profitability, or commercialize products for which we may receive regulatory approval in the future.

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

Privacy and Information Security

We may be subject to privacy and data security regulations and legal requirements in the United States and Europe. As we become more dependent on information technologies to conduct our operations, cyber incidents, including deliberate attacks and attempts to gain unauthorized access to computer systems and networks, may increase in frequency and sophistication. Our systems, servers and platforms and those of our service providers may be vulnerable to privacy and information security incidents such as data breaches, viruses or other malicious code, coordinated attacks, data loss, phishing attacks, ransomware, denial of service attacks, or other security or IT incidents caused by threat actors, technological vulnerabilities or human error. If we, or any of our vendors that support our IT or have access to our data, including any third party vendors that collect, process and store personal data on our behalf, fail to comply with laws requiring the protection of personal information, or fail to safeguard and defend personal information or other critical data assets or IT systems, we may be subject to regulatory enforcement and fines as well as private civil actions. We may be required to expend significant resources in the response, containment, mitigation of cybersecurity incidents as well as in defense against claims that our information security was unreasonable or otherwise violated applicable laws or contractual obligations.

In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our collaborators.

Domestic laws in this area are complex and developing rapidly. Many state legislatures have adopted legislation relating to privacy, data security and data breaches. Laws in all 50 states require businesses to provide notice to customers whose personally identifiable information has been disclosed as a result of a data breach. The laws are not consistent, and compliance in the event of a widespread data breach is costly. States are also frequently amending existing laws, requiring attention to frequently changing regulatory requirements.

Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, and state attorneys general enforce consumer protection laws that prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices, including Section 5 of the FTC Act, which creates standards for the collection, use, dissemination and security of health-related and other personal information. Claims of unfair or deceptive trade practices regarding privacy and security can lead to significant liabilities and consequences, including regulatory investigations, penalties, fines and orders as well as civil claims, which could impact our data practices and operations or cause reputational damage.

Further, HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH, and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity.

HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

We also may be subject to privacy and data security requirements in Europe. Any clinical trial programs we conduct or research collaborations we enter into in the European Economic Area, or EEA, may subject us to European data protection laws, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679, or GDPR. We are subject to the GDPR (as implemented by countries in the EEA), which applies extra-territorially and imposes onerous requirements on controllers (e.g., sponsors) and processors (e.g., CROs, laboratories) of personal data, including, for example: (i) accountability and transparency requirements, and enhanced requirements for obtaining valid consent; (ii) obligations to consider data protection as any new products or services are developed and to limit the amount of personal data processed; (iii) obligations to comply with data protection rights of data subjects; and (iv) reporting of personal data breaches to the supervisory authority without undue delay (and no later than 72 hours). The GDPR also prohibits the international transfer of personal data from the EEA to countries outside of the EEA unless made to a country deemed to have adequate data privacy laws by the European Commission or where a data transfer mechanism has been put in place. Until recently, one such data transfer mechanism was the EU-US Privacy Shield. However, in July 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU declared the Privacy Shield to be invalid. The CJEU upheld the validity of the standard contractual clauses, or SCCs, as a legal mechanism to transfer personal data but companies relying on SCCs will— subject to additional guidance from regulators in the EEA—need to evaluate and implement supplementary measures that provide privacy protections additional to those provided under SCCs. Further, the GDPR provides that countries in the EEA may establish their own laws and regulations further restricting the processing of certain personal data, including genetic data, biometric data, and health data.

Table of Contents

Failure to comply with the GDPR requirements could result in regulatory investigations, enforcement notices requiring us to stop or change the way we use personal data and/or fines of up to 20 million Euros or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, as well as compensation claims for financial or non-financial loss by affected individuals, negative publicity, reputational harm and a potential loss of business and goodwill.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the data protection laws described above or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, but not limited to, criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, injunctions, private qui tam actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, class action litigation and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corrective action plan or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Additional Regulation

In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, given that Pharvaris is a clinical stage biopharma company there is no direct impact of the upcoming Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) regulation and we have not disclosed our ambitions in this regard.

We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.

European Union

European Medicines Agency

Marketing approvals under the European Union regulatory system may be obtained through a centralized or the national marketing authorization procedures. The EMA and the European Commission administer the centralized authorization procedure. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 and Regulation (EC) 1394/2007, as amended, this procedure is compulsory for human medicines containing a new active substance to treat for which the therapeutic indication is the treatment of any of the following diseases: acquired immune deficiency syndrome, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune diseases and other immune dysfunctions, viral diseases and all drugs that are designated as orphan drugs pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as amended. Drugs for other indications may be granted a centralized authorization in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 if the drug contains a new active substance and is of a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or where the granting of authorization in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 is in the interests of patients or animal health at EU level.

When a centralized authorization is granted, the authorization is automatically valid in all Member States of the European Union and by extension in the European Economic Area, or EEA, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. According to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the marketing authorization holder must be established in the EEA. This means for the UK that as of the end of the transition period (end of 2020), a marketing authorization holder currently established in the UK has to have transferred its marketing authorization to a holder established in the EEA. The transfer of the marketing authorization must be fully completed and implemented by the marketing authorization holder before the end of the transition period. Also, any application for marketing authorizations must be made by applicants established in the EEA. Therefore, applications made by applicants established in the UK will need to change to an applicant established in the EEA.

Under the centralized authorization procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, serves as the scientific committee that evaluates applications and renders opinions about the safety, efficacy and quality of human products on behalf of the EMA. The CHMP is composed of experts nominated by the Competent Authority of each European Union Member State, one of which is appointed to act as rapporteur for the coordination of the evaluation with the possible assistance of a further member acting as a co-rapporteur. The CHMP has 210 days to give its opinion to the EMA as to whether a marketing authorization should be granted. This period will be suspended until such time as the supplementary information requested by the CHMP has been provided by the applicant. Likewise, this time-limit will be suspended for the time allowed for the applicant to prepare oral or written explanations. The evaluation process is complex and involves extensive consultation with the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Union and a number of experts. It is possible to appeal the opinion within 15 days of receipt of the notification of the opinion. At the end of the re-examination, which

Table of Contents

lasts up to 60 active days, the CHMP adopts a final opinion. The European Commission usually takes its decision to grant a legally binding authorization within 67 days after obtaining the CHMP decision.

A marketing authorization that has been granted in the European Union may be suspended or withdrawn if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems are identified. Among other things, marketing authorization holders are required to have risk management plans that use risk minimization strategies beyond product labeling to ensure that the benefits of certain prescription drugs outweigh their risks.

Accelerated Assessment Procedures

When an application is submitted for a marketing authorization in the European Union in respect of drugs for human use which is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation, the applicant may request an accelerated assessment procedure pursuant to Article 14 (9) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, as amended. Based on the request, the justifications presented, and the recommendations of the rapporteurs, the CHMP will formulate a decision. Such a decision will be taken without prejudice to the CHMP opinion (positive or negative) on the granting of a marketing authorization. If the CHMP accepts the request, the timeframe for the evaluation will be reduced from the standard 210 days for the centralized procedure to 150 days, but it is possible that the CHMP can revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

Conditional Marketing Authorization and Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances

A conditional marketing authorization is valid for one year, can be renewed annually and may be requested by an applicant or proposed by the CHMP for medicinal products which aim at:

•

the treatment, prevention or medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases;

•

medicinal products to be used in emergency situations in response to public health threats recognized either by the World Health Organization or by the European Union in the framework of Decision No. 1082/2013/EU (e.g. COVID-19 treatments); or

•

medicinal products designated as orphan medicinal products in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as amended.

A conditional marketing authorization may be requested by an applicant or proposed by the CHMP for medicinal products if all of the following requirements are met:

•

the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product, as defined in Article 1(28a) of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, is positive;

•

it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide comprehensive clinical data;

•

unmet medical needs will be fulfilled (no existing satisfactory methods or the medicinal product provides major therapeutic advantage); and

•

the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required.

The legal basis for a conditional marketing authorization is Article 14-a of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, as amended.

The provisions for the granting of such an authorization are further elaborated in Regulation (EC) No. 507/2006. The holder will be required to complete ongoing studies or to conduct new studies within a specified period of time with a view to confirming that the benefit-risk balance is positive. In addition, specific obligations may be imposed in relation to the collection of pharmacovigilance data.

In addition, authorization under exceptional circumstances may be requested when it is not possible to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use, because:

•

the indications for which the product in question is intended are encountered so rarely that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to provide comprehensive evidence;

•

in the present state of scientific knowledge, comprehensive information cannot be provided; or

•

it would be contrary to generally accepted principles of medical ethics to collect such information.

The legal basis for the marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is Article 14 (8) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, as amended, and the relevant documentation for applications in exceptional circumstances are laid down in Part II of Annex I of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. The authorization under exceptional circumstances is granted subject to a requirement for the applicant to meet certain conditions, in particular concerning the safety of the medicinal product, notification to the Competent Authorities of any incident relating to its use, and action to be taken. The renewal of the marketing authorization of a medicinal product under exceptional circumstances follows the same rules as a “normal” marketing authorization. After five years, the marketing authorization will then be renewed under exceptional circumstances for an unlimited period, unless the Competent Authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal.

Table of Contents

Manufacturing and Manufacturers’ Authorization

Directive 2003/94/EC, as amended, requires that the manufacturing of investigational medicinal products and approved drugs in the EEA is subject to a separate manufacturing authorization and must be conducted in strict compliance with GMP requirements, which mandate the methods, facilities, and controls used in manufacturing, processing, and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. Manufacturers must have at least one Qualified Person, or QP, permanently and continuously at their disposal. Although the ultimate responsibility for the performance of a medicinal product over its lifetime, its safety, quality and efficacy, lies with the marketing authorization holder, the QP is responsible for ensuring that each batch of finished product released onto the market has been manufactured in accordance with GMP, in compliance with EU laws and the specifications set out in the marketing authorization or investigational medicinal product dossier. Certification can only be performed by a QP of the manufacturer and/or importer, which are described in the marketing authorization. GMP requirements are enforced through mandatory registration of facilities and inspections of those facilities. Failure to comply with these requirements could interrupt supply and result in delays, unanticipated costs and lost revenues, and subject the applicant to potential legal or regulatory action, including but not limited to warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, injunctive action or possible civil and criminal penalties.

Commercialization and Promotion

The commercialization and promotion of authorized medicinal products, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs, are strictly regulated in the European Union, notably under, among others, Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, guidance published by the European Commission and the EMA, laws, regulations and guidance set out by the Member States of the European Union and industry wide codes of conduct. The applicable regulatory framework aims to ensure that information provided by holders of marketing authorizations regarding their products is truthful, balanced and accurately reflects the safety and efficacy claims authorized by the EMA or by the Competent Authority of the authorizing Member State. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Commercialization and promotion of prescription only medicinal products to consumers or patients (directly or indirectly) is strictly forbidden. Advertising of medicines pre-approval or off-label is also prohibited.

Regulatory Data Protection and Market Exclusivity

In the European Union, all new active substances approved on the basis of a complete independent data package benefit from an 8+2+1 -year data/market exclusivity regime. This regime consists of (i) a regulatory data protection period and market exclusivity period of eight years, (ii) a market exclusivity period of an additional two years after the eight-year period and (iii) an extended market exclusivity period of one year after the 10-year period if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an approval for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their approval, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Under the current rules, a third party may reference the nonclinical and clinical data of the original innovator beginning eight years after notification of the grant of the approval in the European Union, but the third party may market a generic version after only 10 or, where applicable, 11 years have lapsed from the notification of the grant of the approval.

Orphan Designation

Medicines that meet the criteria for orphan designation benefit from the incentive of 10 years of market exclusivity once they are approved for commercialization in the European Union. This protects them from market competition with similar medicines with the same indication once they are approved. Market exclusivity is awarded by the European Commission and is specifically linked to one specific orphan designation for which a marketing authorization has been granted. Each orphan designation carries the potential for one market exclusivity for a particular indication. A medicine that has several separate orphan designations for different indications can have several separate market exclusivities if these refer to separate designated conditions. A designated orphan medicinal product shall be removed from the European Union’s Community register of orphan medicinal products at the end of the period of market exclusivity.

The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for medicines that also have complied with an agreed pediatric investigational plan, or PIP. This period may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, including among other things, if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a marketing authorization may be granted, for the same therapeutic indication, to a similar drug if:

•

the holder of the marketing authorization for the original orphan drug has given its consent to the second applicant;

•

the holder of the marketing authorization for the original orphan drug is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the drug; or

•

the second applicant can establish in the application that the second drug, although similar to the orphan drug already authorized, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior.

Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 lays down definitions of the concepts “similar drug” and “clinical superiority.”

In order to be eligible for incentives made available by the European Union and by the Member States to support research into, and the development and availability of, orphan drugs, the medicinal product needs to be designated as an orphan drug pursuant to Regulation

Table of Contents

(EC)No. 141/2000, as amended. Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as amended, states that a medicinal product shall be designated as an orphan medicinal product if its manufacturer can establish:

•

that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made or that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the commercialization of the medicinal product in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment; and

•

that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the community or, if such method exists, the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Small- or Medium-Sized Enterprise Status

In the European Union, manufacturers may benefit from further incentives, including administrative and procedural assistance and fee reductions when they are classified as a small- or medium-sized enterprises, or SME. Within the SMEs, medium enterprises are defined as those which employ between 50 to 249 persons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding €50 million or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding €43 million; a small enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs between 10 to 49 persons and whose annual turnover or annual balance sheet total does not exceed €10 million; and a microenterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover or annual balance sheet total does not exceed €2 million.

Administrative, regulatory and financial support is available to companies assigned the SME status by the EMA, including:

•

direct assistance by phone, email, teleconference or through briefing meetings on regulatory aspects of the pharmaceutical legislation;

•

fee exemptions and reductions for pre- and post-authorization regulatory procedures, including scientific advice, inspections and pharmaco-vigilance;

•

assistance with translations of product information into all official European Union languages;

•

inclusion in an online SME register, which is an important source of information on the EU-based SMEs involved in the manufacturing, development or marketing of medicines and promotes partnering and networking between the SMEs;

•

guidance on clinical data publication and a free redaction tool license;

•

liaison with academic investigators in pediatric-medicine research through the European Network of Pediatric Research at the EMA; and