Explanatory Note

From August 23, 2013 to December 6, 2020, Synaptogenix, Inc. (formerly known as Neurotrope Bioscience, Inc.) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Neurotrope, Inc. Neurotrope, Inc.’s operations were solely those of Synaptogenix, Inc. On May 17, 2020, Neurotrope, Inc. (“Neurotrope”) announced plans for the complete legal and structural separation of Synaptogenix, Inc., a Delaware corporation (formerly known as Neurotrope Bioscience, Inc.) (the “Company” or “Synaptogenix”) from Neurotrope (the “Spin-Off”). Under the Separation and Distribution Agreement between Neurotrope and the Company (the “Separation and Distribution Agreement”), Neurotrope planned to distribute all of its equity interest in the Company to Neurotrope’s stockholders. Following the Spin-Off, Neurotrope would not own any equity interest in the Company, and Synaptogenix would operate independently from Neurotrope. On December 6, 2020, Neurotrope approved the final distribution ratio and holders of record of Neurotrope common stock, Neurotrope preferred stock and certain warrants as of November 30, 2020 received a pro rata distribution of all the equity interest in the Company. For more information about the Spin-Off, see Item 7 – “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Result of Operation – Overview – Spin Off from Neurotrope, Inc.” When used in this report, the terms, “we,” the “Company,” “our,” and “us” refers to Synaptogenix, Inc.

Introduction

We are a biopharmaceutical company with product candidates in pre-clinical and clinical development. We are principally focused on developing a product platform based upon a drug candidate called bryostatin for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (“AD”), which is in the clinical testing stage. We are also evaluating potential therapeutic applications of bryostatin for other neurodegenerative or cognitive diseases and dysfunctions, such as Fragile X syndrome, Multiple Sclerosis, and Niemann-Pick Type C disease, which have undergone pre-clinical testing. We have been a party to a technology license and services agreement with the original Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute (“BRNI”) (which has been known as Cognitive Research Enterprises, Inc. (“CRE”) since October 2016), and its affiliate NRV II, LLC, which we collectively refer to herein as “CRE,” pursuant to which we now have an exclusive non-transferable license to certain patents and technologies required to develop our proposed products.

Synaptogenix was formed for the primary purpose of commercializing the technologies initially developed by BRNI for therapeutic applications for AD or other cognitive dysfunctions. These technologies have been under development by BRNI since 1999 and, until March 2013, had been financed through funding from a variety of non-investor sources (which include not-for-profit foundations, the National Institutes of Health, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and individual philanthropists). From March 2013 forward, development of the licensed technology has been funded principally through the Company in collaboration with CRE. Licensing agreements have been culminated with Stanford University for the exclusive use of synthetic bryostatin and for the potential use of bryostatin-like compounds, called Bryologs, for certain therapeutic indications.

On September 9, 2019, Neurotrope issued a press release announcing that the confirmatory Phase 2 study of Bryostatin-1 in moderate to severe AD did not achieve statistical significance on the primary endpoint, which was change from baseline to Week 13 in the SIB total score. There were multiple secondary outcome measures in this trial, including the changes from baseline at Weeks 5, 9 and 15 in the SIB total score. No statistically significant difference was observed in the change from baseline in SIB total score between the Bryostatin-1 and placebo treatment groups. On January 22, 2020, Neurotrope announced the completion of an additional analysis in connection with the confirmatory Phase 2 study, which examined moderately severe to severe AD patients treated with Bryostatin-1 in the absence of memantine. To adjust for the baseline imbalance observed in the study, a post-hoc analysis was conducted using paired data for individual patients, with each patient as his/her own control. For the pre-specified moderate stratum (i.e., Mini Mental State Exam 2 (“MMSE-2”) baseline scores 10-15), the baseline value and the week 13 value were used, resulting in pairs of observations for each patient. The changes from baseline for each patient were calculated and a paired t-test was used to compare the mean change from baseline to week 13 for each patient. A total of 65 patients had both baseline and week 13 values, from which there were 32 patients in the Bryostatin-1 treatment group and 33 patients in the placebo group. There was a statistically significant improvement over baseline (4.8 points) in the mean SIB at week 13 for subjects in the Bryostatin-1 treatment group (32 subjects), paired t-test p < 0.0076, 2-tailed. In the placebo group (33 subjects), there was also a statistically significant increase from baseline in the mean SIB at week 13, for paired t-test p < 0.0144, consistent with the placebo effect seen in the overall 203 study. Although there was a signal of Bryostatin-1’s benefit for the moderately severe stratum, the difference between the Bryostatin-1 and placebo treatment groups was not statistically significant (p=0.2727). On October 6, 2020, the company announced that its first patient was dosed in its ongoing, long-term Phase 2 study of Bryostatin-1 for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.

Results of Phase 2 Clinical Trial

On May 1, 2017, Neurotrope reported certain relevant top-line results from our Phase 2 exploratory clinical trial based on a preliminary analysis of a limited portion of the complete data set generated. A comprehensive analysis of these data from the Phase 2 exploratory trial evaluating Bryostatin-1 as a treatment of cognitive deficits in moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease were recently published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 555-570, 2019. A total of 147 patients were enrolled into the study; 135 patients in the mITT population (as defined below) and 113 in the Completer population (as defined below). This study was the first repeat dose study of Bryostatin-1 in patients with late stage AD (defined as a MMSE-2 of 4-15), in which two dose levels of Bryostatin-1 were compared with placebo to assess safety and preliminary efficacy (p < 0.1, one-tailed) after 12 weeks of treatment. The pre-specified primary endpoint, the Severe Impairment Battery (the “SIB”) (used to evaluate cognition in severe dementia), compared each dose of Bryostatin-1 with placebo at Week 13 in two sets of patients: (1) the modified intent-to-treat (the “mITT”) population, consisting of all patients who received study drug and had at least one efficacy/safety evaluation, and (2) the Completer population, consisting of those patients within the mITT population who completed the 13-week dosing protocol and cognitive assessments.

These announced top-line results indicated that the 20 µg dose, administered after two weekly 20 µg doses during the first two weeks and every other week thereafter, met the pre-specified primary endpoint in the Completer population, but not in the mITT population. Among the patients who completed the protocol (n = 113), the patients on the 20 µg dose at 13 weeks showed a mean increase on the SIB of 1.5 versus a decrease in the placebo group of -1.1 (net improvement of 2.6, p < 0.07), whereas, in the mITT population, the 20 µg group had a mean increase on the SIB of 1.2 versus a decrease in the placebo group of -0.8 (net improvement of 2.0, p < 0.134). At the pre-specified 5 week secondary endpoint, the Completer patients in the 20 µg group showed a net improvement of 4.0 SIB (p < .016), and the mITT population showed a net improvement of 3.0 (p < .056). Unlike the 20 µg dose, there was no therapeutic signal observed with the 40 µg dose.

The Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Inventory Severe Impairment version (the “ADCS-ADL-SIV”) was another pre-specified secondary endpoint. The p values for the comparisons between 20 µg and placebo for the ADCS-ADL endpoint at 13 weeks were 0.082 for the Completers and 0.104 for the mITT population.

Together, these initial results after preliminary analysis of this exploratory trial, provided signals that Bryostatin-1, at the 20 µg dose, caused sustained improvement in important functions that are impaired in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease, i.e., cognition and the ability to care for oneself. Since many of the patients in this study were already taking donepezil and/or memantine, the efficacy of Bryostatin-1 was evaluated in the Top Line results over and above the standard of care therapeutics.

The safety profile of Bryostatin-1 20 µg was minimally different from the placebo group except for a higher incidence of diarrhea and infusion reactions (11% versus 2% for diarrhea and 17% versus 6% for infusion reactions). Fewer adverse events were reported in patients in the 20 µg group, compared to the 40 µg group. Patients dosed with 20 µg had a dropout rate less than or identical to placebo, while patients dosed at 40 µg experienced poorer safety and tolerability, and had a higher dropout rate. Treatment emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) were mostly mild or moderate in severity. TEAEs, including serious adverse events, were more common in the 40 µg group, as compared to the 20 µg and placebo groups. The mean age of patients in the study was 72 years and similar across all three treatment groups.

Following presentation of the top line results in July 2017 at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in London, a much more extensive analysis of a complete set of the Phase 2 trial data was conducted.

On January 5, 2018, Neurotrope announced that a pre-specified exploratory analysis of the comprehensive data set from our recent Phase 2 trial in patients with advanced AD found evidence of sustained improvement in cognition in patients receiving the 20 µg bryostatin regimen. As specified in the Statistical Analysis Plan (“SAP”), analysis of patients who did not receive memantine, an approved AD treatment, as baseline therapy showed greater SIB improvement. These findings suggested that this investigational drug could potentially treat Alzheimer’s disease itself and help reduce and/or reverse the progression of AD, in addition to alleviating its symptoms.

Comprehensive follow-on analyses found that patients in the 20 µg treatment arm showed a sustained improvement in cognition over baseline compared to the placebo group at an exploratory endpoint week 15 (30 days after last dose at week 11). These data were observed in the study population as a whole as well as in the Completers study group.

This follow-on analysis of the data evaluated SIB scores of patients at 15 weeks, 30 days after all dosing had been completed — a pre-specified exploratory endpoint. For the 20 µg group, patients in the mITT population (n=34) showed an overall improvement compared to controls (n=33) of 3.59 (p=0.0503) and in the Completers population (n=34) showed an overall improvement compared to controls (n=33) of 4.09 (p=0.0293). In summary, patients on the 20 µg dose showed a persistent SIB improvement 30 days after all dosing had been completed. These p-values and those below are one-tailed.

Additional analyses compared 20 µg dose patients who were on baseline therapy of Aricept versus patients off Aricept. No significant differences were observed. Another analysis compared the 20 µg dose patients who were on or off baseline therapy of memantine. The secondary analysis comparing SIB scores in non-memantine versus memantine patients found the following:

Memantine, an NMDA receptor antagonist, is marketed under the brand names Namenda®, Namenda® XR, and Namzaric® (a combination of memantine and donepezil) for the treatment of dementia in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. It has been shown to delay cognitive decline and help reduce disease symptoms.

Further follow-on analyses used trend analyses (testing the dependence of treatment effect on repeated doses).

In the trend analyses, we found that the SIB values did not increase over time for the placebo patients resulting in slopes that were non-significantly different from zero (e.g. ‘zero-slopes’). In contrast, the SIB slopes for the 20 µg bryostatin patients who did not receive baseline memantine were found to be statistically significant (p<.001), giving a slope (95% CI) = 0.38 (0.18, 0.57) SIB points per week in the random intercept model, and a slope (95% CI) = 0.38 (0.18, 0.59) points per week in the random intercept and slope model. These results provided evidence that SIB improvement (drug benefit) increased as the number of successive bryostatin doses increased for the 20 µg patient cohort.

Confirmatory Phase 2 Clinical Trial

On May 4, 2018, Neurotrope announced a confirmatory, 100 patient, double-blinded clinical trial for the safe, effective 20 µg dose protocol for advanced AD patients not taking memantine as background therapy to evaluate improvements in SIB scores with an increased number of patients. Synaptogenix engaged WCT, in conjunction with consultants and investigators at leading academic institutions, to collaborate on the design and conduct of the trial, which began in April 2018. During July 2018, the first patient was enrolled in this study. Pursuant to a new Services Agreement (the “2018 Services Agreement”) with WCT dated as of May 4, 2018, WCT provided services relating to the trial. The total estimated budget for the services, including pass-through costs, drug supply and other statistical analyses, was approximately $7.8 million. The trial was substantially completed as of December 31, 2019. We incurred approximately $7.6 million in total expenses of which WCT has represented a total of approximately $7.2 million and approximately $400,000 of expenses were incurred to other trial-related vendors and consultants, resulting in a total savings for this trial of approximately $500,000.

On September 9, 2019, Neurotrope issued a press release announcing that the confirmatory Phase 2 study of Bryostatin-1 in moderate to severe AD did not achieve statistical significance on the primary endpoint, which was changed from baseline to Week 13 in the SIB total score.

An average increase in SIB total score of 1.3 points and 2.1 points was observed for the Bryostatin-1 and placebo groups, respectively, at Week 13. There were multiple secondary outcome measures in this trial, including the changes from baseline at Weeks 5, 9 and 15 in the SIB total score. No statistically significant difference was observed in the change from baseline in SIB total score between the bryostatin -1 and placebo treatment groups.

The confirmatory Phase 2 multicenter trial was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of Bryostatin-1 as a treatment for cognitive deficits in patients with moderate to severe AD — defined as a MMSE-2 score of 4-15 — who are not currently taking memantine. Patients were randomized 1:1 to be treated with either Bryostatin-1 20µg or placebo, receiving 7 doses over 12 weeks. Patients on memantine, an NMDA receptor antagonist, were excluded unless they had been discontinued from memantine treatment for a 30-day washout period prior to study enrollment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the SIB score between the baseline and week 13. Secondary endpoints included repeated SIB changes from baseline SIB at weeks 5, 9, 13 and 15.

On January 22, 2020, Neurotrope announced the completion of an additional analysis in connection with the confirmatory Phase 2 study, which examined moderately severe to severe AD patients treated with bryostatin-1 in the absence of memantine. To adjust for the baseline imbalance observed in the study, a post-hoc analysis was conducted using paired data for individual patients, with each patient as his/her own control. For the pre-specified moderate stratum (i.e., MMSE-2 baseline scores 10-15), the baseline value and the week 13 value were used, resulting in pairs of observations for each patient. The changes from baseline for each patient were calculated and a paired t-test was used to compare the mean change from baseline to week 13 for each patient. A total of 65 patients had both baseline and week 13 values, from which there were 32 patients in the Bryostatin-1 treatment group and 33 patients in the placebo group. There was a statistically significant improvement over baseline (4.8 points) in the mean SIB at week 13 for subjects in the Bryostatin-1 treatment group (32 subjects), paired t-test p < 0.0076, 2-tailed. In the placebo group (33 subjects), there was also a statistically significant increase from baseline in the mean SIB at week 13, for paired t-test p < 0.0144, consistent with the placebo effect seen in the overall 203 study. Although there was a signal of Bryostatin-1’s benefit for the moderately severe stratum, the difference between the Bryostatin-1 and placebo treatment groups was not statistically significant (p=0.2727). As a further test of the robustness of this Moderate Stratum benefit signal, a pre-specified trend analysis (measuring increase of SIB improvement as a function of successive drug doses) was performed on the repeated SIB measures over time (Weeks 0, 5, 9, and 13). These trend analyses showed a significant positive slope of improvement for the treatment groups in the 203 study that was significantly greater than for the placebo group (p<.01).

In connection with the additional analysis, Neurotrope also announced a $2.7 million award from the National Institutes of Health to support an additional Phase 2 clinical study focused on the moderate stratum for which we saw improvement in the 203 study. We are planning to meet with the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to present the totality of the clinical data for Bryostatin-1.

On July 23, 2020, Synaptogenix executed the 2020 Services Agreement with WCT. The 2020 Services Agreement relates to services for Synaptogenix’s Phase 2 Study. Pursuant to the terms of the 2020 Services Agreement, WCT will provide services to enroll approximately one hundred (100) Phase 2 Study subjects. Synaptogenix initiated the first Phase 2 Study site during the third quarter of 2020. The total estimated budget for the services, including pass-through costs, is approximately $9.8 million. As noted below, Neurotrope has been granted a $2.7 million award from the National Institutes of Health, which award will be used to support the Phase 2 Study, resulting in an estimated net budgeted cost of the Phase 2 Study to Neurotrope of $7.1 million. Of the $2.7 million grant, approximately $1 million has been received. Synaptogenix may terminate the 2020 Services Agreement without cause upon sixty (60) days prior written notice.

As of March 29, 2021, the Company has enrolled 42 patients and has completed contracts with 17 clinical sites that will participate in the current Phase 2 Study.

Other Development Projects

To the extent resources permit, we may pursue development of selected technology platforms with indications related to the treatment of various disorders, including neurodegenerative disorders such as AD, based on our currently licensed technology and/or technologies available from third party licensors or collaborators.

Nemours Agreement

On September 5, 2018, Neurotrope announced a collaboration with The Nemours / Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children (“Nemours”), a premier U.S. children’s hospital, to initiate a clinical trial in children with Fragile X syndrome (“Fragile X”). In addition to the primary objective of safety and tolerability, measurements will be made of working memory, language and other functional aspects such as anxiety, repetitive behavior, executive functioning, and social behavior. The total estimated cost of this proposed trial to us is approximately $100,000.

In connection with a Supply Agreement, on June 9, 2020, the Company entered into a transfer agreement (the “Transfer Agreement”) with BryoLogyx. Pursuant to the terms of the Transfer Agreement, the Company agreed to assign and transfer to BryoLogyx all of the Company’s right, title and interest in and to the CRADA, under which Bryostatin-1’s ability to modulate CD22 in patients with relapsed/refractory CD22+ disease has been evaluated to date. The Company entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”) with the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”) for the research and clinical development of Bryostatin-1. Under the CRADA, the parties agreed to collaborate with the NCI’s Center for Cancer Research, Pediatric Oncology Branch (POB) to develop a Phase I clinical trial testing the safety and toxicity of Bryostatin-1 in children and young adults with CD22 + leukemia and B-cell lymphoma. The CREDA was transferred to BryoLogyx and the Company assigned to BryoLogyx its investigational new drug application (“IND”) for CD22 currently on file with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As consideration for the transfer of the CRADA and IND, BryoLogyx has agreed to pay to the Company 2% of the gross revenue received in connection with the sale of bryostatin products, up to an aggregate payment amount of $1 million.

(1) Business Insights: Reference Code B100040-005, Publication Date May 2011, “Advances in AD Drug Discovery”

Figure 1. Different Pharmacologic Targets being pursued for the Treatment of AD(1)

It has been shown that during several years preceding the diagnosis of dementia associated with AD there can be gradual cognition decline, which at first may have rather benign characteristics. At this stage, known as mild cognitive impairment (“MCI”), 60% of these patients will convert to early AD. In MCI, there can already be significant loss of synapses (the junctions between nerve cells) and compromised release of the chemical messengers onto their post-synaptic targets.1 MCI, therefore, can transition into mild, moderate and, finally, severe stages of Alzheimer’s disease that are characterized by greater systemic loss of neurons and synapses in the brain tissue. Multiple failures in acetylcholine and glutamate neurotransmitter systems (neurotransmitters) may cause some of the symptoms of early AD, and thus these systems have become targets for pharmacologic intervention.

In MCI and early AD, the amyloid load in the brain may or may not increase while the symptoms of early AD begin to occur. Loss of neurons and synaptic networks can be accompanied by abnormal processing of β amyloid (“Aβ”) peptide, causing elevation of the soluble Aβ oligomers, eventually leading to the formation of Aβ plaques (protein deposits) in the brain.

The conventional amyloid cascade hypothesis holds that amyloid pathology leads to hyperphosphorylated tau proteins (a protein found in nerve cells) being deposited within neurons in the form of insoluble tangles, excitotoxicity (overstimulation of nerve cells by neurotransmitters), inflammation and finally synaptic depletion and neuronal death. Other hypotheses suggest that AD begins earlier with dysfunctional tau metabolism — independent of amyloid levels. However, the majority of drug development efforts during the past two decades have focused on stopping the production of Aβ or its fragments, and the elimination of these peptides from either intracellular or extracellular locations has represented the preponderance of drug design efforts to halt the progression of AD. However, these efforts have been largely unsuccessful.

We believe the current failures of therapies clearing formed amyloid plaques come from an incomplete view of the process. In our view, amyloid plaques and the tau-based neurofibrillary tangles are pathologic hallmarks of AD, but cognitive deficits and synaptic loss can often occur in AD patients in the absence of amyloid plaques. We believe the appearance of these plaques and tangles is not necessarily linked to the death of neurons or synapses, and that the elimination of the plaques does not restore cognitive function as already demonstrated in extensive clinical testing with pathologic correlates. However, we believe that the soluble amyloid pre-plaque oligomers, through their toxicity to synapses and neurons, are important in the progression of the disease.

In animal studies, the scientific team led by our President and Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Alkon, at the Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute, or BRNI (now known as CRE) found that PKCε activation in neurons targets the loss of synapses in the brains of animals with AD, and can delay or temporarily arrest other elements of the disease, e.g., the elevation of the toxic Aβ peptide, the loss of neurons, the appearance of plaques and tangles, and the loss of cognitive function. In pre-clinical testing, Dr. Alkon and his teams also demonstrated that byostatin prevents the death of neurons (anti-apoptosis) and induces synaptogenesis by mobilizing synaptic growth factors such as BDNF, NGF, and IGF. At the same time, bryostatin appeared to prevent the formation of A Beta oligomers, prevent the deposition of amyloid plaques (extra-neuronal), prevent the formation of neurofibrillary tangles (intra-neuronal), and may restore cognitive function. These neuro-restorative benefits may result from the multi-modal molecular cascades activated by the bryostatin — PKCε efficacies.

AD and the Potential Market for our Products

The Epidemic of AD

According to the Alzheimer’s Association, it has been estimated that 44 million people worldwide had AD, or other forms of dementia, in 2018. The prevalence of AD is independent of race, ethnicity, geography, life style and, to a large extent, genetics. The most common cause of developing AD is living a long life. In developing countries where the median age of death is less than 65 years old, AD is rarely recognized or diagnosed. In the United States in 2019, 5.8 million people are estimated to have AD, and over 96% of these people are older than 65 years of age.

Researchers continue to explore a wide range of drug mechanisms in hopes of developing drugs to combat this disease. Figure 1 illustrates the range of mechanisms under consideration. Our approach, which involves the activation of the enzyme PKCε, represents a novel mechanism in the armamentarium of potential AD drug therapies.

Potential Market for Our Products

According to an article titled “Progress in AD” published in The Journal of Neurology in 2012, there has been a dearth of new product introductions in the last 20 years either for the treatment of AD symptoms or its definitive diagnosis in patients who begin exhibiting the memory and cognitive disorders associated with the disease. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, all of the products introduced to date for the treatment of AD have yielded negative or marginal results with no long-term effect on the progression of AD and no improvement in the memory or cognitive performance of the patients receiving these therapies. With over 44 million people worldwide estimated to have had AD in 2019, there is significant commercial potential for a new therapeutic that is effective in delaying the progression of the disease.

We believe the markets for drugs or therapies to treat the underlying pathology of AD exist largely, but not exclusively, in the developed world and principally comprise the North American, European and Japanese markets. The aggregate AD market is subdivided into four distinct segments, which are shown in Figure 2, as are the compounded annual growth rates (“CAGRs”) for these segments over the 2013-2023 timeframe.

Sales of the major drug therapies available only by prescription are approved for the symptomatic treatment of the cognitive aspects of AD, but have no meaningful effect on disease progression, causing only temporary improvement in cognitive decline. Despite their limited efficacy, this group of drugs had collective worldwide sales in 2018 of approximately $4.4 billion and is projected to grow to approximately $8.2 billion by 2026, a compounded annual growth rate of 8.2%, according to Fior Markets as of July 10, 2019.

Our Proposed Products

Challenges in Treating AD

One of the challenges in treating AD is that its symptoms become manifest only years after the disease process can be definitely diagnosed. Treatment strategies attempting to intervene once symptoms become more apparent are focused on stimulating the neurotransmitter activity of still healthy neurons, or removing the amyloid plaque deposited in the brain. Many drug development efforts to date that have targeted the removal of beta-amyloid or tau protein as their therapeutic mechanism of action have failed, and drugs approved for stimulating neurotransmitter activity offer short-lived, palliative results for AD patients. As such, these strategies have yielded negative or marginal results with no effect on the progression of AD and no improvement in the memory or cognitive performance of the patients receiving these therapies.

Dying neurons and synapses have, to date, not been therapeutic targets for restoration, and many in the AD field currently believe that stemming the progression of the disease may only be possible with very early stage intervention. The FDA is encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to increase efforts to investigate such early stage interventional treatments by recommending that modified clinical endpoints, both functional and cognitive, be established to monitor the efficacy of drug prototypes being tested in early stage AD patients, according to an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine.(2)

In contrast, we believe that our data from various preclinical animal models and compassionate use trials support that activation of PKCε in central nervous system neurons may improve neuronal vitality and function in areas of the brain damaged by AD, potentially resulting in the improvement of memory and cognition.

Synaptogenesis

Studies of autopsy brains of AD versus Control patients showed that deficient activity or low concentrations of PKCε in aging subjects is one of the main causes of the neurodegeneration seen in AD. These deficiencies result in the loss of BDNF, an important synaptic growth factor as demonstrated by other clinical research. The schematic in Figure 3 illustrates only a portion of the changes mediated by PKCε, and how it may help reverse the neuronal damage and loss central to the pathogenic process in AD.

(2) NEJM.org: The New England Journal of Medicine, March 15, 2013, page 1: Drug Development of Early AD, N. Kozauer, M.D., and Russell Katz, M.D.

Figure 2. PKCε Activation Involves 5 Different Mechanisms to Stop the Progression of AD

Activation of PKCε has been achieved with drug prototypes that mimic the activity of diacylglycerol and phosphatidylserine, which are the natural binding targets for this enzyme. In addition, a variety of in vitro and in vivo animal models have demonstrated that these drug prototypes may be effective in restoring the structure and function of neuronal synapses. Our first clinical application of the PKCε activators is focused on the treatment of AD, but a number of other neurodegenerative diseases may be amenable to similar treatment. A list of these potential future drug targets is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Therapeutic targets for neuroregeneration through PKCε activation

Treatment of AD by Stimulating Synaptic Regeneration and Prevention of Neuronal Death

Dr. Alkon’s team at BRNI (now known as CRE) conducted research in synaptic regeneration and the prevention of neuronal death, outside the conventional wisdom that has dominated research efforts in the industry. The pathology of AD likely has multiple layers in its development, in addition to the presence of tau phosphorylated tangles and Aβ oligomers. However, once this process presents clinical manifestations of AD, restoring synaptic function thus far has not been effectively achieved by removing Aβ plaques with experimental drug interventions. Once neurons undergo toxic changes with soluble Aβ oligomers, the loss of function to the patient has been irreversible.

CRE’s and our approach has been to restore general viability and hence synaptic function in still-functioning neurons by stimulating the regeneration and growth of the dendritic branches, spines, and pre-synaptic terminals on these neurons. (Dendrites are the branched projections of a neuron that act to propagate the electrochemical stimulation received from other neural cells.) This process can be visualized with serial sections using an electron microscope in the brains of rats whose neurons and synapses have been damaged by ischemic shock (depriving oxygen) or traumatic injury to the brain. The morphology of the damaged neurons in these animal models looks strikingly different after they are treated with experimental drugs that activate PKCε. The new growth of dendritic trees on the damaged neurons creates a multiplicity of new synaptic connections, basically re-wiring the damaged neurons and restoring their function. Earlier therapeutic intervention with a PKCε activator produces markedly improved outcomes in tests measuring restored animal cognitive function.

PKCε Activation Stimulates the Formation of New Synaptic Connections

The new synaptic connections formed from the damaged neurons revitalized by PKCε in rats can be demonstrated in various behavioral models for the animals that are used to measure memory functions.

Treatment with bryostatin, for 12 weeks in genetically modified rodents pre-disposed to develop an AD-type of pathology showed that bryostatin promoted the growth of new synapses and preserved the existing synapses. In addition, this drug also reversed the decrease of PKCε and the reciprocal increase of soluble amyloid.(3)

In cell tissue cultures, there is a difference in morphology between neurons damaged by the application of ASPD (soluble oligomers of Aβ) as compared to synapses rejuvenated by the application of bryostatin. Treatment with bryostatin, through PKCε activation, stimulates the revitalization of neurons and the formation of new synaptic connections.

The Central Role of PKCε in Maintaining Neuron Structure and Function

Upon activation, PKCε migrates from the intraneuronal cytoplasm to the cell membrane, where it activates signal-regulating enzymes (specifically the m-RNA stabilizing protein, HUD, and downstream growth factors such as BDNF, NGF, IGF, etc.; MAP kinases Erk1/2; the BCl-2 apoptosis cascade; and NF- ϰϰϰϰβ), causing a series of changes leading to increased DNA transcription, synaptic maturation, a consequent increase in levels of growth factor proteins (such as nerve growth factor and brain-derived neurotrophic factor), an inhibition of programmed cell-death and a reduction of β amyloid, and hyperphosphorylated tau.

This myriad of events is orchestrated by PKCε, and prompts a number of secondary events occurring in both the pre- and post-synaptic portions of the neuron. Cellular visualization of this effect shows an increase in the number of pre-synaptic vesicles in the neurons, an increase in pre-synaptic levels of PKCε and an increase in the number of mushroom spines associated with individual synaptic boutons (knoblike enlargements at the end of a nerve fiber, where it forms a synapse). Their genesis in these neurons is responsible for the formation of new synapses during associative learning and memory, and for regeneration of synaptic networks in pre-clinical models of Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, traumatic brain injury, and Fragile X syndrome.

The central role of PKCε activation in these dynamic events expands the amyloid and tau hypotheses for AD by including pathways to restore the synaptic networks lost during neurodegeneration and to prevent further loss. This mechanistic framework offers new targets for therapeutic intervention which not only prevent the formation of tangles and plaque, but also prevents neuronal death, and promotes the induction of new, mature synaptic networks.

Decreased amyloid formation from PKCε activation results from an increase in the rate of Aβ degradation by ECE (endothelin converting enzyme) and induction of α-secretase cleavage of amyloid precursor protein (the precursor molecule to Aβ) through phosphorylation of an enzyme known as Erk. In rodent models genetically predisposed to forming large amounts of amyloid deposits in their brains, PKCε activation was found to interrupt the ongoing formation of amyloid, suggesting that this approach may delay the progression of AD.

The key to CRE’s innovation in this area has been in identifying highly potent drug prototypes that at low concentrations cause the specific and transient activation of PKCε, without interacting with the other isozyme variants of PKC whose inactivation would negate the synaptogenic properties of the e isoform.

(3) Journal of Neuroscience 2011, 31 (2), 630, D. Alkon et al.

Testing PKCε Activation in Humans

The basic drug mechanism invoking PKCε activation for neuronal rejuvenation and synaptic regeneration has never been evaluated in humans for any drug class or therapeutic application. We believe that the pre- clinical and clinical research in this field as described above is an ideal platform for testing this approach in human subjects.

We have licensed a body of biomedical research from CRE, formerly known as the Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute, or BRNI, that is comprised of new methods and drug prototypes designed to stimulate neuronal regeneration. For additional information, see “Business — Intellectual Property — Technology License and Services Agreement.” We believe the commercial application of this technology has potential to impact AD as well as traumatic brain injury, ischemic stroke, post-traumatic stress syndrome and learning disorders.

Drug Prototypes That Treat AD through Regeneration

CRE has developed a new chemical family of polyunsaturated fatty acid (“PUFA”) analogs, which appear to be effective in the activation of PKCε. Representative structures of bryostatin and a PUFA analog are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Structures of Bryostatin 1 and a PUFA Analog Effective in the Activation of PKCε(4)

Ki values = effective concentration of the drug in achieving 50% activation of PKCε

These molecules activate PKCε by binding to two different and distinct active sites on the enzyme. The natural ligands that bind to these sites are diacylglycerol and phosphatidylserine. Bryostatin acts as a mimetic (mimic) for diacylglycerol by binding to the diacylglycerol site and, similarly, the PUFA analogs act as mimetics for phosphatidylserine by binding to the phosphatidylserine site.

Collaborative Agreements

Stanford License Agreements

On May 12, 2014, the Company entered into a license agreement (the “Stanford Agreement”) with The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”), pursuant to which Stanford has granted to the Company a revenue-bearing, world-wide right and exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses (on certain conditions), under certain patent rights and related technology for the use of bryostatin structural derivatives, known as “bryologs,” for use in the treatment of central nervous system disorders, lysosomal storage diseases, stroke, cardio protection and traumatic brain injury, for the life of the licensed patents. Under the Stanford Agreement, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture and sell products (“Licensed Products”) in the Licensed Field of Use (as defined in the Stanford Agreement) during the term of the licensing agreement. The Company paid Stanford $70,000 upon executing the license and is obligated to pay an additional $10,000 annually as a license maintenance fee. In addition, we must meet specific diligence milestones, and upon meeting such milestones, make specific milestone payments to Stanford. We will also pay Stanford royalties of 3% on net sales, if any, of Licensed Products (as defined in the Stanford Agreement) and milestone payments of up to $3.7 million dependent upon stage of product development. To-date, no royalties nor milestone payments have been made.

(4) Trends in Biochemical Sciences V. 34, #3, p.136. T.J. Nelson et al, “Neuroprotective versus Tumorigenic protein kinase C activators.”

On January 19, 2017, the Company entered into a second license agreement with Stanford, pursuant to which Stanford has granted to the Company a revenue-bearing, world-wide right and exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses (on certain conditions), under certain patent rights and related technology for the use of “Bryostatin Compounds and Methods of Preparing the Same,” or synthesized bryostatin, for use in the treatment of neurological diseases, cognitive dysfunction and psychiatric disorders, for the life of the licensed patents. The Company paid Stanford $70,000 upon executing the license and is obligated to pay an additional $10,000 annually as a license maintenance fee. In addition, based upon certain milestones which include product development and commercialization, the Company will be obligated to pay up to an additional $2.1 million and between 1.5% and 4.5% royalty payments on certain revenues generated by the Company relating to the licensed technology. The Company has made all required annual maintenance payments.

Mt. Sinai License Agreement

On July 14, 2014, we entered into an Exclusive License Agreement (the “Mount Sinai Agreement”) with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (“Mount Sinai”). Pursuant to the Mount Sinai Agreement, Mount Sinai granted us (a) a revenue-bearing, world-wide right and exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses (on certain conditions), under Mount Sinai’s interest in certain joint patents held by the Company and Mount Sinai (the “Joint Patents”) as well as in certain results and data (the “Data Package”) and (b) a non-exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses on certain conditions, to certain technical information, both relating to the diagnostic, prophylactic or therapeutic use for treating diseases or disorders in humans relying on activation of Protein Kinase C Epsilon (“PKCε”), which includes Niemann-Pick Disease (the “Mount Sinai Field of Use”). The Mount Sinai Agreement allows us to research, discover, develop, make, have made, use, have used, import, lease, sell, have sold and offer certain products, processes or methods that are covered by valid claims of Mount Sinai’s interest in the Joint Patents or an Orphan Drug Designation Application covering the Data Package (“Mount Sinai Licensed Products”) in the Mount Sinai Field of Use (as such terms are defined in the Mount Sinai Agreement).

Bryostatin

Our lead product candidate is bryostatin. Bryostatin is a natural product isolated from a marine invertebrate organism, a bryozoan called Bugula neritina. Several total syntheses of this complex molecule have been achieved in recent years in various academic chemistry laboratories, and these approaches represent a possible alternative source of this drug. Importantly, we have an exclusive license for neurologic disorders to a new, accelerated synthesis of Bryostatin-1 recently developed at Stanford University by Dr. Paul Wender and his team. Bryostatin is a PKCα and ε activator that was originally developed as a potential anticancer drug. According to Clinical Cancer Research, this drug candidate was previously evaluated in 63 clinical studies involving more than 1,400 patients at the NCI for the treatment of various forms of cancer. While having failed these studies as an experimental anti-cancer therapy, much useful information on the safety, pharmacodynamics and toxicity of the drug was obtained from these in-human trials. In general, Bryostatin-1 was considered to be “well-tolerated” in these anti-cancer trials.

It was discovered that at doses at lower levels than those used in these anticancer trials, bryostatin is a potent activator of PKCε and may have efficacy in treating AD. As described above, activation of PKCε has been shown to partially restore synaptic function in neurons damaged by AD in in vitro and in vivo animal models.

The NCI has entered into a material transfer agreement with CRE to provide the bryostatin required for pre-clinical research as well as the Phase 2 clinical trials planned by the Company. Our license agreement with CRE (see “Business — Intellectual Property — Technology License and Services Agreement”) permits our access to new bryostatin clinical trial data and information held by the NCI, as well as past clinical, safety and toxicity data compiled by the NCI during the time this drug was being evaluated for its anticancer properties. See Item 1A – “Risk Factors — We are partly dependent upon the NCI to supply bryostatin for our clinical trials.”

CRE previously conducted an exploratory evaluation of bryostatin on a compassionate use basis in AD patients who have an inherited form of AD, frequently called familial AD, under an FDA-approved study protocol. Familial AD results from one of four major mutations in the genome, and this mutation is passed on from generation to generation within a family that carries the defective gene. The tragic consequence of familial AD is that it strikes its victims at an early age, often while they are in their twenties. The aggressive progression of familial AD can render these patients in the terminal stages of AD in their late 30s and early 40s.

Bryologs

On May 12, 2014, we entered into a license agreement (the “Stanford License”) with The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) pursuant to which Stanford has granted to us a revenue-bearing, world-wide right and exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses (on certain conditions), under three issued U.S. patents and one pending U.S. patent and related technology for the use of bryostatin structural derivatives, known as “bryologs,” for use in the treatment of central nervous system disorders, lysosomal storage diseases, stroke, and traumatic brain injury, collectively referred to as the Licensed Field of Use, for the life of the licensed patents. As mentioned above, in January 2017, we entered into an additional license agreement with Stanford relating to an accelerated synthesis of Bryostatin-1.

Also as mentioned above, our initial drug candidate, bryostatin, is a natural product isolated from a marine invertebrate organism, a bryozoan called Bugula neritina. However, it takes large quantities of biomass harvested from the oceans to produce even small quantities of bryostatin, and supply is limited.

Stanford researchers have synthesized a large family of bryologs over a number of years as part of a research program to define the essential molecular features critical to bryostatin’s biological activity. The bryologs are easier to produce than bryostatin due to their less complex chemical structures. They represent a collection of potential drug candidates, some of which we may evaluate for the potential treatment of several diseases such as ischemic stroke, Fragile X syndrome, traumatic brain injury and AD, although there can be no assurance that we will identify any potential candidates or if identified, will be successful in developing a potential treatment.

We are required under the Stanford License to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture, and sell products (“Licensed Products”) in the Licensed Field of Use (as defined in the Stanford License). In addition, we must meet specific diligence milestones, and upon meeting such milestones, make specified milestone payments to Stanford. We will also pay Stanford royalties on net sales, if any, of Licensed Products (as defined in the Stanford License).

Stanford retains the right, on behalf of itself and all other non-profit research institutions, to practice the licensed patents and use the licensed technology for any non-profit purpose, including sponsored research and collaborations. The license is also subject to Title 35, Sections 200-204, of the United States Code, which governs patent rights in inventions made with U.S. government assistance. Among other things, these provisions provide the United States government with nonexclusive rights in the licensed patents. They also impose the obligation that products based on the licensed patents sold or produced in the United States be “manufactured substantially in the United States.”

PUFA Analogs

Several other drug prototypes termed the PUFA analogs have been synthesized at CRE and evaluated for their PKCε activating properties in models of AD. The PUFA analogs are not structurally related to bryostatin and activate PKCε at a different site. We believe the PUFA analogs may represent a potential source for follow-on drug candidates. PKCε activators from the PUFA family of drug prototypes have demonstrated neuroregeneration efficacy roughly equivalent to and, in some cases, potentially superior to that of bryostatin. If the PUFA analogs show adequate potency in preclinical models of AD, we may advance a drug prototype from this chemical family.

Other Potential Products

We may acquire, by license or otherwise, other development stage products that are consistent with our product portfolio objectives and commercialization strategy.

WCT Services Agreements

On May 28, 2020, Synaptogenix entered into a letter of intent (the “LOI”) with Worldwide Clinical Trials, Inc. (“WCT”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to negotiate a definitive agreement for the provision of clinical trial development services by WCT in connection with the Phase 2 Study. Pursuant to the terms of the LOI, Synaptogenix agreed to pay to WCT a cash fee of approximately $0.6 million as an advance in order to fund the initial commitment and certain upfront costs of third party vendors.

On July 23, 2020, Synaptogenix executed a Services Agreement (the “2020 Services Agreement”) with WCT. The 2020 Services Agreement relates to services for Synaptogenix’s Phase 2 Study. Pursuant to the terms of the 2020 Services Agreement, WCT will provide services to enroll approximately one hundred (100) Phase 2 Study subjects. The first Phase 2 Study site was initiated during the third quarter of 2020. The total estimated budget for the services, including pass-through costs, is approximately $9.8 million. As noted below, Neurotrope has been granted a $2.7 million award from the National Institutes of Health, which award will be used to support the Phase 2 Study, resulting in an estimated net budgeted cost of the Study to Neurotrope of $7.1 million. . Of the $2.7 million grant, approximately $1 million has been received. Synaptogenix may terminate the 2020 Services Agreement without cause upon sixty (60) days prior written notice.

Intellectual Property

Technology License and Services Agreement

On February 4, 2015, we, CRE and NRV II, LLC entered into an Amended and Restated Technology License and Services Agreement (the “CRE License”), which further amended and restated the Technology License and Services Agreement dated as of October 31, 2012, as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated as of August 21, 2013.

Pursuant to the CRE License, we maintained our exclusive (except as described below), non-transferable (except pursuant to the CRE License’s assignment provision), world-wide, royalty-bearing right, with a right to sublicense (in accordance with the terms and conditions described below), under CRE’s and NRV II’s respective right, title and interest in and to certain patents and technology owned by CRE or licensed to NRV II, LLC by CRE as of or subsequent to October 31, 2012 to develop, use, manufacture, market, offer for sale, sell, distribute, import and export certain products or services for therapeutic applications for AD and other cognitive dysfunctions in humans or animals (the “Field of Use”). Additionally, the CRE License specifies that all patents that issue from a certain patent application, shall constitute licensed patents and all trade secrets, know-how and other confidential information claimed by such patents constitute licensed technology under the CRE License. Furthermore, on July 10, 2015, under the terms of the Statement of Work and Account Satisfaction Agreement dated February 4, 2015, our rights relating to an in vitro diagnostic test system reverted back to CRE and, accordingly, we no longer have any rights under the CRE License for diagnostic applications using the CRE patent portfolio or technology.

Notwithstanding the above license terms, CRE and its affiliates retain rights to use the licensed intellectual property in the Field of Use to engage in research and development and other non-commercial activities and to provide services to us or to perform other activities in connection with the CRE License.

Under the CRE License, we and CRE may not enter into sublicense agreements with third parties except with CRE’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be commercially unreasonably withheld. Furthermore, the CRE License dated February 4, 2015 revises the agreement that was entered into as of October 31, 2012 and amended on August 21, 2013, in that it provides that any intellectual property developed, conceived or created in connection with a sublicense agreement that we entered into with a third party pursuant to the terms of the CRE License will be licensed to CRE and its affiliates for any and all non-commercial purposes, on a worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable, non-terminable, fully paid-up, royalty-free, transferable basis, with the right to freely sublicense such intellectual property. Previously, the agreement had provided that such intellectual property would be assigned to CRE.

Under the CRE License, we and CRE will jointly own data, reports and information that is generated on or after February 28, 2013, pursuant to the license agreement dated October 31, 2012 and amended on August 21, 2013, by us, on behalf of us by a third party or by CRE pursuant to a statement of work that the parties enter into pursuant to the CRE License, in each case to the extent not constituting or containing any data, reports or information generated prior to such date or by CRE not pursuant to a statement of work (the “Jointly Owned Data”). CRE has agreed not to use the Jointly Owned Data inside or outside the Field of Use for any commercial purpose during the term of the CRE License or following any expiration of the CRE License other than an expiration that is the result of a breach by us of the CRE License that caused any licensed patent to expire, become abandoned or be declared unenforceable or invalid or caused any licensed technology to enter the public domain (a “Natural Expiration”) provided, however, CRE may use the Jointly Owned Data inside or outside the Field of Use for any commercial purpose following any termination of the CRE License. Also, CRE granted us a license during the term and following any Natural Expiration, to use certain CRE data in the Field of Use for any commercial purposes falling within the scope of the license granted to us under the CRE License.

The CRE License further requires us to pay CRE (i) a fixed research fee equal to a pro rata amount of $1 million in the year during which we close on a Series B Preferred Stock financing resulting in proceeds of at least $25 million, (ii) a fixed research fee of $1 million per year for each of the five calendar years following the completion of such financing and (iii) an annual fixed research fee in an amount to be negotiated and agreed upon no later than 90 days prior to the end of the fifth calendar year following the completion of such financing to be paid with respect to each remaining calendar year during the term of the CRE License. This fixed research fee is not yet due as the Company has not completed a Series B Preferred Stock financing. The CRE License Agreement also requires the payment by us of royalties ranging between 2% and 5% of our revenues generated from the licensed patents and other intellectual property, dependent upon the percentage ownership that Neuroscience Research Ventures, Inc. (“NRV, Inc.”) holds in our company, which currently would be a royalty rate of 5% based on NRV, Inc.’s current ownership in us.

Pursuant to the terms of the November 12, 2015 amendment to the CRE License, we paid an aggregate of approximately $348,000 to CRE following the closings of the Series B private placement, which constituted an advance royalty payment to CRE and will be offset (with no interest) against the amount of future royalty obligations payable until such time that the amount of such future royalty obligations equals in full the amount of the advance royalty payments made, which shall be subtracted from the gross proceeds to determine the “Post-PA Fee Proceeds.”

On November 29, 2018, we entered into a Second Amendment to the CRE License, pursuant to which (i) we agreed to pay all outstanding invoices and accrued expenses associated with the licensed intellectual property and (ii) the parties agreed that CRE would no longer have the right, and we would have the sole and exclusive right, to apply for, file, prosecute, and maintain patents and applications for the licensed intellectual property.

Our Licensed Intellectual Property

We have licensed from CRE an extensive intellectual property portfolio that includes issued patents, pending patent applications and provisional patent applications, in the U.S. and elsewhere, which, we believe, together cover these key pharmaceutical markets. A method of use patent has been issued to CRE that covers the use of the PUFA family of molecules for the same therapeutic applications.

We believe the CRE License provides us rights to the patents and technologies required to develop our proposed products. The patents and technologies licensed to us pursuant to the CRE License include, without limitation, the following:

A number of CRE’s patent applications for treatment of neurological disorders have been under active prosecution for many years and have been the subject of multiple rejections for anticipation and/or obviousness based on prior art. There are no guarantees that CRE’s pending patent applications will issue into commercially meaningful patents. If these patent applications are not approved or successfully prosecuted, then we will attempt to seek other means of protecting its proprietary position including, but not limited to, trade secrets, proprietary formulations and methods, etc.

A substantial amount of in-human data exists that was generated by the NCI that involves the earlier evaluation of bryostatin as an anticancer agent. The NCI also holds the existing inventory of the bryostatin drug product which is suitable for use in man. Our use of the substantial data package generated by the NCI on bryostatin, as well as access to the clinical supply of this substance, is permitted under a material transfer agreements entered into and between the NCI and CRE.

There are no known patent conflicts or freedom to operate issues at this time which could encumber our ability to commercialize the PKCε activators for the treatment of cognition and memory disorders. However, we cannot provide any assurance that such conflicts will not arise in the future. For more information, see Item 1A – Risk Factors – “Our commercial success will depend, in part, on our ability, and the ability of our licensors, to obtain and maintain patent protection. Our licensors’ failure to obtain and maintain patent protection for our products may have a material adverse effect on our business.” and “Our licensed patented technologies may infringe on other patents, which may expose us to costly litigation.”

We also have the right to re-license certain patents and patent applications in certain jurisdictions that we had licensed under the CRE License but had previously elected to relinquish. In the event that we decide to re-license any of such patents and/or patent applications, then we are required to reimburse CRE for all of the attorneys’ fees, translation costs, filing fees, maintenance fees, and other costs and expenses related to such patents and/or patent applications that have been incurred since we elected to relinquish them under the CRE License.

Additional Intellectual Property

In addition, we have also filed, and own, multiple patent families directed to methods of treatment and formulations with PKC activators, including bryostatin. We are, or will, seek patent protection for these inventions in numerous countries and regions including, among others, Europe, Canada, Mexico, and Japan.

While we seek broad coverage under our existing patent applications, there is always a risk that an alteration to the product or process may provide sufficient basis for a competitor to avoid infringement claims. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before a patent is issued and courts can reinterpret patent scope after issuance. Moreover, many jurisdictions including the United States permit third parties to challenge issued patents in administrative proceedings, which may result in further narrowing or even cancellation of patent claims. Moreover, we cannot provide any assurance that any patents will be issued from our pending or any future applications or that any potentially issued patents will adequately protect our intellectual property.

Individual patents extend for varying periods depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, utility patents issued for applications filed in the United States are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest effective filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, delay in issuing the patent as well as a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. However, as to the FDA component, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. The actual protection afforded by a patent may vary on a product by product basis, from country to country and can depend upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, and the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, copyright protection, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. For example, we rely upon trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements or invention assignment agreements with our employees, contract research organizations, consultants, and any potential commercial partners. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed.

Governmental Regulation and Product Approval

The manufacturing and marketing of our potential products and our ongoing research and development activities are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries.

United States Regulation of Drugs

In the United States, the FDA approves and regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and implementing regulations. Before any drug product can be marketed in the United States, it must receive approval from the FDA. To receive this approval, any drug we develop must undergo rigorous preclinical testing and clinical trials that demonstrate the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness for each indicated use. The FDA’s extensive regulatory process controls, among other things, the development, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, record keeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution of pharmaceutical products. The failure to comply with requirements under the FDCA and other applicable laws at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant and/or sponsor to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, including refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters and other types of enforcement letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits or civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice or other governmental entities.

In general, before any new pharmaceutical product can be marketed in the United States, the process typically required by the FDA includes:

Preclinical Testing

In the United States, drug candidates are tested in animals, until adequate evidence of safety and efficacy is established, prior to clinical testing in human subjects. These preclinical studies generally evaluate the mechanism of action and pharmacology of the product and assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product. Tested compounds must be produced according to applicable cGMP requirements and preclinical safety tests must be conducted in compliance with FDA and international regulations regarding GLP. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are generally submitted to the FDA as part of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may commence. The IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA requests an extension or raises concerns about the conduct of the clinical trials as outlined in the application. If the FDA has any concerns, the sponsor of the IND and the FDA must resolve the concerns before clinical trials can begin. Regulatory authorities may require additional preclinical data before allowing the clinical trials to commence or proceed from one phase to another, and could demand that the clinical trials be discontinued or suspended at any time if there are significant safety issues. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.

Furthermore, an independent IRB for each medical center proposing to participate in the conduct of the clinical trial must review and approve the clinical protocol and patient informed consent form before commencement of the clinical trial at the respective medical center. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations.

Clinical Trials

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

Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov data registry. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. 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 some cases 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.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. During all clinical trials, physicians will monitor patients to determine effectiveness of the drug candidate and to observe and report any reactions or safety risks that may result from use of the drug candidate. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the clinical protocol, GCP, or other IRB requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

Review of the NDA by FDA

The data from the clinical trials, together with preclinical data and other supporting information that establishes a drug candidate’s profile, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA or NDA supplement (for approval of a new indication if the product candidate is already approved for another indication). Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to an application user fee, currently exceeding $2.8 million, and the sponsor of an approved NDA is subject to an annual program fee, currently exceeding $300,000 per product. These fees typically increase annually. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for drugs with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.

Under applicable laws and FDA regulations, FDA performs an administrative review on each submitted NDA within 45 to 60 days following submission. If deemed complete at the end of this preliminary review, the FDA will “file” the NDA, thereby triggering substantive review of the application. The FDA can refuse to file any NDA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable. The FDA has established internal substantive review goals of six months for priority NDAs (for drugs addressing serious or life threatening conditions for which there is an unmet medical need) and ten months for regular NDAs. The FDA, however, is not legally required to complete its review within these periods, and these performance goals may change over time.

The FDA is required to refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including drug component manufacturing (e.g., active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished drug product manufacturing and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, as amended, an NDA or supplement to an NDA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric populations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric population for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or the FDASIA, enacted in 2012, made permanent PREA to require a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration to submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within sixty days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 clinical trial. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including trial objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from pre-clinical studies, early phase clinical trials or other clinical development programs.

Data Review and Approval

Substantial financial resources are necessary to fund the research, clinical trials and related activities necessary to satisfy FDA requirements or similar requirements of state, local and foreign regulatory agencies. It normally takes many years to satisfy these various regulatory requirements, assuming they are satisfied. Information generated in this process is susceptible to varying interpretations that could delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval at any stage of the process. Accordingly, the actual time and expense required to bring a product to market may vary substantially. We cannot assure you that we will submit applications for required authorizations to manufacture and/or market potential products or that any such application will be reviewed and approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities in a timely manner, if at all. Data obtained from clinical activities is not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Success in early stage clinical trials does not ensure success in later stage clinical trials. Even if a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific disease states, patient populations and dosages, or have conditions placed on them that restrict the commercial applications, advertising, promotion or distribution of these products.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in very limited circumstances, for seven years. These very limited circumstances are (i) an inability to supply the drug in sufficient quantities or (ii) a situation in which a new formulation of the drug has shown superior safety or efficacy. Competitors may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity and may obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication. If a designated orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was described in its orphan drug designation request, it may not be entitled to exclusivity under the Orphan Drug Act. Orphan drug exclusivity, however, also could block the approval of our product for seven years if a competitor obtains earlier approval of the same drug for the same indication.

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and Priority Review Designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if the product is intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review designation.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for fast track review if the product is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a fast track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the FDA may withdraw the fast track designation if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

In 2012, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, which established a new regulatory scheme allowing for expedited review of products designated as “breakthrough therapies.” A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

Finally, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product designed to treat a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months from the date of filing.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a product, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints, but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval where the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate clinical benefit of a product.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of products for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post- marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

The FDA’s Decision on an NDA

Based on the FDA’s evaluation of an NDA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for the approved indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of an NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with the accompanying approved prescribing information for specific indications. If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product; require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling; require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval; require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization; or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms. In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require an applicant to develop a REMS. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease, expected benefit of the product, expected duration of treatment, seriousness of known or potential adverse events and whether the product is a new molecular entity. REMS can include medication guides, physician communication plans for healthcare professionals and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU may include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and use of patient registries. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS plan is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS plan. The FDA may require a REMS before approval or post-approval if it becomes aware of a serious risk associated with use of the product. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a product. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory requirements and commitments is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label use”), and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

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

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. In addition, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCA, regulates the distribution and tracing of prescription drugs and prescription drug samples at the federal level, and set minimum standards for the regulation of drug distributors by the states. The DSCSA mandates phased-in and resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers over a 10-year period that is expected to culminate in November 2023. From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

The Hatch-Waxman Act and Marketing Exclusivity

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDC Act, Congress authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved by the FDA under the NDA provisions of the statute and also enacted Section 505(b)(2) of the FDC Act. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference listed drug, or RLD. Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug.

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity or NCE, which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity. During the exclusivity period, the FDA cannot accept for review any ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed on an NCE patent and any time after approval if the application is filed based on a new indication or a new formulation.

The Hatch-Waxman Act also provides three years of data exclusivity for a NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving follow-on applications for drugs containing the original active agent. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period. Five-year and three-year exclusivity also will not delay the submission or approval of a traditional NDA filed under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDC Act. However, an applicant submitting a traditional NDA would be required to either conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension, also known as patent term restoration, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. Patent term extension is generally available only for drug products whose active ingredient has not previously been approved by the FDA. The restoration period granted is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the ultimate approval date. Patent term extension 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 drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple drugs for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The United States PTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension in consultation with the FDA.

Pediatric Exclusivity and Pediatric Use

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (“BPCA”) provides NDA holders a six-month period of non-patent marketing exclusivity attached to any other exclusivity listed with FDA—patent or non-patent—for a drug if certain conditions are met. Conditions for pediatric exclusivity include a determination by the FDA that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population; a written request by the FDA for pediatric studies; and agreement by the applicant to perform the requested studies and the submission to the FDA, completion of the studies in accordance with the written request, and the acceptance by the FDA, of the reports of the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. The issuance of a written request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described studies. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications.

European Union Regulation of Drug Products

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are and will be subject, either directly or through our distribution partners, to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials, the privacy of personal data and commercial sales and distribution of our products, if approved.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in non-U.S. countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like an IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a clinical trial application (“CTA”), must be submitted to the competent national health authority and to independent ethics committees in each country in which a company plans to conduct clinical trials. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trials may proceed in that country.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country, even though there is already some degree of legal harmonization in the European Union member states resulting from the national implementation of underlying E.U. legislation. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and other applicable regulatory requirements.

To obtain a marketing license for a new drug, or medicinal product in the European Union, the sponsor must obtain approval of a marketing authorization application (“MAA”). The way in which a medicinal product can be approved in the European Union depends on the nature of the medicinal product. As of January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) is no longer a member state of the EU, and therefore a separate MAA and approval will be required to market a medicinal product in the UK.

The centralized procedure results in a single marketing authorization granted by the European Commission that is valid across the European Union, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for human drugs that are: (i) derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases, (iii) officially designated “orphan drugs” (drugs used for rare human diseases) and (iv) advanced-therapy medicines, such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The centralized procedure may at the request of the applicant also be used for human drugs which do not fall within the above mentioned categories if the human drug (a) contains a new active substance which was not authorized in the European Community; or (b) the applicant shows that the medicinal product constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or that the granting of authorization in the centralized procedure is in the interests of patients or animal health at the European Community level.

Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP), with adoption of the actual marketing authorization by the European Commission thereafter. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest from the point of view of therapeutic innovation, defined by three cumulative criteria: the seriousness of the disease to be treated; the absence of an appropriate alternative therapeutic approach, and anticipation of exceptional high therapeutic benefit. In this circumstance, EMA ensures that the evaluation for the opinion of the CHMP is completed within 150 days and the opinion issued thereafter.

The mutual recognition procedure, or MRP, for the approval of human drugs is an alternative approach to facilitate individual national marketing authorizations within the European Union. Basically, the MRP may be applied for all human drugs for which the centralized procedure is not obligatory. The MRP is applicable to the majority of conventional medicinal products, and is based on the principle of recognition of an already existing national marketing authorization by one or more member states. In the MRP, a marketing authorization for a drug already exists in one or more member states of the European Union and subsequently marketing authorization applications are made in other European Union member states by referring to the initial marketing authorization. The member state in which the marketing authorization was first granted will then act as the reference member state. The member states where the marketing authorization is subsequently applied for act as concerned member states. After a product assessment is completed by the reference member state, copies of the report are sent to all member states, together with the approved summary of product characteristics, labeling and package leaflet. The concerned member states then have 90 days to recognize the decision of the reference member state and the summary of product characteristics, labeling and package leaflet. National marketing authorizations within individual member states shall be granted within 30 days after acknowledgement of the agreement

Should any member state refuse to recognize the marketing authorization by the reference member state, on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the issue will be referred to a coordination group. Within a timeframe of 60 days, member states shall, within the coordination group, make all efforts to reach a consensus. If this fails, the procedure is submitted to an EMA scientific committee for arbitration. The opinion of this EMA committee is then forwarded to the Commission, for the start of the decision-making process. As in the centralized procedure, this process entails consulting various European Commission Directorates General and the Standing Committee on Human Medicinal Products or Veterinary Medicinal Products, as appropriate.

Rest of World Government Regulation

For countries outside of the United States and the European Union, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the other applicable regulatory requirements.

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

Other Government Regulation

Our research and development activities use biological and hazardous materials that are dangerous to human health and safety or the environment. We are subject to a variety of federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, generation, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and wastes resulting from these materials. We are also subject to regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and federal and state environmental protection agencies and to regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

If our product candidates are approved in the United States, we will have to comply with various U.S. federal and state laws, rules and regulations pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse, including anti-kickback laws and physician self-referral laws, rules and regulations. Violations of the fraud and abuse laws are punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. These laws include the following:

Sanctions for violating these federal laws include criminal and civil penalties that range from punitive sanctions, damage assessments, money penalties, imprisonment, denial of Medicare and Medicaid payments, or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs, or both. These laws also impose an affirmative duty on those receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding to ensure that they do not employ or contract with persons excluded from the Medicare and other government programs. Additionally, many states have laws and regulations that contain prohibitions that are similar to, and in many cases broader than, these federal laws and once our products are marketed commercially, we will have to comply with these various state laws as well.

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures.

In November 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) finalized significant changes to the regulations implementing the Anti-Kickback Statute, as well as the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark Law) and the civil monetary penalty rules regarding beneficiary inducements, with the goal of offering the healthcare industry more flexibility and reducing the regulatory burden associated with those fraud and abuse laws, particularly with respect to value-based arrangements among industry participants. As noted below under “Healthcare Reform,” however, those final rules may be potentially overturned under the Congressional Review Act following the change in control of the legislative and executive branches in 2021.

State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. We also may be subject to, or may in the future become subject to, U.S. federal and state, and foreign laws and regulations imposing obligations on how we collect, use, disclose, store and process personal information. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could result in liability or reputational harm and could harm our business. Ensuring compliance with such laws could also impair our efforts to maintain and expand our customer base and thereby decrease our future revenues.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing, and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Sales of our products, when and if approved for marketing in the United States, will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. In addition, these third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. Furthermore, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. Limited third-party reimbursement for our product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover our product candidates could reduce physician usage of our products once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

In Europe and other countries outside of the United States, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed to. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. In some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product and therapeutic candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product and therapeutic candidates that obtain marketing approval. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product and therapeutic candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access.

For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, was enacted in March 2010 and has had a significant impact on the health care industry in the U.S. The ACA expanded coverage for the uninsured while at the same time containing overall healthcare costs. With regard to biopharmaceutical products, the ACA, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program. Additionally, on December 20, 2019, President Trump signed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2020 into law (P.L. 116-94) that includes a piece of bipartisan legislation called the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act of 2019 or the “CREATES Act.” The CREATES Act aims to address the concern articulated by both the FDA and others in the industry that some brand manufacturers have improperly restricted the distribution of their products, including by invoking the existence of a REMS for certain products, to deny generic product developers access to samples of brand products. Because generic product developers need samples to conduct certain comparative testing required by the FDA, some have attributed the inability to timely obtain samples as a cause of delay in the entry of generic products. To remedy this concern, the CREATES Act establishes a private cause of action that permits a generic product developer to sue the brand manufacturer to compel it to furnish the necessary samples on “commercially reasonable, market-based terms.” Whether and how generic product developments will use this new pathway, as well as the likely outcome of any legal challenges to provisions of the CREATES Act, remain highly uncertain and its potential effects on future competition for COSELA or any of our other future commercial products are unknown.

As another example, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 27, 2020 incorporated extensive healthcare provisions and amendments to existing laws, including a requirement that all manufacturers of drugs and biological products covered under Medicare Part B report the product’s average sales price, or ASP, to DHHS beginning on January 1, 2022, subject to enforcement via civil money penalties.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Members of the US Congress have indicated that they may continue to seek to modify, repeal or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the ACA. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, was enacted in 2017 and, among other things, removed penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” In December 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate was a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the TCJA, the remaining provisions of the ACA were invalid and the law in its entirety was unconstitutional. In December 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional but remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether other reforms enacted as part of the ACA but not specifically related to the individual mandate or health insurance could be severed from the rest of the ACA so as not to be declared invalid as well. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case and allocated one hour for oral arguments, which occurred on November 10, 2020. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be issued in spring 2021. It is unclear how this litigation and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the implementation of the ACA, the pharmaceutical industry more generally, and our business. Complying with any new legislation or reversing changes implemented under the ACA could be time-intensive and expensive, resulting in a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA that affect health care expenditures. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, which was signed into law on March 27, 2020 and was designed to provide financial support and resources to individuals and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, and extended the sequester by one year, through 2030, in order to offset the added expense of the 2020 cancellation. The 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act was subsequently signed into law on December 27, 2020 and extends the CARES Act suspension period to March 31, 2021.

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. DHHS, has solicited feedback on some of various measures intended to lower drug prices and reduce the out of pocket costs of drugs and implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, DHHS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified a DHHS policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. As part of the Trump Administration’s so-called “Blueprint” to lower drug prices, DHHS and FDA also released on July 31, 2019 their Safe Importation Action Plan proposing two different pathways for the importation of foreign drug products. One pathway focuses on the importation of certain drugs from Canada, which required the agencies to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking, while the second pathway allows manufacturers to distribute their drugs manufactured abroad and was released as agency policy in an FDA guidance document first issued in December 2019. FDA’s notice of proposed rulemaking to implement a system whereby state governmental entities could lawfully import and distribute prescription drugs sourced from Canada was published at the end of December 2019 and in September 2020, the rulemaking was finalized by FDA. Those new regulations became effective on November 30, 2020, although the impact of such future programs is uncertain, in part because lawsuits have been filed challenging the government’s authority to promulgate them. The final regulations may also be vulnerable to being overturned by a joint resolution of disapproval from Congress under the procedures set forth in the Congressional Review Act, which could be applied to regulatory actions taken by the Trump Administration on or after August 21, 2020 (i.e., in the last 60 days of legislative session of the 116th Congress). Congress and the executive branch have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs, making this area subject to ongoing uncertainty. In addition, the probability of success of other policies enacted over the final months of the Trump Administration and their impact on the U.S. prescription drug marketplace is unknown. There are likely to be political and legal challenges associated with implementing these reforms as they are currently envisioned, and the January 20, 2021 transition to a new Democrat-led presidential administration created further uncertainty. Following his inauguration, President Biden took immediate steps to order a regulatory freeze on all pending substantive executive actions in order to permit incoming department and agency heads to review whether questions of fact, policy, and law may be implicated and to determine how to proceed.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that may lead to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, including COSELA and any future products for which we secure marketing approval.

Scientific Advisory Board

The Company has established a Scientific Advisory Board (“SAB”) comprised of experts in the fields of AD and other neurological diseases.

Scientific Advisory Board Chairperson & Members

Martin R. Farlow (Chairperson), MD, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Neurology at Indiana University and co-director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Center at Indiana University. Dr. Farlow received his medical degree from Indiana University School of Medicine. Following graduation, he completed an internship in Internal Medicine and a residency in Neurology. Dr. Farlow’s research focuses on clinical trials of investigational drugs for the treatment of AD and related dementias and has been the lead investigator for several major studies including tacrine, donepezil and rivastigmine.

Paul Coleman, PhD, has been an Associate at the University of Arizona (UA) McKnight Brain Institute since 2010 and a Research Professor at the UA Biodesign Institute since 2015. In 2007, Dr. Coleman was appointed Professor Emeritus at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Since 1988, Dr. Coleman has served as Editor-in-Chief for the journal Neurobiology of Aging and is currently Editor Emeritus and an Advisory Editor. Dr. Coleman received an AB in Psychology (magna cum laude) from Tufts University and a PhD in Physiology and Psychology from the University of Rochester. Following his PhD, Dr. Coleman was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke as a Special Fellow at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Dr. Coleman has been a pioneering investigator of the pathologic basis of AD.

Daniel F. Hanley Jr., MD, has been a Professor of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Anesthesia and Critical Medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine since 1996. He is a graduate of Williams College and received his medical degree from Cornell University Medical College. Dr. Hanley has board certification in internal medicine, neurology and psychiatry. Dr. Hanley is a leading expert on brain injury and has received more than 20 basic research grants, predominantly from the National Institute of Health.

Marwan Sabbagh, MD, is the new director of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health and he has dedicated his entire career to finding a cure for Alzheimer’s and other age-related neurodegenerative diseases. Dr. Sabbagh earned his undergraduate degree from the University of California-Berkeley and his medical degree from the University of Arizona in Tucson. Dr. Sabbagh received his residency training in neurology at Baylor College of Medicine and completed his fellowship training in geriatric neurology and dementia under renowned AD experts, Leon Thal, M.D., and Robert Katzman, M.D., at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. Dr. Sabbagh is a board-certified neurologist and geriatric neurologist. Dr. Sabbagh is a leading investigator for many prominent national Alzheimer’s prevention and treatment trials, including Alzheimer immunotherapy studies.

Lee Jen Wei, PhD, is a tenured Professor of Biostatistics at Harvard University since 1991. He was the co-director of the Bioinformatics Core at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Wei obtained his B.S. in mathematics from Fu-Jen University (Taiwan) and his PhD in statistics from the University of Wisconsin — Madison. Dr. Wei has published many papers on monitoring drug and device safety and related topics. The resulting procedures have been utilized for various drug and device regulatory evaluations involving safety issues. His extensive experience in quantitative science for making inferences about the drug and device safety is readily applicable to the general industry product safety issues.

Competition

We compete with many companies, research institutes, hospitals, governments and universities that are working to develop products and processes to treat AD. Many of these entities have substantially greater financial, technical, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and other resources than we do. However, there has been a dearth of new product introductions in the last 20 years for the treatment of AD symptoms in patients who begin exhibiting the memory and cognitive disorders associated with the disease. All of the products introduced to date for the treatment of AD have yielded negative or marginal results with little effect on the progression of AD and no improvement in the memory or cognitive performance of the patients receiving these therapies. We believe we are the only company currently pursuing PKCε activation (with consequent prevention of neuronal death and induction synaptic network growth) as a mechanism to treat AD and neurodegenerative disease. Although we believe that we have no direct competitors working in this same field at the present time, we cannot provide assurance that our competitors will not discover compounds or processes that may be competitive with our products and introduce such products or processes before us.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of the date of this Annual Report, we have four full-time personnel, including two of our three executive officers and two employees who were primarily engaged in research and development activities. We also have one full-time and two part-time consultants. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purpose of our 2020 Equity Incentive Plan is to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based compensation awards, in order to increase the stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.