As used in this report, unless specifically indicated, the terms “Sun BioPharma,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” “our” and similar references refer to Sun BioPharma, Inc. its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sun BioPharma Research, Inc. (“SBR”), and SBR’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Sun BioPharma Australia Pty Ltd. The term “common stock” refers to our common stock, par value $0.001 per share. All references to the “business” of the Company in this report are to the continuing operations of the Company after the completion of the merger discussed under the heading “Recent Transactions” below, which are conducted primarily through SBR and its subsidiary.

Overview

We are a clinical stage drug development company founded with technology licensed from the University of Florida. We have  exclusively licensed the worldwide rights to a compound derived from this technology, which has been designated as SBP-101, from the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (“UFRF”). SBP-101 exhibits extraordinary specificity for the exocrine pancreas, with therapeutic potential for both pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis indications. Studies in dogs revealed ablation, or “chemical resection,” of the exocrine pancreatic architecture, while leaving the islet cells functionally unchanged. We may refer to this effect as: “pharmaceutical pancreatectomy with islet auto-transplant” (PP-IAT). Xenograft studies of human pancreatic cancer cells transplanted into mice indicate that SBP-101 suppresses both primary and metastatic growth of these cells. To facilitate and accelerate the development of this compound in the pancreatic cancer indication, SBR has also acquired data and materials related to this technology from other researchers. We believe that SBP-101, if successfully developed, may represent a novel approach that effectively treats pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and could become the dominant product in these markets. Only three first-line treatment options for pancreatic cancer have been approved by the United States Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) in the last 20 years, and no drugs have been approved for the treatment of patients with pancreatitis.

We estimate that completion of necessary preclinical development work, the completion of a Phase 1 clinical trial in pancreatic cancer and the initiation of a Phase 1 clinical trial in pancreatitis will require additional funding of at least $10 million to $20 million, in addition to amounts SBR had raised through the effective time of the merger discussed in further detail under the heading “Recent Transactions” below. Additional clinical trials will be required for FDA approval if the results of the Phase 1 clinical trials are positive. We estimate that the additional time and cost to obtain FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval and to bring SBP-101 to market for these two indications will be 6 to 7 years with related costs up to $200 million.

With the approximately $11.5 million that we have raised since our inception, from a variety of sources, SBR was organized, evaluated and secured the intellectual property for its core technology, and completed initial non-clinical steps in the development plan for SBP-101. An Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application was submitted to the FDA on behalf of SBR on May 18, 2015, and granted by the FDA in August 2015. We enrolled the first patients in our Phase 1 clinical trial of SBP-101 for pancreatic cancer in January 2016.

Recent Transactions

On September 4, 2015, our wholly owned subsidiary, SB Acquisition Corporation merged with and into SBR (the “Merger”), which resulted in SBR becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of our Company and all of the issued and outstanding common stock of SBR being converted into the right to receive an aggregate of 28,442,484 shares of our common stock, representing four shares of our common stock for every one share of SBR common stock cancelled in the Merger. All of the shares of common stock issued pursuant to the Merger were “restricted securities” under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act. Immediately following the Merger, former SBR shareholders owned approximately 98.8% of our outstanding capital stock, giving SBR’s former shareholders substantial control of our Company. Also, in connection with the Merger, our Board of Directors and management team were replaced by members of SBR’s board of directors and management team and our name was changed to “Sun BioPharma, Inc.”

On September 28, 2015, we sold all of our ownership interest in our business operations prior to the Merger, which previously had been contributed to our then wholly owned subsidiary, Cimarron Medical Software, Inc., to Sampleminded, Inc. In exchange, Sampleminded, Inc. agreed to assume our payment obligations under approximately $305,000 of aggregate principal amount of outstanding promissory notes.

Introduction

An effective treatment for pancreatic cancer remains a major unmet medical need. Adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, which accounts for 95% of all cases of pancreatic cancer, originates in the exocrine system of the pancreas. The exocrine system is responsible for producing digestive enzymes and is comprised primarily of acinar and ductal cells. Locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas has a median overall survival rate of 8 to 11 months in patients with favorable prognostic signs and optimal chemotherapy. In 2014, more than 45,000 Americans, and over 300,000 persons worldwide, were diagnosed with this disease. Pancreatic cancer is ranked ninth among all cancers in terms of occurrence, but is currently the third-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. A recent report from the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network states that pancreatic cancer deaths in the U.S. have surpassed those from breast cancer and will soon surpass deaths from colorectal cancer, where earlier detection and modestly successful drug interventions have been developed, to rank number two in deaths, behind only lung cancer in 2020. The five-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer remains at less than seven percent (7%), and there has been little significant improvement in survival since gemcitabine was approved in the U.S. in 1996.

Early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is often delayed because the initial clinical signs and symptoms are vague and non-specific. By the time of diagnosis, the cancer often is locally advanced, or metastatic, usually spread to regional lymph nodes, liver, lung and peritoneum, and is seldom amenable to surgical resection, or removal, with curative intent.

Currently, surgical resection offers the only potentially curative therapy, but most patients have disease that is unresectable at the time of diagnosis. The prognosis for these patients is poor and most die from complications related to progression. Treatment for metastatic disease is limited to chemotherapy. Current chemotherapy treatment regimens vary from single agent gemcitabine and various gemcitabine combinations to the multi-drug FOLFIRINOX (Conroy NEJM 2011) regimen, frequently supplemented with white blood cell (“WBC”) growth factors. Compared to gemcitabine alone, these combination therapies deliver to carefully selected patients with good performance status median survival benefits ranging from 7 weeks (Von Hoff NEJM 2013) to 4 months (Conroy NEJM 2011).

It has been demonstrated that SBP-101 induces apoptosis in the acinar and ductal cells of the pancreas by activation of caspase 3. In animal models at two independent laboratories, SBP-101 has demonstrated nearly complete suppression of transplanted human pancreatic cancer tumor growth, including metastases. We intend to develop and commercialize SBP-101 as a unique and novel targeted approach to treating pancreatic cancer. We also intend to continue evaluation of the potential value of SBP-101 in the treatment of patients with pancreatitis.

Pancreatic Cancer

Adenocarcinoma of the pancreas afflicts approximately 61,000 people in the European Union (Eurostat 2014), nearly 45,000 people in the United States annually, and 337,000 people worldwide (World Health Organization 2014). It is the seventh leading cause of death from cancer in Europe (GLOBOCAN 2012) and the third leading cause of death from cancer in the United States (SEER Cancer Statistics Factsheets 2014). Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (“PDA”) represents approximately 95% of all pancreatic cancers. Considering that the median overall survival for previously untreated patients with good performance status is between 8.5 months (Von Hoff 2013) and 11.1 months (Conroy 2011) with the best available treatment regimens, effective treatment for PDA remains a major unmet medical need.

Early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is usually delayed because the initial clinical signs and symptoms are vague and non-specific. The most common presenting symptoms include weight loss, epigastric (upper central region of the abdomen) and/or back pain, and jaundice. The back pain is typically dull, constant, and of visceral origin radiating to the back, in contrast to the epigastric pain which is vague and intermittent. Less common symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, and glucose intolerance (Hidalgo 2010). By the time the diagnosis is made, the cancer often is locally advanced or metastatic, usually spread to regional lymph nodes, liver, lung and peritoneum, and is seldom amenable to surgical resection with curative intent.

For the minority of patients who present with resectable disease, surgery is the treatment of choice. Depending on the location of the tumor the operative procedures may involve cephalic pancreatoduodenectomy (Whipple procedure), distal pancreatectomy or total pancreatectomy. Pancreatic enzyme deficiency and diabetes are frequent complications of these procedures. Up to 70% of patients with pancreatic cancer present with biliary obstruction, that can be relieved by percutaneous or endoscopic stent placement. However, even if the tumor is fully resected, the outcome in patients with pancreatic cancer is disappointing (Hidalgo 2010, Seufferlein 2012). Post-operative administration of chemotherapy improved progression-free and overall survival in three large, randomized clinical trials (Hidalgo 2010), but median post-surgical survival in patients treated in all three trials was similar: only 20-22 months.

For the majority of patients who present with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease, management options range from chemotherapy alone to combined forms of treatment with chemoradiation therapy and chemotherapy. However, due to the increased toxicity of combined treatment, randomized trials of such combined regimens have had low enrollment, precluding a firm conclusion as to any advantage of adding chemoradiation to chemotherapy (Hidalgo 2010).

Gemcitabine was the first chemotherapeutic agent approved for the treatment of PDA, providing a median survival duration of 5.65 months (Burris 1997). Gemcitabine monotherapy was the standard of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer until combination therapy with gemcitabine plus erlotinib (Tarceva®) was shown to increase median survival by 2 weeks. This modest benefit was tempered by a significant side effect profile and high cost, limiting its adoption as a standard treatment regimen. More recently, the multidrug chemotherapy combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) was shown to provide a median survival benefit of 4.3 months (OS = 11.1 months) over gemcitabine alone (6.8 months), but its side effect profile limits the regimen to select patients with a good performance status and often requires supplementation with WBC growth factor therapy. Nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane®) received marketing authorization for use in combination with gemcitabine after showing an increase in overall survival of 7 weeks compared to gemcitabine alone (Von Hoff 2013). Thus, combination therapies have demonstrated limited survival benefit compared to gemcitabine alone as summarized in the table below (Thota 2014). Other drugs are currently under investigation, but none have received marketing authorization for the first-line treatment of PDA.

Current Treatment Approaches: Survival & Toxicity Profiles Across Three Major Positive Clinical Trials

Source: Thota R et al., Oncology 2014; Jan 28(1):70–74

¹ FOLFIRINOX represents leucovirin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin.

Chronic Pancreatitis

A second potential indication for SBP-101 is treatment of patients with the serious and potentially life-threatening condition of chronic pancreatitis. Chronic pancreatitis occurs in about 10% of the approximately 300,000 patients who suffer from acute pancreatitis annually in the US. Pancreatitis is a painful abdominal condition in which the exocrine system of the pancreas is significantly inflamed and occurs most often in adults aged 30-40 years. Pancreatitis is associated, in some cases, with increased consumption of alcohol and tobacco, and less often, with the presence of stones in the bile or pancreatic duct system. In a small minority of cases the disease may be hereditary, but many cases have no clear precipitating etiology. Treatment is limited to supportive care, as there are no specific agents approved for treatment of acute or chronic pancreatitis. Patients with chronic pancreatitis endure repeated episodes of abdominal pain, often with progression to narcotic dependency and to pancreatic enzyme deficiency, as well as insulin dependent diabetes mellitus as a consequence of the ultimate destruction of pancreatic function. Once a patient has suffered from repeated painful bouts of chronic pancreatitis and become narcotic- and pancreatic enzyme-dependent, they may be offered a total pancreatectomy. A total pancreatectomy is an extensive surgical procedure resulting in the resection of the pancreas, guaranteeing both pancreatic enzyme deficiency as well as insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, and often includes removal of the spleen, gall bladder and appendix. The operation is both extensive and expensive. While the goal of a total pancreatectomy in patients with chronic pancreatitis is pain relief, as many as 60% remain narcotic dependent, and even with islet auto transplantation, i.e., isolation and transplant of the patient’s remaining functional islets, if any, over 70% remain insulin dependent. The combination of a total pancreatectomy and islet auto transplant (“TP & IAT”) represents a small subset of the surgical approaches to patients with chronic pancreatitis. Thus, a patient with chronic pancreatitis may face months of abdominal pain, narcotic dependence, the onset of diabetes mellitus, the requirement for both insulin and pancreatic enzyme replacement, and finally, an extensive and expensive surgical procedure which may not materially improve any of his symptoms.

SBP-101, with an organ-specific ability to target the acinar and ductal cells of the exocrine pancreas, may represent an opportunity for up to 30,000 U.S. chronic pancreatitis patients annually to experience an early, non-surgical intervention into the natural history of their disease, with the potential to avoid narcotic dependency, insulin dependency and months of painful bouts of chronic pancreatitis. Patients would still require pancreatic enzyme replacement, but may be able to avoid surgery, diabetes, insulin and narcotic dependency. Consultation with pancreatitis experts at Harvard University, the Ohio State University, the University of Minnesota, Cedars Sinai Medical Center and the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) has resulted in enthusiastic endorsement of the study of SBP-101 in the treatment of patients with pancreatitis.

Clinical development of SBP-101 for the treatment of patients with pancreatitis is expected to proceed following the pancreatic cancer indication, with FDA consultation in a pre-IND meeting, completion of a series of IND-enabling nonclinical toxicology and pharmacology studies, and submission of an IND package to the FDA. It is important to note that much of this nonclinical work will be employed to support an IND for a Phase 1 pancreatic cancer trial prior to the IND in chronic pancreatitis.

Proprietary Technology

Function and Characteristics of Polyamines

Polyamines are metabolically distinct entities within human cells that bind to and facilitate DNA replication, RNA transcription and processing, and protein, such as pancreatic enzyme, synthesis. Human cells contain three essential and naturally occurring polyamines “putrescine, spermidine, and spermine” that, in contrast to cell building blocks such as amino acids and sugars, remain as metabolically distinct entities inside the cell. Polyamines perform many functions necessary for cellular proliferation and protein synthesis. The critical balance of polyamines within cells is maintained by several enzymes such as ornithine decarboxylase (“ODC”) and spermidine/spermine N1 acetyl transferase (“SSAT”). All of these homeostatic enzymes are short-lived, rapidly inducible intracellular proteins that serve to tightly and continuously regulate native polyamine pools. These enzymes constantly maintain polyamines within a very narrow range of concentrations inside the cell.

Polyamine Analogues

Polyamine analogues such as SBP-101 are structurally similar to naturally occurring polyamines, and are recognized by the cell’s polyamine uptake system, allowing these compounds to gain rapid entrance to the cell. Evidence suggests that pancreatic acinar cells, because of their extraordinary protein synthesis capacity, exhibit enhanced uptake of polyamines and polyamine analogues such as SBP-101. Because of preferential uptake by pancreatic acinar cells, polyamine analogies such as SBP-101 disrupt the cell’s polyamine balance and biosynthetic network, and induce programmed cell death, or apoptosis, via caspase 3 activation. Proof of concept has been demonstrated, in multiple human pancreatic cancer models, both in vivo and in vitro, that pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma exhibits sensitivity to SBP-101. Many tumors, including pancreatic cancer, display an increased uptake rate of polyamines and polyamine analogues.

SBP-101

SBP-101 is a proprietary polyamine analogue, which we believe accumulates in the acinar cells. In a key, independent, pre-clinical study, we observed the accumulation of SBP-101 in the acinar cells of the beagle pancreas causing a complete pharmaceutical resection of the exocrine pancreas, but without producing an inflammatory response. Due to a physiologically high intracellular concentration, SBP-101 induces disruption in acinar cells and pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells, which exhibit similar characteristics. Pancreatic islet cells, which secrete insulin, are structurally and functionally dissimilar to acinar cells and are not impacted by SBP-101.

The primary mechanism of action for SBP-101 has been demonstrated to include the enhanced uptake of the compound in the exocrine pancreas. This effect leads to corresponding depressed levels of native polyamines, with caspase 3 activation and apoptotic destruction of the exocrine pancreatic architecture without an inflammatory response. In animal models at two independent laboratories, SBP-101 has demonstrated significant suppression of transplanted human pancreatic cancer cells, including metastatic pancreatic cancer growth. See “Proof of Principle” below.

We believe that SBP-101 will have a distinct advantage over current pancreatic cancer therapies in that it specifically targets the exocrine pancreas and may cause ablation, or pharmaceutical resection, of the acinar cells, as well as the primary and metastatic pancreatic cancer, while leaving the insulin-producing islet cells and most non-pancreatic tissue unharmed. Most current cancer therapies, including chemotherapy, radiation or surgery, are associated with significant side effects that further reduce the patient’s quality of life. However, we believe that the adverse effects of SBP-101 will be limited to the gastrointestinal tract. It is expected that SBP-101 will produce exocrine pancreatic insufficiency and other GI adverse events, which may already be present as a common complication of advanced pancreatic cancer and part of the natural history of the disease. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is treatable with currently marketed digestive enzyme replacement capsules, such as Creon® (AbbVie). As the endocrine pancreas is expected to be unaffected by SBP-101, no new requirement for insulin is expected.

Proof of Principle

SBP-101 has been tested and found effective in two separate in-vivo models of human pancreatic cancer. SBP-101 was used to treat mice subcutaneously transplanted with the human pancreatic cancer cell line PANC-1. A dose-response for efficacy was demonstrated with a 26 mg/kg daily injection resulting in near complete suppression of the transplanted tumor, as shown in Figure 1.

A separate orthotopic xenograft study, which involves the direct transplant of tumor cells into the animal pancreas, employed a particularly aggressive human pancreatic cancer cell line, L3.6pl, that is known to metastasize from the pancreas to the liver and the peritoneum in mice. Mice implanted with L3.6pl were treated with SBP-101 that had been sourced with a different synthetic process from that of the PANC-1 study, and the results were compared with untreated control mice and with mice treated with gemcitabine, the “gold standard” treatment at that time. SBP-101 (at 25 mg/kg) was demonstrably more effective than the comparator gemcitabine therapy in suppressing the tumor, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.             L3.6pl Orthotopic Xenograft Dose-response Study - Mean ( + SD) Tumor Volume after Treatment with SBP-101, Gemcitabine (Gemzar) or Both

Source: Study101-Biol-101-001

The potential for SBP-101 as an effective therapy for pancreatic cancer has therefore been demonstrated in vivo by two separate investigators, employing two different human pancreatic cancer cell lines in two different animal models, using SBP-101 synthesized by two different routes, while arriving at nearly equal, and remarkably effective, doses of 25 and 26 mg/kg, respectively. Additionally, when compared in vitro to existing therapies, SBP-101 produced superior results in suppressing growth of pancreatic cancer cells.

Development Plan for SBP-101 

Development of SBP-101 for the pancreatic cancer indication includes a preclinical and a clinical phase. The preclinical phase consists of four primary components: chemistry, manufacturing and controls (“CMC”), preclinical (laboratory and animal) pharmacology studies, preclinical toxicology studies, and regulatory submissions in Australia and the US. Pursuant to a potentially earlier start of human clinical trials in Australia, a Human Research Ethics Committee (“HREC”) application was submitted and approved with subsequent Clinical Trial Notification (“CTN”) submitted to the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA”). Complementing the Australian initiative, a similar, but considerably more extensive, preclinical package was submitted to the FDA in support of an IND application, enabling the same clinical trial to open at sites in the US. The FDA approved this IND on August 28, 2015. The initial clinical trial in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer is a Phase 1 first-in-human study with a dose-escalation phase, and an expansion phase at the anticipated recommended treatment dose, conducted at clinical sites in both Australia and the United States. SBR has engaged expert clinicians who treat pancreatic cancer at major cancer treatment centers in Melbourne and Adelaide, Australia as well as the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio; the Mayo Clinic and Honor Health, both in Scottsdale, Arizona. These Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) with demonstrated proven performance in pancreatic cancer studies have enthusiastically agreed to participate as investigators for our Phase 1 first-in-human study.

On January 4, 2016, we enrolled the first patient in our Phase 1 clinical trial of SBP-101 in patients with previously treated pancreatic cancer. We estimate that additional funding of approximately $10 million will be required to complete the Phase 1 first-in-human study. Once human data have been acquired with SBP-101 in a Phase 1 trial, we will evaluate the estimated response rate and determine whether this novel approach to pancreatic cancer could be safe and effective. A response rate of at least 30% with a reasonable safety profile will justify continued development of SBP-101 for patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

Cancer therapeutics typically require a successful randomized Phase 3 trial that shows a survival advantage, with costs often exceeding $250-350 million before efficacy is established. We believe that the unique specificity of SBP-101 to the pancreas and pancreatic adenocarcinoma will permit a potential safety and efficacy demonstration and decision point to be reached with a randomized Phase 2 study following a successful Phase 1 demonstration of safety and tolerability.

Given the laboratory evidence of comparative efficacy, we believe that SBP-101 has the potential to change the standard of care for patients with pancreatic cancer, either as monotherapy, or more likely, in combination with existing therapy.

Preclinical Development

To enable IND and HREC/CTN submission and as part of its pharmacology work, SBR has conducted plasma and urine assay development and validation in animals, in vitro metabolism studies in liver microsomes and hepatocytes, in vitro interaction studies with hepatic and renal transporters, a protein binding study, animal pharmacokinetic and metabolism/mass balance studies, and human plasma and urine assay development and validation. As a part of the pharmacology evaluation, SBR has conducted in vitro pharmacology screen profiling assay, a study in six human pancreatic cell lines, and studies in tumor xenograft models in mice using PANC-1 cell lines, BxPC-3 derived tumors and human pancreatic cancer cells (L3.6pl) injected orthotopically in the tail of the pancreas of nude mice.

To meet regulatory requirements and to establish the safety profile of SBP-101, SBR has conducted, in rodents and non-rodents, toxicology dose-ranging studies, IND-enabling general toxicology studies, and genetic toxicology studies, including an Ames test. Exploratory studies in mice and rats and a Good Laboratory Practice compliant dog toxicology study have been completed. The relationship between dose and exposure (pharmacokinetics) has been described for all three species. SBR has also completed a preclinical hERG assay to detect any electrocardiographic QTc interval effects (IKrpotassium ion channel testing). Additionally, SBR may also conduct reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity as well as phototoxicity testing if necessary (but not prior to the Phase 1 trial). As we anticipate the possibility of using SBP-101 in combination therapy with gemcitabine or Abraxane®, we expect to conduct appropriate nonclinical studies to evaluate the use of these combinations. We also intend to evaluate comparative efficacy of SBP-101, gemcitabine and nab- paclitaxel in various combinations.

Although the epidemiology of pancreatic cancer indicates that this is a disease of the older patient and is seen only rarely in the pediatric population, preliminary discussions with pediatric oncologists have nonetheless suggested that SBP-101 be considered for exploratory studies in children with pancreatic cancer.

We have met FDA-mandated CMC requirements with a combination of in-house expertise and contractual arrangements. To date, preparation of anticipated metabolites and an internal standard as a prerequisite for analytical studies have been completed through a Sponsored Research Agreement with the University of Florida and a contract manufacturer. SBR has completed Service Agreements with Syngene International Ltd. for the manufacture and supply of specific quantities of Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”) compliant SBP-101 active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) and for the development of synthetic process improvements. Investigational product (“IP” or “clinical trial supply”) has been made and tested at Albany Molecular Research Inc. in Burlington, MA.

Pancreatic Cancer Investigational New Drug (“IND”)

The preclinical work to support the IND submission has been completed. Our IND application package contained the following:

Preparation of the SBP-101 IND for pancreatic cancer required collaboration by SBR’s manufacturing, preclinical toxicology, pharmacokinetic and metabolism experts, our regulatory affairs project management, and our in-house clinical expertise. In August 2015, the FDA approved our application and we have commenced patient enrollment in our Phase 1 clinical trial, which is a safety and tolerability study in patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This is further discussed in “Clinical Development” below.

Clinical Development – Pancreatic Cancer

Given the unique effects of SBP-101 on the mammalian pancreas, special factors have been considered in the design of the first-in-man study.

Phase 1 Clinical Trial Design

On January 4, 2016, we enrolled the first patient in our Phase 1 clinical trial of SBP-101 in patients with previously treated pancreatic cancer. This study is expected to include a dose-escalation phase with 8-week cycles of treatment at each dose level. At least two cycles of therapy at each dose level are anticipated in this trial, with continued treatment permitted for patients with clinical responses or stable disease. The projected safety profile suggests that repeat cycles would be well tolerated. We currently anticipate the completion of this trial in the second half of 2017.

The absence of non-target organ adverse events implies non-overlapping toxicity in the case of subsequent combination with conventional chemotherapeutic agents, such as gemcitabine or nab-paclitaxel, or even FOLFIRINOX.

An unexpected but favorable characteristic of the pancreatic action of SBP-101 is the lack of an effect on the normal insulin-producing islet cells. Preservation of the islet cells implies the absence of diabetes as a complication of SBP-101 therapy, although the necessity of supplementary oral pancreatic enzymes is expected to be unavoidable. Impact of the anticipated adverse effect of pancreatic insufficiency is mitigated by our recognition that many patients with pancreatic carcinoma require pancreatic enzyme replacement as a feature of their underlying disease, a complication so common that pancreatic enzyme replacement with one of several commercially available products is typically covered by U.S. and Australian health care plans. Patients with cystic fibrosis, chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer are the populations most often treated with pancreatic enzyme replacement.

Timing of the onset of action of SBP- 101 has resulted in a careful dose-finding strategy with intervals between cycles of therapy. Correlation between systemic drug exposure, pharmacologic and toxic effects will facilitate dose-finding and schedule determination for an optimal treatment regimen.

Patients will require regular pancreatic and hepatic enzyme assays, and periodic abdominal CT follow-up. Patients will also require careful monitoring for clinical signs of GI adverse events.

Given the life-threatening nature of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the limited efficacy of current treatment options, and the long history of failures in pancreatic adenocarcinoma developmental therapeutics, it is anticipated that a successful outcome of the Phase 1a/1b dose-ranging trial will enable execution of an Accelerated Approval pathway. A six-month FDA review period after completion of a Phase 2 pivotal trial would be a desirable outcome, along with an Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) presentation with post-approval clinical trial commitments for confirmatory studies.

Phase 2 Pivotal Clinical Trial

Unlike nearly every other early-stage cancer drug, SBP-101’s specificity of anticipated effects uniquely requires that its first human trial be a dose-response study in the target pancreatic cancer patient population. This rare opportunity results in a simplified path to determine the success or failure of SBP-101 in the treatment of this disease and may result in an expedited development pathway.

With successful Phase 1 results, we intend to meet with the FDA to obtain advice on potential breakthrough therapy designation and accelerated approval strategy. We will also actively seek potential commercial partners and the opportunity to evaluate combination therapy alternatives.

With successful completion of FDA recommended clinical trials, we intend to seek marketing authorization from the FDA, the EMA (European Union), Ministry of Health and Welfare (Japan) and TGA (Australia). The submission fees may be waived when SBP-101 has been designated an orphan drug in each geographic region, as described under “Orphan Drug Status.”

Total Development Costs

The development and commercialization of SBP-101 involves a preclinical and a clinical development phase. We estimate that completion of the proposed preclinical development work and Phase 1a/1b clinical trial in pancreatic cancer will require additional funding of at least $10 million to $20 million, in addition to what we have already raised and, with that additional capital, would be completed in the second half of 2017. Additional clinical trials will be subsequently required if the results of the Phase 1 pancreatic cancer trial are positive. We estimate the total time and cost to obtain FDA and EU approval and bring SBP-101 to market is 6 to 7 years and up to two-hundred million dollars ($200 million), although this process could be accelerated and less funds would be needed if SBP-101 qualifies for the FDA’s Breakthrough Status classification. A breakthrough therapy designation conveys fast track program features, more intensive FDA guidance on an efficient drug development program, an organizational commitment involving senior managers, and eligibility for rolling review and priority review.

Orphan Drug Status

The Orphan Drug Act (ODA) provides special status to drugs which are intended for the safe and effective treatment, diagnosis or prevention of rare diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US, or that affect more than 200,000 persons but for which a manufacturer is not expected to recover the costs of developing and marketing such a drug. Orphan drug designation has the advantage of reducing drug development costs by: (i) streamlining the FDA’s approval process, (ii) providing tax breaks for expenses related to the drug development, (iii) allowing the orphan drug manufacturer to receive assistance from the FDA in funding the clinical testing necessary for approval of an orphan drug, and (iv) facilitating drug development efforts. More significantly, the orphan drug manufacturer’s ability to recover its investment in developing the drug is also greatly enhanced by the FDA granting the manufacturer seven years of exclusive U.S. marketing rights upon approval. Designation of a drug candidate as an orphan drug therefore provides its sponsor with the opportunity to adopt a faster and less expensive pathway to commercializing its product. Given the prevalence of pancreatic cancer, (about 40,000 in the US) SBR has obtained U.S. Orphan Drug Status in 2014 and we intend to pursue Orphan Drug Status in Europe, Japan and Australia at the appropriate times.

Development Project Managers

Project managers have been hired or contracted to coordinate all the functions identified in our Development Plan for SBP-101. In addition, an experienced regulatory affairs project specialist has been engaged to compile and submit all data in support of a European orphan drug status filing (see “Development Costs and Orphan Drug Status”), compile the General Investigative Plan to support all clinical activities, and coordinate all activities in connection with assembly and filing of SB Research’s IND. More specifically, the personnel responsible for overseeing critical functions of the Development Plan are as follows:

Intellectual Property

SBR licensed two U.S. patents from the University of Florida Research Foundation. The first patent, #5,962,533, is a composition of matter patent for SBP-101 which expired in February 2016. The second patent, #6,160,022, is a method of use patent which expires in 2019. We have one patent application pending and are evaluating additional intellectual property protection for SBP-101. In addition, we have obtained orphan drug status for SBP-101 for the treatment of pancreatic ductile adenocarcinoma from the FDA which will provide competitive protection in the United States for seven years, if we are able to obtain FDA approval. We intend to pursue orphan drug status in other markets where such designation is available.

Competition

The development and commercialization of new products to treat cancer is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. While we believe that our knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face substantial competition from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, and human resources. Smaller and early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do.

We face competition with respect to our current product candidate, and will face competition with respect to future product candidates, from segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue approaches to targeting molecular alterations and signaling pathways associated with cancer. Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we do or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our current or future product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, less costly, or possessing better safety profiles than our products, and these competitors may be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products.

In addition, we may need to develop our current product candidate in collaboration with diagnostic companies, and we will face competition from other companies in establishing these collaborations. Our competitors will also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Furthermore, we also face competition more broadly across the market for cost-effective and reimbursable cancer treatments. The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted drug therapy or a combination of such methods. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. While our current or future product candidates, if any are approved, may compete with these existing drug and other therapies, to the extent they are ultimately used in combination with or as an adjunct to these therapies, our product candidates may not be competitive with them. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. We expect that if our product candidates are approved, they will be priced at a premium over competitive generic, including branded generic, products. As a result, obtaining market acceptance of, and gaining significant share of the market for, any of our product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market will pose challenges. In addition, many companies are developing new therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as our current product candidate progresses through clinical development.

Commercialization

We have not yet established a sales, marketing or product distribution infrastructure nor have we devoted significant management resources to planning such an infrastructure because our lead product candidate is still in early clinical development. We currently anticipate that we will aim to retain commercial rights in North America for any of our product candidates for which we may in the future receive marketing approvals. We may also seek to retain commercial rights in Europe for any of our product candidates for which we may in the future receive marketing approvals. We currently anticipate that, if and when appropriate, we will seek to access the North American or European oncology markets through a focused, specialized, internal sales force.

Manufacturing and Suppliers

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing as well as for commercial manufacture of any products that we may commercialize. If needed, we aim to engage, by entering into a supply agreement or through another arrangement, third party manufacturers to provide us with additional SBP-101 clinical supply. For all of our product candidates, we aim to identify and qualify manufacturers to provide the active pharmaceutical ingredient and fill-and-finish services prior to submission of an NDA to the FDA.

Employees 

As of March 1, 2016, we had 9 employees, three of whom were part-time employees. We may hire additional employees to support the growth of our businesses. We believe that operational responsibilities can be handled by our current employees and independent consultants. We have historically used, and expect to continue to use, the services of independent consultants and contractors to perform various professional services. We believe that this use of third-party service providers enhances our ability to minimize general and administrative expenses. None of our employees is represented by a labor union, and we consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Government Regulation

FDA Approval Process

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by FDA. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved product in the U.S. typically involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to FDA of an IND which must become effective before clinical testing may commence, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including good laboratory practices. The results of preclinical testing are submitted to FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long-term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.

A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with good clinical practice, or GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to FDA as part of the IND.

FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board, or IRB, for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions.

Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the drug into human patients, the drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence of effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a compound demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug. In most cases FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. A single Phase 3 trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in rare instances where the study is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible.

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the U.S. The NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial, and the fees are typically increased annually.

FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is accepted for filing, FDA begins an in-depth review. FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of new drug applications to encourage timeliness. Most applications for standard review drug products are reviewed within twelve months from submission; most applications for priority review drugs are reviewed within eight months from submission. Priority review can be applied to drugs that FDA determines offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an outside advisory committee—typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts—for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.

Before approving an NDA, FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with current good manufacturing practice, or GMP—a quality system regulating manufacturing—is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied.

After FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, FDA will issue an approval letter. FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of NDA approval, FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

Fast Track Designation and Accelerated Approval

FDA is required to facilitate the development, and expedite the review, of drugs that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Under the Fast Track program, the sponsor of a new product candidate may request that FDA designate the product candidate for a specific indication as a Fast Track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the product candidate. FDA must determine if the product candidate qualifies for Fast Track Designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request.

Under the Fast Track program and FDA’s accelerated approval regulations, FDA may approve a drug for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. 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, will allow FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to priority review by FDA.

If a submission is granted Fast Track Designation, the sponsor may engage in more frequent interactions with FDA, and FDA may review sections of the NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the applicant provides, and FDA approves, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the applicant pays applicable user fees. However, FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. Additionally, Fast Track Designation may be withdrawn by FDA if FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation

FDA is also required to expedite the development and review of the application for approval of drugs that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Under the Breakthrough Therapy program, the sponsor of a new product candidate may request that FDA designate the product candidate for a specific indication as a breakthrough therapy concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the product candidate. FDA must determine if the product candidate qualifies for Breakthrough Therapy designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives for the development of products intended to treat rare diseases or conditions. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. If a sponsor demonstrates that a drug is intended to treat   a rare disease or condition, the FDA will grant orphan designation for that product for the orphan disease indication, assuming that the same drug has not already been approved for the indication for which the sponsor is seeking orphan designation. If the same drug has already been approved for the indication for which the sponsor is seeking orphan designation, the sponsor must present a plausible hypothesis of clinical superiority in order to obtain orphan designation. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the FDA discloses the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use.

Orphan designation may provide manufacturers with benefits such as research grants, tax credits, PDUFA application fee waivers, and eligibility for orphan drug exclusivity. If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval of the active moiety for that disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which for seven years prohibits the FDA from approving another product with the same active ingredient for the same indication, except in limited circumstances. Orphan drug exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if a subsequent product with the same active ingredient for the same indication is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand. Further, the FDA may approve more than one product for the same orphan indication or disease as long as the products contain different active ingredients. Moreover, competitors may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan drug has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan drug has exclusivity.

In the European Union, orphan drug designation also entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and 10 years of market exclusivity is granted following drug or biological product approval. This period may be reduced to 6 years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

Post-Approval Requirements

Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports are required following FDA approval of an NDA. FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, or REMS, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, drug manufacture, packaging and labeling procedures must continue to conform to current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by FDA, during which the Agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

Additional Regulations and Environmental Matters

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, we are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. These laws, which generally will not be applicable to us or our product candidates unless and until we obtain FDA marketing approval for any of our product candidates, include transparency laws, anti-kickback statutes, false claims statutes and regulation regarding providing drug samples, among others.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, individuals and entities from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are punishable by imprisonment, criminal fines, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs.

Federal false claims laws and civil monetary penalties, including the False Claims Act, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to have a false claim paid. Recently, several pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly inflating drug prices they report to pricing services, which in turn were used by the government to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false claims laws.

HIPAA imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters.

HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH Act and its implementing regulations, also imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Many states and foreign jurisdictions also have laws and regulations that govern the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, and such laws often vary from one another and from HIPAA.

The federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by the physicians and their immediate family members.

The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Law and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Our activities may also be certain state laws regarding the privacy and security of health information that may not be preempted by HIPAA, as well as additional tracking and reporting obligations regarding payments to healthcare providers and marketing expenditures.

In addition to regulatory schemes that apply, or may in the future apply, to our business, we are or may become subject to various environmental, health and safety laws and regulations governing, among other things, laboratory procedures and any use and disposal by us of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances in connection with our research and development activities. We do not presently expect such environmental, health and safety laws or regulations to materially impact our present or planned future activities.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any of our product candidates that may be approved will depend, in part, on the extent to which the cost of the product will be covered by third party payors. Third party payors may limit coverage to an approved list of products, or formulary, which might not include all drug products approved by the FDA for an indication. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

Any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective by third party payors, and we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in the future to demonstrate the medical necessity and/or cost effectiveness of any such product. Nonetheless, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown increased interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit government-paid health care costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Continued interest in and adoption of such controls and measures, and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceuticals such as the product candidates we are developing.

Health Reform

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. 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 expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. By way of example, in March 2010, the ACA was signed into law, which intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. With regard to pharmaceutical products, among other things, the ACA expanded and increased industry rebates for drugs covered under Medicaid programs and made changes to the coverage requirements under the Medicare prescription drug benefit. We continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA has on our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year effective April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2024 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations.

In the coming years, additional legislative and regulatory changes could be made to governmental health programs that could significantly impact pharmaceutical companies and the success of our product candidates.

Available Information

Our website is located at www.SunBioPharma.com. The information contained on or connected to our website is not a part of this report. We have included our website address as a factual reference and do not intend it to be an active link to our website.

We make available, free of charge, through our website materials we file or furnish to the SEC pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, including our annual report on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, our current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports. These materials are posted to our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file them with or furnish them to the SEC.

Members of the public may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at its Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room is available by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information about us and other issuers that file electronically at http://www.sec.gov.