SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM TO
Commission File Number 001-37449
ALPINE IMMUNE SCIENCES, INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
201 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 230
(Address of principal executive offices)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (206) 788-4545
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Common Stock, Par Value $0.001 Per Share; Common stock traded on the NASDAQ stock market
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES ☐ NO x
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ☐ NO x
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES x NO ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES x NO ☐
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer
Smaller reporting company
Emerging growth company
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. x
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES ☐ NO x
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on The NASDAQ Stock Market on June 30, 2018, was approximately $33.8 million. Shares of common stock held by each executive officer and director and by each other person who may be deemed to be an affiliate of the Registrant, have been excluded from this computation. The determination of affiliate status for this purpose is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.
The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 6, 2019 was 18,561,029.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Table of Contents
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements and information within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which are subject to the “safe harbor” created by those sections. In some cases you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “plan,” “expect,” or similar expressions, or the negative or plural of these words or expressions. You should read these statements carefully because they discuss future expectations, contain projections of future results of operations or financial condition, or state other “forward-looking” information. These statements relate to our future plans, objectives, expectations, intentions and financial performance and the assumptions that underlie these statements. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to:
our ability to identify, develop and commercialize additional products or product candidates;
our estimates regarding our expenses, revenues, anticipated capital requirements and our needs for additional financing;
our ability to obtain funding for our operations;
the implementation of our business model and strategic plans for our business and technology;
the timing of the commencement, progress and receipt of data from any of our preclinical and clinical trials;
the expected results of any preclinical or clinical trial and the impact on the likelihood or timing of any regulatory approval;
the scope of protection we are able to establish and maintain for intellectual property rights covering our technology and product candidates;
the timing or likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals;
the therapeutic benefits, effectiveness and safety of our product candidates;
the rate and degree of market acceptance and clinical utility of any future products;
our ability to maintain and establish collaborations;
our expectations regarding market risk, including interest rate changes;
developments relating to our competitors and our industry; and
our expectations regarding licensing, acquisitions and strategic operations.
These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, those discussed in this report in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors, and elsewhere in this report. Forward-looking statements are based on our management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. These statements, like all statements in this report, speak only as of their date, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise these statements in light of future developments, except as required by law.
In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.
Item 1. Business.
Our company is focused on discovering and developing innovative, protein-based immunotherapies targeting the immune synapse to treat cancer, autoimmune/inflammatory disorders, and other diseases. Our proprietary scientific platform uses a process known as directed evolution to convert native immune system proteins from the Immunoglobulin Super Family, or IgSF, into multi-targeted therapeutics potentially capable of modulating the human immune system.
Our lead program is ALPN-101, a dual ICOS and CD28 antagonist intended for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Preclinical data have demonstrated potential efficacy in models of graft versus host disease, or GvHD, arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple sclerosis. In January 2019, we initiated dosing in a Phase I healthy volunteer study in Australia. We anticipate presenting data from this study at a conference in 2020 and using the data from this study to begin one or more proof-of-concept Phase II studies in indications such as psoriatic arthritis and GvHD. Our goal is to file an investigational new drug application, or IND, or IND-equivalent in 2019 for a Phase Ib trial of ALPN-101 in GvHD.
Our second program is ALPN-202, a dual PD-L1/CTLA-4 antagonist with PD-L1 dependent CD28 costimulation intended for the treatment of cancer. Preclinical data have demonstrated potential efficacy in tumor models with an immune stimulatory profile significantly different than PD-L1 checkpoint antagonism alone. Our goal is to file an IND or IND-equivalent in 2019 for authorization to initiate human clinical trials with ALPN-202.
Our scientific platform has also generated immune modulatory proteins with the potential of improving engineered cellular therapies, or ECT, such as chimeric antigen receptor T cells, or CAR-T, T cell receptor-engineered T cells, or TCR-T, and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, or TILs. In October 2015, we signed a collaboration agreement with Kite Pharma (now a Gilead Company), or Kite, covering two IgSF targets addressable by our platform. Separate from this collaboration, we have developed multifunctional proteins based on other IgSF targets with the potential to improve CAR-T, TCR-T, TILs, and oncolytic virus based therapies.
Based on these advancements and other preclinical data to date, our scientific platform has proven capable of identifying novel molecules - including single domains capable of modulating multiple targets. These molecules have demonstrated efficacy in in vitro as well as in vivo preclinical models. We believe therapeutics generated by our scientific platform have the potential to provide benefit in a broad range of immune system disorders.
Our therapies are being evaluated for their potential to target immune system disorders, including oncology (cancer), and inflammatory/autoimmune disease. Based on preclinical data generated to date, we believe therapeutics generated by our platform have the potential to provide patient benefit in a broad range of immune system disorders. We have chosen to focus our initial efforts on select therapeutic areas with unmet medical needs in oncology and inflammatory/autoimmune disease.
The human immune system is a complex system evolved to protect the host from external infection and harmful alterations of the body’s own cells. At the most basic level, this system has evolved to detect antigens. Antigens are essentially anything causing the immune system to try and mount an immune response. Antigens vary from pathogens like a virus, mutated cells like those involved in causing cancer, or even otherwise healthy cells. In special situations such as transplanted organs or cells from a bone marrow transplant, the body sees antigens from these otherwise normal cells as “non-self”.
The immune system determines if an antigen is harmful or not, and then acts accordingly—activating to destroy cells displaying the target antigen or inhibiting the immune system from doing anything if the target antigen is determined not harmful. The immune system has a memory for antigens so it can mount an activating or inhibitory response more quickly if a previously-seen antigen is encountered again.
The basic actors within the immune system are as follows:
Antigen presenting cells, or APCs, responsible for gathering antigens and presenting them to the immune system.
T cells armed to destroy cells the immune system has decided are harmful—including pathogens, cancer cells, and transplanted cells.
B cells capable of recognizing foreign antigens and secreting antibodies to facilitate removal of the identified antigens.
Regulatory T cells and suppressive myeloid cells which inhibit the immune system from responding, preventing the immune system from attacking healthy cells.
Importantly, the APCs in the immune system gather antigens to determine whether they are harmful or not. If the antigens are determined harmful by the immune system, cytotoxic (effector) cells are activated to eliminate the harmful cells. If the antigens are determined not harmful by the immune system, regulatory cells inhibit the immune system to ensure no normal healthy cells are eliminated. There are several components and signaling pathways involved in regulating the activation or inhibition of the immune system.
Activation and inhibition can be thought of like applying the gas or pressing the brake in an automobile. When viewed through the lens of activation (costimulation) and inhibition, our scientists work to develop therapies seeking to do one of four things:
Deliver an activating signal (press on the gas) to get a stronger immune response
Block an inhibitory signal (release the brake) to get a stronger immune response
Deliver an inhibitory signal (press on the brake) to slow down an existing immune response
Block an activating signal (release the gas) to slow down an existing immune response
The above can also be expressed in more precise scientific terminology this way:
Agonize a costimulatory receptor to press on the gas
Antagonize an inhibitory receptor to release the brake
Agonize an inhibitory receptor to press on the brake
Antagonize a costimulatory receptor to release the gas
For cancer, patients need a stronger immune response, so we seek to develop therapies delivering an activating signal, blocking an inhibitory signal, or both. If a patient has an inflammatory/autoimmune disease or has received a transplant, we seek to develop therapies delivering an inhibitory signal, blocking an activating signal, or both.
Inflammatory or autoimmune diseases like arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus (“lupus”), inflammatory myositis (for example, polymyositis and dermatomyositis), Sjögren’s syndrome, Type I diabetes, and inflammatory bowel disease are a result of the immune system targeting the body’s healthy tissues by mistake. There are more than 80 known types of inflammatory/autoimmune diseases, many of which are severely debilitating and/or life threatening. A related condition is when a transplant patient’s body attacks the newly transplanted organ (host versus graft rejection) or, in the case of stem cell transplants, the newly transplanted cells attack the patient’s body (graft versus host disease). These are all immune system disorders caused by the immune system having too much activation or too little inhibition. For simplicity, we will refer to autoimmune and inflammatory diseases as simply “inflammatory diseases”.
Substantial progress has been made over the last decade in developing disease-modifying therapies to slow or stop disease progression in multiple inflammatory diseases. Inhibitors of the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNFα, as well as approved drugs like abatacept, which blocks T cell costimulation, have led to disease reductions and improvements in quality of life for patients with a variety of inflammatory diseases.
Our therapeutic goal in inflammatory disease is to press on the brake by delivering an inhibitory signal or release the gas by blocking an activating signal. We believe one novel aspect of our proprietary scientific platform is the potential ability to create a single protein-based therapeutic capable of doing both. We do not currently have a therapeutic targeting inflammatory disease on the market. However, based upon evidence from preclinical studies to date, we believe our scientific platform has the potential to produce IgSF‑based therapeutics targeting inflammatory diseases.
Cancer is broadly defined as normal human cells growing in an uncontrolled fashion and capable of spreading this aberrant activity elsewhere in the body. Cancer can also be seen as a failure of the immune system to recognize transformed, harmful cells. Tumors develop because cancer cells learn to evade the immune system or dampen immune system activity to such a low level the tumor grows despite an otherwise healthy immune system.
Traditional cancer treatments have focused on directly killing tumor cells using toxic chemicals like chemotherapy or other approaches like irradiating cells. The 2010 FDA approval of sipuleucel-T marked a meaningful change in how tumors are treated. Sipuleucel-T represented the FDA’s first approval of an active cancer immunotherapy. It was designed to help a patient’s immune system attack prostate cancer cells. Brought to FDA approval by one of the founders of our company, the approval of sipuleucel-T energized the field to focus more closely on how to make use of the immune system to treat cancer.
The subsequent development of therapies targeting “checkpoint inhibitors” or pathways responsible for inhibiting an immune response has resulted in several FDA-approved therapeutics. Targeting checkpoint inhibitors, thereby releasing the brake on the immune system, has provided meaningful efficacy for a subset of cancer patients.
The first drug approved in this therapeutic class was ipilimumab, an antibody interfering with inhibitory signals from an IgSF protein called CTLA-4. In 2014, two antibodies blocking the inhibitory IgSF protein PD-1— pembrolizumab and nivolumab—were approved in multiple indications, and a third, cemiplimab, was approved in 2018. Antagonists of the IgSF protein PD-L1 have also been approved in multiple indications, including atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab.
In addition to modulators of these IgSF proteins, several other immunotherapies for cancer are either approved or in development including engineered cellular therapies (CAR-T, TCR-T and TILs), cancer vaccines, and oncolytic viruses.
Our Scientific Platform
The human immune system is a complex system evolved to protect humans from external infections and harmful changes of internal cells. The Immunoglobulin Superfamily (abbreviated “IgSF”) is the name given to the largest family of adhesion, costimulatory (activating), and inhibitory (blocking) proteins found on the surface of immunological, neurological, and other human cell types. These cell surface and soluble molecules are broadly involved with recognition of antigens, assisting in the formation of the immune synapse, and performing costimulatory, coinhibitory, and cytokine receptor signaling functions. This family includes many well-known targets, such as those seen in Figure 1.
Our scientific approach and platform are based upon IgSF protein units (referred to as “domains”). We believe the IgSF protein family is particularly valuable because many IgSF proteins naturally bind multiple binding partners, also referred to as “counterstructures”.
IgSF proteins are the principal players in the immune synapse, which is another reason we chose to focus our scientific platform on IgSF proteins. Immune synapses are a temporary, dynamic interaction required for the immune system’s response to antigens. When the synapse is created between two cells (like an APC and a T cell, or a tumor cell and a T cell), adhesion molecules hold cell membranes in tight formation to enable sufficient antigen presentation and/or receptor signaling. When this exchange works well, the body is adequately defended against a wide range of pathologies, including cancer and infectious diseases. When this exchange malfunctions, harmful cells are not destroyed or normal/healthy cells are mistakenly attacked - eventually resulting in inflammatory diseases. We believe our scientific platform represents a novel approach to targeting the immune system. Our scientists create Variant Ig Domains, or vIgDs through directed evolution, which is an iterative scientific
engineering process purposefully conducted to engineer an IgSF protein for a desired therapeutic function. The potential to create therapies capable of working within a formed synapse, forcing a synapse to occur, or preventing a synapse from occurring are important, novel attributes of our scientific platform.
The immune synapse is very small and often exists for just minutes. While intact, cells forming the synapse exchange a wide variety of information. Environmental cues, ligand/receptor expression ratios, and specific receptor orientations come together in a dynamic fashion to determine whether a T cell is going to respond to a given antigen or recognize it as harmless.
Our scientific platform seeks to engineer native, or so-called “wild-type” IgSFs, turning them into therapeutics with potential benefit to patients with cancer or inflammatory diseases. We believe our scientific platform represents a novel approach to targeting the immune system.
We believe the key advantages to our approach are:
potential broad applicability since many critical immuno-regulatory proteins are composed of IgSF members;
potentially rapid and precise selection of desired binding properties; and
potential recovery of affinity-modified proteins biased towards a well-folded, non-aggregated, and stable subset of proteins.
Figure 2 shows the process of directed evolution in our scientific platform. Our scientists utilize yeast display protein library strategies to identify variants of wild-type IgSFs with desired binding characteristics via so-called “affinity maturation” campaigns. We start with a wild-type IgSF protein and then enter a cycle of library generation and yeast display. Flow cytometry or other methods are used to sort for yeast clones displaying variants with desired binding characteristics. Biologic and biophysical assays of purified proteins assess biological function and manufacturing characteristics. The end product is an optimized vIgD. Additional cycles can be carried out by building next generation libraries from the output of prior libraries to result in further optimization.
Our scientific platform is generally able to improve upon native IgSF activity regardless of whether natural binding affinity is weak or strong. When starting affinity is very weak, techniques employed by our scientists have accomplished several thousand-fold increases in binding affinity with sometimes as few as two library generation cycles. Even when starting affinity is very high, our scientific platform can still improve binding affinities. The same general strategies can be used when the desired therapeutic profile requires reduced affinity compared to the wild-type IgSF.
We believe the advantages of our scientific platform allow us to identify new biology. Our lead program, ALPN-101, is an example where a single wild-type ICOSL domain, normally only binding ICOS with any physiological relevance, is engineered as a vIgD able to bind both ICOS and CD28. We have accomplished analogous modifications in other programs directed to disclosed and undisclosed targets, including the disclosed targets in Figure 3.
In preclinical animal models, we find our engineered vIgDs can outperform the relevant wild-type IgSF protein and/or other reference molecules when the vIgD differs from the wild-type IgSF by as few as one to three mutations. Based on in silico analyses and analogous FDA-approved therapies, we do not believe vIgDs are unusually susceptible to immunogenic effects causing adverse events or loss of drug activity.
Our scientific platform is highly productive. A single library run through the directed evolution process can potentially create vIgDs useful in both oncology and inflammatory diseases. While this potential advantage is not universal for every IgSF target, our experience is most of our successful discovery campaigns result in vIgDs applicable to a broad variety of therapeutic protein designs . We believe this is a novel attribute given most other platforms require each molecule to be painstakingly purpose-built for each intended therapeutic area.
We believe our vIgDs are highly flexible. In many cases, a single affinity-maturation campaign can result in potential multiple domains suitable for use in the formats such as those illustrated in Figure 4.
The vIgD-Fc fusion protein is the simplest format. Our lead autoimmune/inflammation program, ALPN-101, and lead oncology program, ALPN‑202, are both examples of vIgD-Fc formats. The engineered vIgD protein is fused to an Fc backbone. Combining vIgDs with antibody Fc domains to make Fc fusion proteins potentially allows for better expression, facilitates purification, and improves pharmacokinetic (dosing) properties. Fc fusion proteins are a standard format in the industry, with examples such as etanercept, abatacept, and belatacept. A vIgD-Fc could potentially be administered intravenously, subcutaneously, topically, or other methods of delivery.
Multifunction vIgD-based Molecule
Multiple vIgDs can be combined or “stacked” together with or without an Fc backbone to create a multifunctional, vIgD-based molecule. With the potential to make use of novel biology discovered using our scientific platform, an Fc fusion with just two domains can potentially affect three, four, or more IgSF targets
Our V-mAb technology potentially allows targeting a vIgD into the tumor microenvironment with a monoclonal antibody. A V-mAb is a vIgD joined with a monoclonal antibody recognizing a validated target (as depicted in Figure 4). Our V-mAbs use the targeting antibody to localize the vIgD to the tumor micro-environment or target tissue to potentially deliver specific, locally-active immuno-modulation.
Cell Therapy Enhancement
Our scientific platform has also generated immune modulatory proteins with the potential of improving engineered cellular therapies, such as CAR-Ts, TCR-Ts, or TILs.
Collaboration with Kite Pharma, a Gilead Company
In addition to advancing programs internally, we continue to seek partners who can bring therapeutic area experience, development expertise, commercialization capabilities, and funding allowing us to maximize the potential of vIgDs and our scientific platform. In October 2015, we signed a research and license agreement with Kite, granting Kite an exclusive license to two of our TIP programs for use in Kite’s ECT programs. Under the terms of the license and research agreement with Kite, we have conducted initial research to deliver two program TIPs with certain pre-defined characteristics, and we are further responsible for conducting a research plan to deliver TIPs to two specified IgSF targets.
We received $5.5 million in up-front cash and are eligible to receive up to $530.0 million in developmental, clinical, and regulatory milestone payments in addition to royalties on any products containing our TIPs. In October 2017, we entered into an amendment with Kite to extend the research term of the Collaboration Agreement. Under the amendment, we are eligible to receive an additional $450,000 research support payment from Kite in two tranches (instead of a single tranche as previously contemplated by the Collaboration Agreement). In June 2018, we recognized the remaining deferred balance and the
first support payment under the amendment. In October 2018, we entered into another amendment with Kite, which amended portions of the research plan.
ALPN-101, a Dual ICOS/CD28 Antagonist for Inflammatory Diseases
Our lead inflammatory disease program, ALPN-101, is comprised of a novel single domain vIgD binding both ICOS and CD28 at higher affinity than wild-type molecules. This vIgD is fused to an effectorless Fc backbone and is intended for the potential treatment of certain inflammatory diseases.
Notably, ALPN-101 is not a bispecific antibody construct. A traditional bispecific would be constructed of one domain binding ICOS and one domain binding CD28. Instead, ALPN-101 makes use of a novel single domain protein vIgD engineered by our scientists using our proprietary scientific platform.
Inducible T cell Costimulator, or ICOS, is part of the CD28 costimulatory family of molecules, including PD-1, CD28, and CTLA-4. ICOS is related to CD28, but, in contrast, is poorly expressed in naïve T cells. ICOS is, however, rapidly induced upon T cell activation. It appears to be a dominant costimulatory pathway in at least some effector or pathogenic T cells, such as potentially in the absence of CD28. Elevated levels of ICOS‑expressing T cells have been described in an increasing number of inflammatory diseases, correlating with disease activity. At the same time, inhibition of ICOS is effective in several preclinical inflammatory disease models. The ICOS pathway may therefore represent a major costimulatory pathway, nonredundant with CD28, and highly relevant to inflammatory diseases.
Cluster of Differentiation 28 (“CD28”) is the dominant costimulatory pathway in naïve, antigen-inexperienced T cells, and is required for their activation. However, optimal and/or durable development of activated and/or effector T cells often occurs independently of CD28. CD28 expression becomes progressively reduced during longer-term activation in at least some T cell populations, and CD28-negative T cells have been observed in a growing number of inflammatory diseases, often correlated with disease activity.
While CD28 and ICOS both provide costimulatory signals, there is potentially a time-shifted dynamic to their evolved immune functions with CD28 providing initial costimulation and ICOS providing longer-term costimulatory effects. During activation, T cells eventually lose their dependence on CD28. ICOS, however, begins to be upregulated to provide an additional costimulatory signal.
Since ALPN-101 addresses potential deficiencies of single pathway blockade via its dual mechanism, we believe it is capable of delivering deeper clinical responses by blocking two key T cell costimulatory pathways with a single therapeutic. This hypothesis is supported by clinical data from CD28-only and ICOS-only therapeutics, both of which demonstrate only partial efficacy. Therapeutic agents directed against the CD28 pathway alone, such as the FDA-approved therapeutic abatacept, have proven only partially effective or ineffective in some inflammatory diseases, and/or induce only partial disease improvement in their approved indications.9 While few studies have examined the effect of therapeutic blockade of ICOS in humans, early clinical trial findings with the anti ICOSL monoclonal antibody prezalumab suggest inhibition of the ICOS pathway alone may also be insufficient to achieve complete remission in many inflammatory conditions.
We have performed a number of pre-clinical experiments demonstrating ALPN‑101 is active in both in vitro and in vivo models.
Superior Activity in Human Xenograft GvHD Model
ALPN-101 has been studied in an in vivo mouse model of GvHD, a damaging and even potentially fatal inflammatory disease most often brought about during stem cell and/or bone marrow transplant treatments for cancer or other serious diseases.
The results represented in Figure 5 shows ALPN-101 had superior survival when dosed three times per week for four weeks compared to belatacept (an FDA-approved drug for prevention of renal allograft rejection – a type of inflammation-related rejection process analogous to GvHD). In fact, 100% of ALPN-101 multi-dose treated animals across three different dose levels survived. Animals given only a single dose of ALPN-101 performed comparably to animals treated with belatacept dosed 3x/week for four weeks, demonstrating the potency and efficacy of ALPN-101 in this disease model.
Figure 6 shows data from an in vivo collagen-induced arthritis model. This model is designed to test a drug’s ability to reduce inflammatory signals associated with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and other types of inflammatory arthritis conditions. In this experiment, an early molecule in the ALPN-101 program was superior to abatacept, a drug approved by the FDA to treat rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis, in preventing arthritic inflammation.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease Model
Inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD, is a disease caused by dysregulation of the immune system characterized by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. In an animal model of inflammatory bowel disease, ALPN-101 demonstrated nearly complete control of disease in the subject animals as seen in Figure 7.
Multiple Sclerosis Model
Multiple sclerosis, or MS, is an abnormal response of the body’s immune system directed against the central nervous system, or CNS. The CNS is made up of the brain, spinal cord and optic nerves. In an animal model of MS, ALPN-101 demonstrated improved disease scores compared to abatacept and superior disease scores against wild-type ICOSL as seen in Figure 8.
Summary of ALPN-101 Program Preclinical Data
Our scientists and collaborators have demonstrated in preclinical studies that ALPN-101:
improves survival compared to belatacept in an in vivo animal GvHD model;
reduces disease severity and delays disease onset time relative to control in a pilot in vivo arthritis model with activity superior to abatacept, an FDA-approved drug for rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis;
demonstrates control of IBD in an animal model of IBD; and
shows improved disease scores in an animal model of MS compared to abatacept.
ALPN-101 Clinical Plans
In January 2019, we initiated dosing in a Phase I trial of ALPN-101 in healthy volunteers, referred to as our AIS-A01 trial. This study is designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of single and multiple ascending intravenous and/or subcutaneous doses of ALPN-101. In addition, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and exploratory biomarkers are being evaluated to help determine ALPN-101’s potential for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. The trial is being conducted in Australia. More information is available at www.clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03748836). We expect to present data from the AIS-A01 clinical trial at a conference in 2020.
We plan to file an IND or IND-equivalent for a Phase Ib trial of ALPN-101 in GvHD in 2019. GvHD is a damaging and even potentially fatal inflammatory disease most often brought about during stem cell and/or bone marrow transplant treatments for cancer or other serious diseases. With a mortality rate of 75% or more, GvHD is an inflammatory disease which has been particularly challenging for development of new therapies and where there exists a substantial unmet need. Over the last two decades, a multitude of therapies including stem cell transplant, IL-2 antagonists, antithymocyte globulin, anti-CD52, anti-TNF therapies, and others have been studied. While ibrutinib was recently approved for chronic GvHD, as of December 31, 2018 there are no approved therapies for the treatment of acute GvHD and a significant number of chronic GvHD patients did not have durable responses to ibrutinib.
We anticipate using the data from the AIS-A01 trial to begin proof-of-concept Phase II studies in inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis. Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic, inflammatory disease of the joints, typically associated with psoriasis, an itchy, flaky skin condition. Both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are inflammatory diseases, meaning that they occur when the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissue, in this case the joints and skin. The faulty immune response causes inflammation that triggers joint pain, stiffness and swelling. The inflammation can affect the entire body and may lead to permanent joint and tissue damage if it is not treated early and aggressively.
ALPN-202, a Dual PD-L1/CTLA-4 Antagonist with PD-L1 Dependent CD28 Costimulation for Oncology
ALPN-202 is our lead program for immuno-oncology. Our scientists used wild‑type CD80 as the basis for a directed evolution campaign using our proprietary scientific platform. They were able to create a vIgD capable of antagonizing PD-L1 and CTLA-4, while delivering PD-L1 dependent costimulation via CD28.
Programmed cell death protein ligand 1, or PD-L1, and its counterstructure, PD-1, are responsible for suppressing immune system responses. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte Associated protein 4, or CTLA-4, also suppresses immune system responses. Both are IgSFs commonly referred to as checkpoint proteins since they act as inhibitory checks against immune system activation, pressing the brakes on an immune reaction. As noted above, CD28 provides a costimulatory signal necessary for T cell activation and survival.
It has long been recognized CD28 is required for T cell activation and CD28 is considered the most important of the costimulatory molecules. The tumor microenvironment often features exhausted T cells suppressed via PD-1/PD-L1 engagement as seen on the left of Figure 9 below. The development of anti PD-1/L1 mAbs have helped relieve one aspect of the exhausted phenotype, but less than 30% of patients typically respond – likely attributable to the minority of patients who do have sufficient CD28 costimulation as depicted in the center panel of Figure 9. More recent research has, in fact, suggested CD28 costimulation is required for anti PD-1/L1 efficacy, absent which tumors do not respond due to inadequate costimulation as seen in the third panel of Figure 9. Therefore, there may be a need for a therapeutic providing both checkpoint antagonism and CD28 costimulation.
The goal of the ALPN-202 program is to create a therapeutic capable of blocking checkpoint inhibition to take the brakes off the immune system while providing for CD28 costimulation to step on the gas and increase immune system response. We believe ALPN-202 has three modes of activity:
antagonize PD-L1 to decrease PD-L1’s ability to inhibit immune response;
agonize CD28 to increase immune response, but only in the presence of PD‑L1—a potential mechanism of action we call PD-L1 “dependent” activity; and
antagonize CTLA-4 to decrease CTLA-4’s ability to inhibit immune response.
This triple-action mechanism has been accomplished with a single vIgD domain-based protein. The fact we have engineered a single vIgD to accomplish this, instead of relying on multiple IgSF domains fused together, represents a potentially important scientific advance and emphasizes the potential power of our scientific platform to create novel therapeutics. We are currently studying ALPN-202 using in vivo models to better characterize its activity against tumors and performing appropriate enabling work towards our goal of filing an IND or IND-equivalent in the fourth quarter of 2019 for our first ALPN-202 human clinical trial.
In a mouse model where mice were implanted with mouse colon cancer tumors transfected with human PD-L1, ALPN-202 as a monotherapy demonstrated superior tumor control compared to durvalumab, an FDA-approved anti PD-L1 monoclonal antibody (Figure 10).
When tumor-free mice in the ALPN-202 arm of the same experiment were re-challenged with additional tumor, they continued to be tumor free despite no additional doses of ALPN-202. This potentially demonstrates ALPN-202 confers persistent anti-tumor immunity (Figure 11).
In a similar model of human PD-L1 transduced mouse colon cancer, the effects of ALPN-202 or durvalumab on various components of the immune system were compared using a technique called RNA sequencing. This technique generates a display of inflammatory gene signatures where green represents lower or no upregulation of inflammatory genes and red represents higher upregulation of inflammatory genes. For the treatment of cancer, it is thought the more upregulation of the immune system - indicated by higher upregulation of inflammatory genes - potentially results in better outcomes for patients.16 As seen in Figure 12 below, ALPN-202 upregulates a broader variety of different inflammatory genes connected with several different types of immune cells compared to durvalumab.
e.g. Galon, et. al. Lancet v391 n10135. May 2018, pp 2128-2139
Summary of ALPN-202 Preclinical Data
Our scientists have demonstrated in preclinical studies that ALPN-202:
improves survival in a human PD-L1 transduced mouse model of colon cancer compared to the FDA approved anti PD-L1 therapeutic durvalumab;
creates potentially persistent anti-tumor immunity in the same model, as demonstrated by mice remaining tumor free after rechallenge, even without additional doses of ALPN-202; and
demonstrates a more robust intra-tumor inflammatory signature in the mouse colon cancer model than durvalumab, potentially indicating superior immune system upregulation to fight cancer.
ALPN-202 Program Clinical Plans
Our goal is to file an IND or IND-equivalent for authorization to initiate human clinical trials with ALPN-202 in the fourth quarter of 2019. We have not yet determined which cancer indication or indications we will investigate first.
Other Research Programs
In addition to our ALPN-101 and ALPN-202 programs, we have a number of other research efforts underway to address cancer and inflammatory diseases. We highlight two below: our programs to enhance ECTs and our V-mAb program.
Enhancement of Engineered Cellular Therapies
ECTs in the form of CAR-T, engineered TCR-T, and engineered TILS have emerged as therapies with the potential to provide dramatic improvements in outcomes in certain cancer indications. In 2017, two CAR-T therapies were approved by the FDA (Kymriah (Novartis AG), and Yescarta (Kite Pharma, Inc.)). Despite the positive results observed with these and other ECTs in select tumors, there may be an opportunity to enhance efficacy and expand the utility of ECTs in additional indications.
Our cell therapy enhancement programs were created to improve ECTs by increasing T cell proliferation, persistence, and effector functions, including tumor killing. We have approached this by creating vIgD-based TIPs, switch or decoy TIPs, and SIPs (Figure 13).
Examples of such approaches include:
TIP: expression of a costimulatory vIgD, such as a CD86 vIgD, on the surface of an ECT to provide additional costimulation in cis and/or trans;
Decoy TIP: expression of a checkpoint vIgD, such as a PD-1 vIgD, on the surface of an ECT in the absence of the normal inhibitory intracelluar domain, competing with checkpoint ligands in the tumor microenvironment, or TME;
Switch TIP: expression of a checkpoint vIgD, such as a PD-1 vIgD, on the surface of an ECT in association with an activating intracellular domain, turning a checkpoint signal into a T cell-activating signal; and
SIP: expression of a secreted checkpoint vIgD, such as a PD-L1 vIgD, by an ECT, competing with checkpoint ligands in the TME
We have observed encouraging in vitro data with such approaches, where vIgDs enhance the proliferation, cytokine production and cytotoxicity of ECTs.
Transmembrane vIgD or TIP (Transmembrane Immunomodulatory Protein)
TIPs are engineered costimulatory ligands expressed on the cell surface of T cells to promote activation and survival of both endogenous and engineered therapeutic cells in the local tumor environment. We have engineered several molecules for use in ECTs, including proprietary CD86 vIgDs. In an in vitro HPV tumor model, expression of engineered CD86 vIgD TIPs in E6 TCR-engineered T cells resulted in superior HPV-specific tumor responses including T cell proliferation, cytokine production, and cytotoxicity in comparison to TCR-alone and TCR with wild-type CD86 vIgDs (Figure 14).
Our V-mAb technology potentially allows delivering a vIgD into the tumor microenvironment, or TME, with a monoclonal antibody. A V-mAb is a vIgD joined with a monoclonal antibody, or mAb, recognizing a validated target (as depicted in Figure 15). Additionally, a V-mAb could potentially deliver a checkpoint inhibitor to the TME. Our V-mAbs use the targeting antibody to localize the vIgD to the TME or target tissue to potentially deliver specific, locally-active immuno-modulation.
Tumors thrive in environments of immune suppression. Immune cells have often been recruited to the TME, but are not responding correctly. In many cases, the T cells are recognizing antigen in the form of MHC peptide, but this signal is not supported by required costimulatory activity. In these cases, T cells could benefit from tumor or APC expression of costimulatory ligands such as CD80, CD86, or ICOSL. This strategy could potentially invigorate tumor immune responses in a tumor-specific context.
Our goal is to create modern therapies targeting the immune synapse, using our directed-evolution based scientific platform to treat patients with serious conditions such as cancer and inflammatory diseases. To achieve our goals, we intend to:
Aggressively move our lead inflammation/autoimmune therapeutic ALPN-101 through clinical development for the treatment of inflammatory diseases.
ALPN-101 is an ICOS/CD28 dual antagonist based on the discovery, using our scientific platform, of a single vIgD with increased binding affinity for both ICOS and CD28. ALPN-101 has demonstrated activity in vitro and in vivo in multiple models of inflammatory diseases. In January 2019, we initiated dosing in a Phase I trial of ALPN-101 in healthy volunteers. We anticipate using the data from this study to begin one or more proof-of-concept Phase II studies in inflammatory diseases, such as psoriatic arthritis and GvHD, and expect to present data from the AIS-A01 clinical trial at a conference in 2020.
Aggressively move our lead oncology program ALPN-202 to clinical trials.
ALPN-202 is designed to antagonize PD-L1 and CTLA-4, while also providing PD-L1 dependent CD28 agonism. ALPN-202 is thus potentially capable of blocking inhibitory signals from PD-L1 and CTLA-4 while providing CD28 costimulation, thereby removing the brake and pressing the gas on the immune system to treat cancer. The ALPN-202 program is based on the discovery, using directed evolution and our scientific platform, of a single domain capable of interacting with PD-L1, CD28, and CTLA-4. ALPN-202 has demonstrated in vivo activity in mouse models of PD-L1 positive tumors. Our goal is to file an IND or IND-equivalent for authorization to initiate human clinical trials with ALPN-202 in the fourth quarter of 2019.
Maximize the value of our pipeline and platform via partnering activities.
We believe our scientific platform is highly productive, with affinity maturation campaigns potentially capable of producing dozens of vIgDs with desirable biologic activity. Our discovery efforts to date have resulted in vIgDs with potential uses in cancer and inflammatory diseases. We believe this provides significant opportunity for partnering discussions. Our first such collaboration, with Kite Pharma, a Gilead company, involved two targets for use in ECTs and provided us $5.5 million in cash as well as up to $530.0 million in potential developmental, clinical, and regulatory milestone payments. While difficult to predict the timing of such partnerships or whether we will be successful in our efforts to enter into further collaborations, we are continually in discussions with multiple potential partners ranging from small biotechnology firms to large pharmaceutical companies.
We have a diverse pipeline of potentially novel therapies as shown in Figure 16 below. In January 2019, we started the Phase I healthy volunteer trial for ALPN-101 .
We have established in-house non-cGMP recombinant protein generation capabilities enabling our scientific platform, including validation of new scientific discoveries in vitro and in vivo. Having protein production capabilities in-house allows more rapid progression for vIgDs generated by our scientific platform.
To date, our lead programs have been accomplished through standard protein production and purification methods. As noted above, we believe one advantage of our scientific platform is selection outputs are generally manufacturable. Because the directed evolution process itself requires some level of protein production, campaigns often select for proteins readily expressed with favorable biochemical properties. We produce our vIgDs and vIgD-Fc constructs in mammalian cell lines using both HEK293 and CHO cell expression systems in our in-house protein production processes.
We have successfully completed a cGMP manufacturing campaign for ALPN-101 and have produced sufficient quantities of drug product necessary to execute initial human clinical trials. The upstream and downstream manufacturing processes for ALPN-101 use unit operations amenable to further scale-up to support later stage clinical trials and commercial production. GMP scale-up for ALPN-202 is ongoing, and on track to facilitate our goal to file an IND or IND-equivalent for authorization to initiate human clinical trials with ALPN-202 in the fourth quarter of 2019.
We have not yet manufactured any of our proteins at commercial scale. Abatacept is a wild-type IgSF protein commercially approved for multiple indications with no publicly-reported manufacturing difficulties. Belatacept is an IgSF protein with two mutations, likewise approved in multiple countries. We believe these two examples are potentially similar (in manufacturing terms) to our vIgD-based products.
We have chosen U.S.-based contract drug substance and drug product manufacturers for our initial clinical trial supplies of ALPN-101 and ALPN-202. We believe these contract manufacturers’ particular expertise in protein production, analytical development and fill/finish provide us with the capability to meet rapid timelines encompassing the development of production cell-lines to manufacturing of clinical trial quantities of the biopharmaceutical product.
We participate in the highly competitive sector of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals and in the subsector of immune modulation. This subsector has undergone tremendous technological advancement over the last decade due to advancements in understanding the role of the immune system across multiple therapeutic areas, including oncology and inflammatory disease. While we believe our novel technology platform, discovery programs, knowledge, experience, and scientific resources offer
competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, public and private research institutions, and others.
Any products we successfully develop and commercialize will face competition from currently approved therapies and new therapies potentially available in the future.
The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our products, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.
Many of the companies we compete against may have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruitment and retention of qualified scientific and management personnel; recruitment of investigative sites and participants for clinical trials; and the acquisition of technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.
Specifically, our competitors include companies developing therapies with the same target(s) as ALPN-101 in inflammatory diseases and ALPN-202 in oncology as well as companies building novel platforms to generate multi-specific antibody or non-antibody-based targeting proteins.
See the risk factor “We face competition from entities that have developed or may develop therapeutic candidates for our target disease indications, including companies developing novel treatments and technology platforms based on modalities and technology similar to us. If these companies develop technologies or therapeutic candidates more rapidly than we do, or their technologies, including delivery technologies, are more effective, our ability to develop and successfully commercialize therapeutic candidates may be adversely affected” in Part I, Item 1A of this report for more discussion of the effects of competition and competitors on our business.
The competitors listed below have programs targeting either ICOS or CD28 (or one of their ligands). To our knowledge, there are currently no competitors with a single molecule targeting ICOS and CD28 simultaneously.
an anti-ICOSL/B7RP-1 monoclonal antibody being developed by Amgen, Inc (may be referred to as prezalumab, AMG557 or MEDI5872);
an anti-BAFF, anti-ICOSL bispecific antibody being developed by Amgen, Inc (AMG570/MEDI0700);
an anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody fragment being developed by OSE ImmunoTherapeutics SA (FR104);
an anti-CD28 peptide being developed by AtoxBio, Inc; and
an IL-10 - anti CD86 cytokine-scFv fusion protein being developed by Aptevo, Inc (APVO210).
ALPN-202 Program Competitors
There are hundreds of clinical trials for immuno-oncology products used as a single agent or in combination. One of the potentially novel attributes of the ALPN-202 program is it combines inhibitory receptor antagonism and activating costimulation with a single molecule interacting with multiple immune targets.
Examples of additional multi-target compounds for immuno-oncology are highlighted below. To our knowledge, there are currently no competitors with a single molecule capable of dual PD-L1/CTLA-4 antagonism and PD-L1 dependent CD28 agonism.
wild-type CD80-Fc being developed by Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc. (FPT155);
bifunctional fusion protein composed of monoclonal antibody against PD-L1 fused to the extracellular domain of human transforming growth factor-ß, or TGF-ß, receptor II being developed by EMD Serono, Inc and GSK plc (M7824);
bifunctional fusion protein composed of PD-1 and OX40L developed by Shattuck Labs, Inc. (SL-279252);
bispecific fusion protein targeting 4-1BB and PD-L1 being developed by Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PRS-344);
bispecific monoclonal antibody being developed by Xencor, Inc. including XmAb20717 targeting CTLA-4 and PD-1, XmAb22841 targeting CTLA-4 and LAG-3, and XmAb23104 targeting PD-1 and ICOS;
bispecific constructs called “DARTs” being developed by Macrogenics Inc., including MGD013 targeting PD-1 and LAG-3 and MGD019 targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4;
bispecific monoclonal antibody being developed by Tesaro, Inc., targeting PD-1 and LAG-3;
small molecule antagonists being developed by Aurigene Ltd and Curis, Inc., including CA-170 targeting PD-L1 and VISTA and CA-327 targeting PD-L1 and TIM-3;
FS118, a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting PD-L1 and LAG-3 being developed by F-star Biotechnology, Ltd.;
various combinations of separate anti PD-1/L1 and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies; and
various combinations of separate anti-PD-1/L1 and costimulatory monoclonal antibodies such as OX-40, 4-1BB, and others.
Novel Platform Competitors
Multifunctional therapeutic protein platforms potentially competitive with our platform include:
Amgen, Inc. (BiTE®): fusion proteins consisting of two single-chain variable fragments to link T-cells to tumors;
Macrogenics Inc. (DART®): Dual-Affinity Re-Targeting and Trident technology platforms bind multiple targets with a single molecule;
Xencor Inc. (XmAb Bispecific): Optimized Fc domains for improved potency, half-life and stability;
Zymeworks Inc. (Azymetric™): Proprietary amino acid modifications to facilitate interaction of distinct heavy chains;
Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Anticalin®): Engineered proteins derived from natural lipocalins found in blood plasma;
Compass Therapeutics LLC (Targeted Immunomodulation™, StitchMabs™): Antibody discovery targeting the tumor-immune synapse;
Harpoon Therapeutics Inc.: TriTac™ (Tri-specific T cell Activating Construct) contain CD3 binding domain, half-life extension domain and antigen-binding domain;
Shattuck Labs, Inc.: Agonist Redirected Antibody platform claimed to bind tumor-necrosis factor, or TNF, and checkpoint targets;
Ablynx NV (Nanobody®), purchased by Sanofi Pharma, Inc.: Platform technology of single-domain, heavy-chain antibody fragments derived from camelidae (e.g., camels and llamas);
Regeneron, Inc.: VEGF Trap and VelociSuite® antibody technology platforms; and
Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc: Proprietary protein library and rapid protein production and testing platform.
Our scientific platform and substantially all our intellectual property have been developed internally. As of December 31, 2018, our patent portfolio consists of over 60 pending patent applications. Our initial patent application is directed to our scientific platform itself. Our second patent application is directed to the TIP program. We filed subsequent patent applications directed to our SIP program as well as to various target domains under development. To date, some of these applications have published but none have yet matured into granted patents. Each of these patent applications is solely owned by us. As we continue the development of our scientific platform and target vIgDs, we intend to continue pursuing intellectual property protection for these technologies.
We have in-licensed some intellectual property and trade secret materials on a non-exclusive basis. To date, such non-exclusive in-licenses are solely related to commercially-available cell lines involved in the manufacture of our vIgD programs. To date, no other intellectual property related to our scientific platform has been in-licensed. We have out-licensed two programs under our TIP technology to Kite on an exclusive basis. No other out-licenses have been made.
Although we do not believe our technology infringes any intellectual property rights owned by third parties, we are aware of one or more patents and patent applications that may relate to our technology. Third parties may assert claims against us alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights regardless of whether their allegations have merit. Allegations of infringement could harm our reputation, may result in the expenditure of significant resources to defend and resolve such allegations, and could require us to pay monetary damages if we are found to have infringed any third-party intellectual property rights.
The FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose substantial and burdensome requirements on the clinical development, manufacture, marketing, and distribution of therapeutic candidates. These agencies and other federal, state, and local entities regulate research and development activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, and export and import of therapeutic candidates and products.
In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs, medical devices, and biologic products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, its implementing regulations and other laws, including, in the case of biologics, the Public Health Service Act. Our potential therapeutic candidates and products will be subject to regulation by the FDA as biologics. Biologics require the submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, and approval by the FDA before being marketed in the U.S. None of our therapeutic candidates have been approved by the FDA for marketing in the U.S., and we currently have no BLAs pending. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements at any time during the product development process, clinical testing, the approval process, or after approval, we may become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, or criminal prosecution. Any FDA enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before biologic therapeutic candidates may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:
completion of extensive preclinical laboratory tests, preclinical animal studies, and formulation studies all performed in accordance with the FDA’s current good laboratory practice, or cGLP, regulations;
submission to the FDA of an IND application which must become effective before human clinical trials in the U.S. may begin;
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug candidate for each proposed indication;
submission to the FDA of a BLA;
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP regulations; and
FDA review and approval of the BLA prior to any commercial marketing, sale, or shipment of the therapeutic product.
The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources, and we cannot be certain any approvals for our therapeutic candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.
Once a therapeutic candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of protein chemistry, formulation, and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application. Currently, the IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND may result in the FDA not allowing the clinical trials to commence or not allowing the clinical trials to commence on the terms originally specified in the IND. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during drug development, and the FDA must grant permission, either explicitly or implicitly by not objecting, before each clinical trial can begin. We have commenced only one clinical trial for any of our current therapeutic candidates, the AIS-A01 dosing study of ALPN-101 in healthy volunteers beginning in January 2019.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the therapeutic candidate to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be used. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. For each medical center proposing to conduct a clinical trial, an institutional review board, or IRB, must also review and approve a plan for any clinical trial before it can begin at that center and the IRB must monitor the clinical trial until it is completed. The FDA, an IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive Good Clinical Practice requirements, including the requirements for informed consent.
All clinical research performed in the U.S. in support of a BLA must be authorized in advance by the FDA under the IND regulations and procedures described above. However, a sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA so long as the clinical trial is conducted in compliance with an international guideline for the ethical conduct of clinical research known as the Declaration of Helsinki and/or the laws and regulations of the country or countries in which the clinical trial is performed, whichever provides the greater protection to the participants in the clinical trial.
For purposes of BLA submission and approval, clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined.
Phase I clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population of subjects to test the therapeutic candidate for safety, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, and excretion in healthy humans or, on occasion, in patients with severe problems or life-threatening diseases to gain an early indication of its effectiveness.
Phase II clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to evaluate preliminary efficacy of the therapeutic candidate for specific targeted indications in patients with the disease or condition under study, evaluate dosage tolerance and appropriate dosage, determine a dosage schedule, and identify possible adverse effects and safety risks.
Phase III clinical trials are commonly definitive efficacy studies of the experimental medication. Phase III trials are typically conducted when Phase II clinical trials demonstrate a dose range of the therapeutic candidate is effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase III clinical trials are generally undertaken with large numbers of patients, such as groups of several hundred to several thousand, to provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy and to further test for safety in an expanded patient population at multiple, geographically-dispersed clinical trial sites.
In some cases, the FDA may condition approval of a BLA on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval clinical trials to further assess the biologic’s safety and effectiveness after BLA approval. Such post-approval clinical trials are typically referred to as Phase IV clinical trials.
Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal trials and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the biologic and finalize a process for manufacturing the biologic in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the therapeutic candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the final biologic product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate the therapeutic candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
Biologics License Applications
The results of preclinical studies and of the clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including extensive manufacturing information and information on the chemistry, pharmacology, clinical pharmacology, and the clinical effects of the biologic, are submitted to the FDA in the form of a BLA requesting approval to market the biologic for one or more specified indications. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a biologic is safe, pure, and potent and whether the facility in which the biological product is manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to assure the biological product continues to be safe, pure, and potent.
Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, by law the FDA will review the application and respond to the applicant, but the review process may be significantly delayed by FDA’s requests for additional information or clarification. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA evaluates a standard original BLA submission within the first 60 days of its receipt to determine if it is sufficiently complete to conduct a full review, and the FDA has a goal of responding to the submission within ten months of the 60-day filing date, but this timeframe is often extended. The FDA may refer the application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation, and/or recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. The FDA may deny approval of a BLA if the applicable statutory and regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or for any reason, or it may require additional clinical data. Even if such data are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide the BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret data. Once the FDA approves a BLA, or supplement thereto, the FDA may withdraw the approval if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems are identified after the biologic reaches the market. Where a withdrawal may not be appropriate, the FDA still may seize existing inventory of such biologic or require a recall of any biologic already on the market. In addition, the FDA may require testing, including Phase IV clinical trials and surveillance programs to monitor the effect of approved biologics which have been commercialized. The FDA has the authority to prevent or limit further marketing of a biologic based on the results of these post-marketing programs.
A sponsor may also seek approval of its therapeutic candidates under programs designed to accelerate FDA review and approval of BLAs. For instance, a sponsor may seek FDA designation of a therapeutic candidate as a “fast track product.” Fast track products are those products intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for such diseases or conditions. If fast track designation is obtained, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a BLA before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the applicant provides, and the FDA approves, a schedule for the remaining information. In some cases, a fast track product may be approved on the basis of either 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, under the FDA’s accelerated approval program. Approvals of this kind typically include requirements for appropriate post-approval confirmatory clinical trials to validate the surrogate endpoint or otherwise confirm the effect of the clinical endpoint.
In addition, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, which was enacted and signed into law in 2012, established a new category of drugs referred to as “breakthrough therapies” that may be subject to accelerated approval. A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a drug candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the drug is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development.
Therapeutic candidates may also be eligible for “priority review,” or review within a six-month timeframe from the 60-day filing date, if a sponsor provides sufficient clinical data demonstrating its therapeutic candidate provides a significant improvement compared to marketed products. Even if a therapeutic candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide the therapeutic candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the period for FDA review or approval will be lengthened. When appropriate, we intend to seek fast track designation and/or accelerated approval for our biologics. We cannot predict whether any of our therapeutic candidates will obtain a fast track and/or accelerated approval designation and, if so, whether such designation will be maintained or rescinded by FDA, or the ultimate impact, if any, of the fast track or the accelerated approval process on the timing or likelihood of FDA approval of any of our proposed biologics.
Biologics may be marketed only for the FDA approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. Further, if there are any modifications to the biologic, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes, equipment, or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement, which may require us to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials.
Before approving an application, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the biologic product is manufactured and will not approve the product unless cGMP compliance is satisfactory. The FDA may also inspect the sites at which the clinical trials were conducted to assess their compliance and will not approve the biologic unless compliance with Good Clinical Practice requirements is satisfactory.
The testing and approval processes require substantial time, effort, and financial resources, and each may take several years to complete. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all. Even if we believe a clinical trial has demonstrated safety and efficacy of one of our therapeutic candidates for the treatment of a disease, the results may not be satisfactory to the FDA. Preclinical and clinical data may be interpreted by the FDA in different ways, which could delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval. We may encounter difficulties or unanticipated costs in our efforts to secure necessary governmental approvals which could delay or preclude us from marketing our therapeutic candidates. The FDA may limit the indications for use or place other conditions on any approvals restricting the commercial application of the products. After approval, certain changes to the approved biologic, such as adding new indications, change in personnel, manufacturing changes, or additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. Depending on the nature of the change proposed, a BLA supplement which may require additional studies to evaluate the effect of such change on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the product as they may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the product—must be filed and approved before the change may be implemented. As with new BLAs, the review process for BLA supplements may be delayed by the FDA through requests for additional information or clarification.
We believe any of our therapeutic products approved as a biological product under a BLA might qualify for a 12-year period of exclusivity currently permitted by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCIA. Specifically, the BPCIA established an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The new abbreviated regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an existing brand product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be submitted by an applicant until four years after the date the reference product was first licensed and cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the original branded product was first licensed under a BLA. There is a risk the U.S. Congress could amend the BPCIA to significantly shorten this exclusivity period or the FDA will not consider our therapeutic candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. The BPCIA is complex and is only beginning to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA and the courts. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty. While it is uncertain when any such processes may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes operating to limit the scope or length of exclusivity afforded by the BPCIA could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products. In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may also provide for exclusivity periods for approved biological products or for abbreviated pathways for follow on biological products. For example, biological products in Europe may be eligible for a 10-year period of exclusivity.
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to therapeutic candidates intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition affecting fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. or more than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation the cost of developing and making available in the U.S. a therapeutic candidate for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the U.S. for that therapeutic candidate. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a marketing application for the therapeutic for that particular rare disease or condition. 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. The FDA may revoke orphan drug designation, and if it does, it will publicize the drug is no longer designated as an orphan drug. If a therapeutic candidate with orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the therapeutic candidate is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same therapeutic candidate for the same indication, except in very limited circumstances, for seven years. Orphan drug exclusivity, however, could also block the approval of one of our therapeutic candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same therapeutic candidate as defined by the FDA or if our therapeutic candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s therapeutic candidate for the same indication or disease.
Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, certain therapeutic candidates may obtain an additional six months of exclusivity if the sponsor submits information requested in writing by the FDA, referred to as a “Written Request,” relating to the use of the active moiety of the therapeutic candidate in children. The FDA may not issue a Written Request for studies on unapproved or approved indications where it determines information relating to the use of a therapeutic candidate in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may not produce health benefits in that population. In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric studies for most therapeutic candidates and biologics, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs, BLAs and supplements thereto must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must assess the safety and effectiveness of the therapeutic candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for
which the therapeutic candidate is safe and effective. The sponsor or the FDA may request a deferral of pediatric studies for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding the drug or biologic is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric studies are complete or additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric studies begin. The FDA must send a noncompliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current, or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.
Other Regulatory Requirements
Any biologics manufactured or distributed by us or our collaborators pursuant to FDA approvals would be subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including recordkeeping requirements and reporting of adverse experiences associated with the product. Manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and third-party manufacturers. Failure to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, injunctive action or possible civil penalties. Our company cannot be certain it or its present or future third-party manufacturers or suppliers will be able to comply with the cGMP regulations and other ongoing FDA regulatory requirements. If our company or its present or future third-party manufacturers or suppliers are not able to comply with these requirements, the FDA may halt our clinical trials, require us to recall a drug from distribution, or withdraw approval of the BLA for the therapeutic product.
The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of biologics, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy approved by the FDA. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising, and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available biologics for uses not described in the product’s labeling and different from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use.
In March 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which we refer to as the ACA, a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of health spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry, and impose additional policy reforms. The ACA contains a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement changes, and fraud and abuse, impacting existing government healthcare programs and resulting in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives, and improvements to the physician quality reporting system and feedback program. The Affordable Care Act also does, among other things, the following:
Increases pharmaceutical manufacturer rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program due to an increase in the minimum basic Medicaid rebate on most branded prescription drugs, and the application of Medicaid rebate liability to drugs used in risk-based Medicaid managed care plans.
Expands the 340B Drug Pricing Program to require discounts for “covered outpatient drugs” sold to certain children’s hospitals, critical access hospitals, freestanding cancer hospitals, rural referral centers, and sole community hospital.
Requires pharmaceutical companies to offer discounts on brand-name drugs to patients who fall within the Medicare Part D coverage gap, commonly referred to as the “Donut Hole.”
Requires pharmaceutical companies to pay an annual non-tax-deductible fee to the federal government based on each company’s market share of prior year total sales of branded drugs to certain federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense.
Establishes the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. The research conducted by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute may affect the market for certain pharmaceutical products.
Establishes The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending. Funding has been allocated to support the mission of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation from 2011 to 2019.
From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced, and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the sale, marketing, coverage, and reimbursement of products regulated by the CMS or other government agencies. In addition to new legislation, CMS regulations and policies are often revised or interpreted by the agency in ways significantly affecting our business and our products.
In particular, we expect the Administration and Congress will continue to seek to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the U.S. healthcare reform legislation. Since taking office, President Trump has continued to support the repeal of all or portions of the ACA. President Trump has also issued an executive order in which he stated it is his Administration’s policy to seek the repeal of the ACA and directed executive departments and federal agencies to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of the provisions of the ACA to the maximum extent permitted by law. There is still uncertainty with respect to the impact President Trump’s Administration and Congress may have, if any, and any changes will likely take time to unfold. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from therapeutic candidates we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop therapeutic candidates. However, we cannot predict the ultimate content, timing, or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or the impact of potential legislation on our company.
Furthermore, political, economic, and regulatory influences are subjecting the health care industry in the U.S. to fundamental change. Initiatives to reduce the federal budget and debt and to reform health care coverage are increasing cost-containment efforts. We anticipate federal agencies, Congress, state legislatures, and the private sector will continue to review and assess alternative health care benefits, controls on health care spending, and other fundamental changes to the healthcare delivery system. Any proposed or actual changes could limit coverage for, or the amounts federal and state governments will pay for, health care products and services, which could also result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressures, and limit or eliminate our spending on development projects and affect our ultimate profitability.
Third-Party Payor Coverage and Reimbursement
Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. In the U.S., sales of any products for which we may receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the Veterans Administration, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations.
The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, which is part of the federal Medicaid program, a program for financially needy patients, among others, requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients.
In order for a pharmaceutical product to receive federal reimbursement under Medicare Part B, part of the federal Medicare program covering outpatient items and services for the aged and disabled, and Medicaid programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program, a federal program requiring manufacturers to provide discounts to certain safety-net providers. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based upon certain Medicaid Drug Rebate Program metrics reported by the manufacturer.
The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product is typically separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate a payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list or formulary which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded product on their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or other alternative is available. However, under Medicare Part D - Medicare’s outpatient prescription drug benefit - there are protections in place to ensure coverage and reimbursement for oncology products and all Part D prescription drug plans are required to cover substantially all anti-cancer agents. Furthermore, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply an adequate reimbursement rate will be available. 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.
Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain coverage and reimbursement for any product approved for sale, we may need to pursue compendia listings or conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of any products, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. Our drug candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. If third-party payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover an approved product as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to sell its products at a profit.
Other Healthcare Laws and Regulations
If we obtain regulatory approval of our products, we may be subject to various federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales and marketing strategies. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws affecting our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering, or paying remuneration (a term interpreted broadly to include anything of value, including, for example, gifts, discounts, and credits), directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order, or recommendation of, an item or service reimbursable under a federal health care program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs;
federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment to Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent, or making a false statement or record material to payment of a false claim or avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money owed to the federal government;
provisions of HIPAA, prohibiting knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program and making false statements relating to health care matters;
provisions of HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and its implementing regulations, which imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information;
the federal transparency laws, including the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which was part of the Affordable Care Act, requiring manufacturers of certain drugs and biologics to track and disclose payments and other transfers of value they make to U.S. physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as physician ownership and investment interests in the manufacturer, which information is subsequently made publicly available in a searchable format on a CMS website; and
state law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers, state transparency reporting and compliance laws, and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.
The ACA broadened the reach of the fraud and abuse laws by, among other things, amending the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the applicable criminal healthcare fraud statutes contained within 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b. Pursuant to the statutory amendment, a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA provides the government may assert a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act or the civil monetary penalties statute. Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
As of December 31, 2018, we had 48 employees, of which 37 are engaged in research and development activities. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.
We lease a facility containing our research and development, laboratory, and office space, which consists of approximately 11,158 square feet located at 201 Elliott Avenue West, Seattle, Washington. In January 2018, we entered into a lease amendment for approximately 6,184 square feet of additional office and laboratory space adjacent to our existing leased premises in Seattle, Washington. The lease expires on December 31, 2019 and has two options to extend the lease term with each option enabling us to extend the lease term by twelve months. In March 2019, we entered into a lease for 27,164 square feet of office and laboratory space located at 188 East Blaine Street, Seattle, Washington which we expect to occupy prior to the expiration of our current lease. See Part I, Item 2 of this report for more details on the terms of the lease. We believe that our existing facilities and the facilities we intend to occupy prior to the expiration of our current lease are adequate to meet our business requirements for the near-term and that additional space will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if required.
On July 24, 2017, Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc., or Private Alpine, completed its business combination with Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc., a publicly held company. In connection with the merger, Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc. changed its name to Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc. For additional information regarding this business combination, see Note 3 to our consolidated financial statements contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in March 2007. Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc. (prior to its business combination with Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc.) was incorporated in Delaware on December 30, 2014.
Our principal executive office is located at 201 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 230, Seattle WA, 98119. Our telephone number is (206) 788-4545. Our website is www.alpineimmunesciences.com. Information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of, and is not incorporated into, this report.
This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes our trademarks and registered trademarks, including “vIgD”, “Transmembrane Immunomodulatory Protein” (“TIP”), and “Secreted Immunomodulatory Protein” (“SIP”). Each other trademark, trade name or service mark appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K belongs to its holder.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
You should carefully consider the following risk factors, in addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in Part II, Item 7, and our consolidated financial statements and related notes. If any of the events described in the following risk factors and the risks described elsewhere in this report occurs, our business, operating results and financial condition could be seriously harmed. This report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this report.
Risks Related to Our Financial Position, Capital Needs and Business
We will need to raise substantial additional funds to advance development of our therapeutic candidates, and we cannot guarantee we will have sufficient funds available in the future to develop and commercialize our current or future therapeutic candidates.
We will need to raise substantial additional funds to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing, and sales capabilities or contract with other organizations to provide these capabilities to us. We have used substantial funds to develop our therapeutic candidates and will require significant funds to conduct further research and development, preclinical testing, and clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates, to seek regulatory approvals for our therapeutic candidates, and to manufacture and market products, if any are approved for commercial sale. As of December 31, 2018, we had $52.3 million in cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments. Based on our current operating plan, we believe our available cash and cash equivalents, will be sufficient to fund our planned level of operations for at least the next 12 months. Our future capital requirements and the period for which we expect our existing resources to support our operations may vary significantly from what we expect. Our monthly spending levels vary based on new and ongoing development and corporate activities. Because the length of time and activities associated with successful development of our therapeutic candidates are highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. To execute our business plan, we will need, among other things:
to obtain the human and financial resources necessary to develop, test, obtain regulatory approval for, manufacture, and market our therapeutic candidates;
to build and maintain a strong intellectual property portfolio and avoid infringing intellectual property of third parties;
to establish and maintain successful licenses, collaborations, and alliances;
to satisfy the requirements of clinical trial protocols, including patient enrollment;
to establish and demonstrate the clinical efficacy and safety of our therapeutic candidates;
to obtain regulatory approvals;
to manage our spending as costs and expenses increase due to preclinical studies, clinical trials, regulatory approvals, manufacturing scale-up, and commercialization;
to obtain additional capital to support and expand our operations; and
to market our products to achieve acceptance and use by the medical community in general.
If we are unable to obtain necessary funding on a timely basis or on acceptable terms, we may have to delay, reduce, or terminate our research and development programs, preclinical studies, or clinical trials, if any, limit strategic opportunities, or undergo reductions in our workforce or other corporate restructuring activities. We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others requiring us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or therapeutic candidates we would otherwise pursue on our own. We do not expect to realize revenue from product sales, or royalties in the foreseeable future, if at all. Our revenue sources are, and will remain, extremely limited unless and until our therapeutic candidates are clinically tested, approved for commercialization, and successfully marketed.
To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities and payments received under our license and research agreement with Kite. We will be required to seek additional funding in the future and intend to do so through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, credit and loan facilities, research collaborations, and license agreements. Our ability to raise additional funds from these or other sources will depend on financial, economic, and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. Additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.
If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders will suffer dilution, and the terms of any financing may adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. For example, in January 2019, we issued in a private placement 4,706,700 shares of common stock and warrants to purchase an additional 1,835,610 shares of common stock for gross proceeds of approximately $25.3 million. We also have an Equity Distribution Agreement in place with Piper Jaffray to sell up to $50.0 million of our common stock, from time to time, through an “at the market” equity offering program under which Piper Jaffray acts as sales agent. In addition, as a condition to providing additional funds to us, future investors may demand, and may be granted, rights superior to those of existing stockholders. Debt financing, if available, may involve restrictive covenants limiting our flexibility in conducting future business activities, and, in the event of a liquidation or insolvency, debt holders would be repaid before holders of equity securities receive any distribution of corporate assets. Our failure to raise capital or enter into such other arrangements within a reasonable timeframe would have a negative impact on our financial condition, and we may have to delay, reduce, or terminate our research and development programs, preclinical or clinical trials, or undergo reductions in our workforce or other corporate restructuring activities.
We are an early stage biopharmaceutical company with a history of losses, we expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, we may never achieve or maintain profitability, and we have a limited operating history that may make it difficult for investors to evaluate the potential success of our business.
We are a clinical-stage immunotherapy company, with a limited operating history, focused on developing treatments for autoimmune/inflammatory diseases and cancer. Since inception, we have devoted our resources to developing novel protein-based immunotherapies using our proprietary scientific platform technology, which produces variant Ig domains or vIgDs. We have had significant operating losses since inception. For 2018, our net loss was $36.5 million. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. Our technologies and therapeutic candidates are in early stages of development, and we are subject to the risks of failure inherent in the development of therapeutic candidates based on novel technologies.
We have historically generated revenue primarily from the receipt of research funding and upfront payments under our license and research agreement with Kite. We have not generated, and do not expect to generate, any revenue from product sales for the foreseeable future, and we expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future due to the cost of research and development, preclinical studies, clinical trials, and the regulatory approval process for therapeutic candidates. The amount of future losses is uncertain. Our ability to achieve profitability, if ever, will depend on, among other things, our or our existing collaborators, or any future collaborators, successfully developing therapeutic candidates, obtaining regulatory approvals to market and commercialize therapeutic candidates, manufacturing any approved products on commercially reasonable terms, establishing a sales and marketing organization or suitable third party alternatives for any approved product, and raising sufficient funds to finance business activities. If we or our existing collaborators, or any future collaborators, are unable to develop and commercialize one or more of our therapeutic candidates or if sales revenue from any therapeutic candidate receiving approval is insufficient, we will not achieve profitability, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
Our approach to the discovery and development of innovative therapeutic treatments based on our technology is unproven and may not result in marketable products.
We plan to develop novel protein-based immunotherapies using our proprietary vIgD technology for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune/inflammatory diseases. The potential to create therapies capable of working within and/or modulating an immune synapse, forcing a synapse to occur, or preventing a synapse from occurring is an important, novel attribute of our vIgDs. However, the scientific research forming the basis of our efforts to develop therapeutic candidates based on our platform is relatively new. Further, the scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing therapeutic treatments based on vIgDs is both preliminary and limited.
Relatively few therapeutic candidates based on immunoglobulin superfamily, or IgSF, domains have been tested in animals or humans, and a number of clinical trials conducted by other companies using IgSF domains technologies have not been successful. We may discover the therapeutic candidates developed using our scientific platform do not possess certain properties required for the therapeutic candidate to be effective, such as the ability to remain stable or active in the human body for the period of time required for the therapeutic candidate to reach the target tissue and/or cell. We currently have only limited data, and no conclusive evidence, to suggest we can introduce these necessary therapeutic properties into vIgD-based therapeutic candidates. We may spend substantial funds attempting to introduce these properties and may never succeed in doing so. In addition, vIgDs may demonstrate different chemical and pharmacological properties in human subjects or patients than they do in laboratory studies. Even if our programs, such as the ALPN-101 program, have successful results in animal studies, they may not demonstrate the same chemical and pharmacological properties in humans and may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective, or harmful ways. For example, in the context of immunotherapies, in a Phase I
clinical trial of TeGenero AG’s product candidate TGN1412, healthy volunteer subjects receiving the product candidate experienced a systemic inflammatory response resulting in renal and pulmonary failure requiring interventions such as dialysis and critical care support. Following this experience, regulatory agencies now ask for evaluation of immunomodulatory antibodies with a number of in vitro assays with human cells. While we are currently performing in vitro and in vivo proof of concept studies for several of our vIgDs preclinically, and safety studies clinically for ALPN-101, the risk profile in humans has yet to be fully assessed. Undesirable side effects that may be caused by our therapeutic candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities. Such side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete clinical trials or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. As a result, we may never succeed in developing a marketable therapeutic, we may not become profitable, and the value of our common stock will decline.
Further, we believe that the FDA has no prior experience with vIgDs and no regulatory authority has granted approval to any person or entity, including our company, to market and commercialize therapeutics using vIgDs, which may increase the complexity, uncertainty, and length of the regulatory approval process for our therapeutic candidates. Our company and our current collaborators, or any future collaborators, may never receive approval to market and commercialize any therapeutic candidate. Even if our company or a collaborator obtains regulatory approval, the approval may be for disease indications or patient populations not as broad as we intended or desired or may require labeling, including significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings. Our company or a collaborator may be required to perform additional or unanticipated clinical trials to obtain approval or be subject to post-marketing testing requirements to maintain regulatory approval. If therapeutic candidates we develop using our scientific platform prove to be ineffective, unsafe, or commercially unviable, our entire platform and pipeline would have little, if any, value, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
The market may not be receptive to our therapeutic products based on a novel therapeutic modality, and we may not generate any future revenue from the sale or licensing of therapeutic products.
Even if approval is obtained for a therapeutic candidate, we may not generate or sustain revenue from sales of the therapeutic product due to factors such as whether the therapeutic product can be sold at a competitive price and otherwise accepted in the market. Therefore, any revenue from sales of the therapeutic product may not offset the costs of development. The therapeutic candidates we are developing are based on new technologies and therapeutic approaches. Market participants with significant influence over acceptance of new treatments, such as physicians and third-party payors, may not adopt a treatment based on our therapeutic products, and we may not be able to convince the medical community and third-party payors to accept and use, or to provide favorable coverage or reimbursement for, any therapeutic products developed by our company, our existing collaborator, or any future collaborators. Market acceptance of our therapeutic products will depend on, among other factors:
the timing of our receipt of any marketing and commercialization approvals;
the terms of any approvals and the countries in which approvals are obtained;
the safety and efficacy of our therapeutic products;
the prevalence and severity of any adverse side effects associated with our therapeutic products;
the prevalence and severity of any adverse side effects associated with therapeutics of the same type or class as our therapeutic products;
limitations or warnings contained in any labeling approved by the FDA or other regulatory authority;
relative convenience and ease of administration of our therapeutic products;
the willingness of patients to accept any new methods of administration;
the success of our physician education programs;
the availability of adequate government and third-party payor coverage and reimbursement;
the pricing of our products, particularly as compared to alternative treatments;
our ability to compliantly market and sell our products; and
availability of alternative effective treatments for the disease indications our therapeutic products are intended to treat and the relative risks, benefits, and costs of those treatments.
With our focus on engineering wild-type IgSFs proteins, these risks may increase to the extent this field becomes more competitive or less favored in the commercial marketplace. Additional risks apply in relation to any disease indications we pursue which are classified as rare diseases and allow for orphan drug designation by regulatory agencies in major commercial markets, such as the United States, European Union, and Japan. Because of the small patient population for a rare disease, if pricing is not approved or accepted in the market at an appropriate level for an approved therapeutic product with orphan drug designation, such drug may not generate enough revenue to offset costs of development, manufacturing, marketing, and commercialization despite any benefits received from the orphan drug designation, such as market exclusivity, assistance in clinical trial design, or a reduction in user fees or tax credits related to development expense. Market size is also a variable in disease indications classified as rare. Our estimates regarding potential market size for any rare indication may be materially different from what we discover to exist at the time we commence commercialization, if any, for a therapeutic product, which could result in significant changes in our business plan and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
If a therapeutic product with orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the therapeutic product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same therapeutic product for the same indication, except in very limited circumstances, for seven years. Orphan drug exclusivity, however, could also block the approval of one of our therapeutic products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same therapeutic product as defined by the FDA or if our therapeutic product is determined to be within the same class as the competitor’s therapeutic product for the same indication or disease.
As in the United States, we may apply for designation of a therapeutic product as an orphan drug for the treatment of a specific indication in the European Union before the application for marketing authorization is made. Sponsors of orphan drugs in the European Union can enjoy economic and marketing benefits, including up to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved indication unless another applicant can show its therapeutic product is safer, more effective, or otherwise clinically superior to the orphan-designated therapeutic product. The respective orphan designation and exclusivity frameworks in the United States and in the European Union are subject to change, and any such changes may affect our ability to obtain EU or U.S. orphan designations in the future.
Our therapeutic candidates are in early stages of development and may fail in development or suffer delays that materially and adversely affect their commercial viability.
We have no products on the market and all of our therapeutic candidates are in early stages of development. Our ability to achieve and sustain profitability depends on obtaining regulatory approval and Institutional Review Board, or IRB, approval to conduct clinical trials at particular sites, obtaining regulatory approvals to market our therapeutic candidates and successfully commercializing our therapeutic candidates, either alone or with third parties, such as our collaborator Kite. Before obtaining regulatory approval for the commercial distribution of our therapeutic candidates, we or a collaborator must conduct extensive preclinical tests and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy in humans of our therapeutic candidates. Preclinical testing and clinical trials are expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete, and are uncertain as to outcome. For example, in January 2019, we enrolled our first subjects in a Phase I healthy volunteer trial of ALPN-101. We are also working to advance our lead oncology program ALPN-202 for the treatment of cancer and preclinical development activities continue as planned, with the goal of filing an IND or IND-equivalent in the fourth quarter of 2019. Even with the significant investment of time and funding to advance ALPN-101 and ALPN-202, we cannot guarantee that our clinical and pre-clinical development efforts will be successful or that any of our product candidates will advance to human clinical trials. The start or end of a clinical study is often delayed or halted due to delays in or failure to obtain regulatory approval to commence the study, delays in or failure to reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations or clinical trial sites, delays in or failure to obtain IRB approval at each site, changing regulatory requirements, manufacturing challenges, clinical sites or contract research organizations deviating from the trial protocol or failing to comply with regulatory requirements or meet contractual obligations, slower than anticipated patient enrollment, changing standards of care, availability or prevalence of use of a comparative therapeutic or required prior therapy, clinical outcomes, failure of patients to complete the trial or return for post-treatment follow-up, or financial constraints. For instance, delays or difficulties in patient enrollment or difficulties in retaining trial participants can result in increased costs, longer development times, or termination of a clinical trial. Clinical trials of a new therapeutic candidate require the enrollment of a sufficient number of patients, which may include patients who are suffering from the disease the therapeutic candidate is intended to treat and who meet other eligibility criteria. Rates of patient enrollment are affected by many factors, including the size of the patient population, the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial, the age and condition of the patients, the stage and severity of disease, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, and the availability of effective treatments or competing academic and other clinical trials for the relevant disease.
A therapeutic candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical and clinical development. The historical failure rate for therapeutic candidates is high due to scientific feasibility, safety, efficacy, changing standards of medical care, and other variables. The novelty of our platform may mean our failure rates are higher than historical norms. The results from preclinical testing or early clinical trials of a therapeutic candidate may not predict the outcome of later phase clinical trials of the therapeutic candidate, particularly in immuno-oncology and autoimmune/inflammatory disorders. To date, we have not conducted any clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates in patients with active disease. However, we will have to conduct trials in our proposed indications to verify the results obtained to date in our preclinical studies and to support any regulatory submissions for further clinical development. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles despite promising results in earlier, smaller clinical trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. We do not know whether Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, or other clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety with respect to the proposed indication for use sufficient to receive regulatory approval or market our therapeutic candidates.
We, the FDA, an IRB, an independent ethics committee, or other applicable regulatory authorities may suspend clinical trials of a therapeutic candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects participating in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Similarly, an IRB or ethics committee may suspend a clinical trial at a particular trial site. We may not have the financial resources to continue development of, or to enter into collaborations for, a therapeutic candidate if we experience any problems or other unforeseen events delaying or preventing clinical development or regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, therapeutic candidates, including:
negative or inconclusive results from our clinical trials, or the clinical trials of others for therapeutic candidates similar to ours, leading to a decision or requirement to conduct additional preclinical testing or clinical trials or abandon a program;
serious and unexpected drug-related side effects experienced by participants in our clinical trials or by individuals using therapeutics similar to our therapeutic candidates;
serious drug-related side effects experienced in the past by individuals using therapeutics similar to our therapeutic candidates;
delays in submitting Investigational New Drug, or IND, applications or clinical trial applications, or comparable foreign applications, or delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators or IRBs to commence a clinical trial, or a suspension or termination of a clinical trial once commenced;
conditions imposed by the FDA or comparable foreign authorities, such as the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, regarding the scope or design of our clinical trials;
delays in enrolling research subjects in clinical trials;
high drop-out rates of research subjects;
inadequate supply or quality of therapeutic candidate or therapeutic candidate components, or materials or other supplies necessary for the conduct of our clinical trials, including those owned, manufactured, or provided by companies other than ours;
greater than anticipated clinical trial costs, including the cost of any approved drugs used in combination with our therapeutic candidates;
poor effectiveness of our therapeutic candidates during clinical trials;
unfavorable FDA or other regulatory agency inspection and review of a clinical trial site;
failure of our third-party contractors or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner, or at all;
delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policies, and guidelines, including the imposition of additional regulatory oversight around clinical testing generally or with respect to our technology in particular; or
varying interpretations of data by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies.
Product development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier pre-clinical and clinical trials may not be predictive of future clinical trial results.
Clinical testing is expensive and generally takes many years to complete, and the outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of pre-clinical trials and early clinical trials of our
product candidates may not be predictive of the results of larger, later-stage controlled clinical trials. Product candidates showing promising results in early-stage clinical trials may still suffer significant setbacks in subsequent clinical trials. In January 2019, we dosed the first subjects with ALPN-101 in a Phase I trial enrolling healthy volunteers. We have conducted no clinical trials to date with ALPN-202 and have not dosed ALPN-101 in patients with active inflammatory disease. We will have to conduct trials in our proposed indications to verify the results obtained to date and to support any regulatory submissions for further clinical development. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles despite promising results in earlier, smaller clinical trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. We do not know whether Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, or other clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety with respect to the proposed indication for use sufficient to receive regulatory approval or market our therapeutic candidates.
Additionally, disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down multiple times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA and other government employees. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
To date, our revenue has been primarily derived from our license and research agreement with Kite, and we are dependent on Kite for the successful development of therapeutic candidates in the collaboration.
In October 2015, we entered into an exclusive, worldwide license and research agreement with Kite to research, develop, and commercialize engineered autologous T cell therapies incorporating two targets from our technology. Pursuant to the license and research agreement, we will be potentially eligible to receive up to $530.0 million in total milestone payments upon the successful completion of research, clinical, and regulatory milestones. We will also potentially be eligible to receive a low single-digit percentage royalty for sales on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis.
Continued success of our collaboration with Kite, and our realization of the milestone and royalty payments under the agreement, depends upon the efforts of Kite. Kite has sole discretion in determining and directing the efforts and resources, including the ability to discontinue all efforts and resources, it applies to the development and, if approval is obtained, commercialization and marketing of the therapeutic candidates covered by the collaboration. Kite may not be effective in obtaining approvals for the therapeutic candidates developed under the collaboration arrangement or marketing or arranging for necessary supply, manufacturing, or distribution relationships for any approved products. Kite may change its strategic focus or pursue alternative technologies in a manner resulting in reduced, delayed, or no revenue to us. Kite has a variety of marketed products and its own corporate objectives and strategies may not be consistent with our best interests. If Kite fails to develop, obtain regulatory approval for, or ultimately commercialize any therapeutic candidate under the collaboration or if Kite terminates the collaboration, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, any dispute or litigation proceedings we may have with Kite in the future could delay development programs, create uncertainty as to ownership of intellectual property rights, distract management from other business activities and generate substantial expense.
If we are unable to secure intellectual property rights to programs covered under the license and research agreement, Kite may terminate the agreement and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, any dispute or litigation proceedings we may have with Kite related to intellectual property rights or other aspects of the agreement or the relationship could delay development programs, create uncertainty as to ownership of intellectual property rights, may distract management from other business activities and generate substantial expense.
In October 2017, Kite was acquired by Gilead Pharma, Inc., or Gilead. While the research term of the collaboration was extended after the closing of the acquisition, there is no guarantee Gilead will place the same emphasis on the collaboration or wish to continue the collaboration. If either of these occurs, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price, and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.
If third parties on which we depend to conduct our clinical or preclinical studies, or any future clinical trials, do not perform as expected, fail to satisfy regulatory or legal requirements, or miss expected deadlines, our development program could be delayed, which may result in materially adverse effects on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
We rely, in part, on third party clinical investigators, contract research organizations, or CROs, clinical data management organizations, and consultants to design, conduct, supervise, and monitor clinical trials and preclinical studies of our therapeutic candidates and may do the same for future clinical trials. Because we rely on third parties to conduct preclinical studies or clinical trials, we have less control over the timing, quality, compliance, and other aspects of preclinical studies and clinical trials than we would if we conducted all preclinical studies and clinical trials on our own. These investigators, CROs, and consultants are not our employees and we have limited control over the amount of time and resources they dedicate to our programs. These third parties may have contractual relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, which may draw their time and resources away from our programs. The third parties with which we contract might not be diligent, careful, compliant, or timely in conducting our preclinical studies or clinical trials, resulting in the preclinical studies or clinical trials being delayed or unsuccessful. Further, if any of our relationships with third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or to do so on commercially reasonable terms.
If we cannot contract with acceptable third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or if these third parties do not carry out their expected duties, satisfy legal and regulatory requirements for the conduct of preclinical studies or clinical trials, or meet expected deadlines, our clinical development programs could be delayed and otherwise adversely affected. In all events, we are responsible for ensuring each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial and with legal, regulatory and scientific standards. The FDA and certain foreign regulatory authorities, such as the EMA, require preclinical studies to be conducted in accordance with applicable Good Laboratory Practices, or GLPs, and clinical trials to be conducted in accordance with applicable FDA regulations and Good Clinical Practices, or GCPs, including requirements for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials to assure data and reported results are credible and accurate and the rights, integrity, and confidentiality of clinical trial participants are protected. Our reliance on third parties we do not control does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
In addition, switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. There is also a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays may occur, which could materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter such challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.
Because we rely on third party manufacturing and supply partners, our supply of clinical trial materials may become limited or interrupted or may not be of satisfactory quantity or quality, and our dependence on these third parties may impair the advancement of our research and development programs.
We have established in-house recombinant protein generation capabilities for producing sufficient protein materials to enable a portion of our current preclinical studies. We rely on third party supply and manufacturing partners to supply the materials, components, and manufacturing services for a portion of preclinical studies and also rely on such third parties for all our clinical trial drug supplies. We do not own manufacturing facilities or supply sources for such components and materials for clinical trial supplies and our current manufacturing facilities are insufficient to supply such components and materials for all of our preclinical studies. Certain raw materials necessary for the manufacture of our therapeutic products, such as cell lines, are available from a single or limited number of source suppliers on a purchase order basis. There can be no assurance our supply of research and development, preclinical study, and clinical trial drugs and other materials will not be limited, interrupted, restricted in certain geographic regions, of satisfactory quality or quantity, or continue to be available at acceptable prices. In particular, any replacement of our therapeutic substance manufacturer could require significant effort and expertise and could result in significant delay of our preclinical or clinical activities because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements.
The manufacturing process for a therapeutic candidate is subject to FDA and foreign regulatory authority review, and the facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our therapeutic candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our marketing application(s) to the FDA. Suppliers and manufacturers must meet applicable manufacturing requirements and undergo rigorous facility and process validation tests required by regulatory authorities in order to comply with cGMP regulations or other regulatory standards. In the event any of our suppliers or manufacturers fails to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations to us in relation to quality, timing, or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may experience shortages resulting in delayed shipments, supply constraints, and/or stock-outs of our products, be forced to manufacture the materials alone, for which we currently do not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with another third party, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture our therapeutic candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual and intellectual property restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills or technology to another third party and a feasible alternative may not exist. These factors may increase our reliance on such manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to have another third party manufacture our therapeutic candidates. If we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures complying with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop therapeutic candidates in a timely manner, within budget, or at all.
We expect to continue to rely on third party manufacturers if we receive regulatory approval for any therapeutic candidate. To the extent we have existing, or enter into future, manufacturing arrangements with third parties, we will depend on these third parties to perform their obligations in a timely manner consistent with contractual and regulatory requirements, including those related to quality control and assurance. If we are unable to obtain or maintain third-party manufacturing for therapeutic candidates, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to develop and commercialize our therapeutic candidates successfully. Our, or a third party’s, failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including as a result of:
an inability to initiate or continue preclinical studies or clinical trials of therapeutic candidates under development;
delay in submitting regulatory applications, or receiving regulatory approvals, for therapeutic candidates;
the loss of the cooperation of a collaborator;
subjecting manufacturing facilities of our therapeutic candidates to additional inspections by regulatory authorities;
requirements to cease distribution or to recall batches of our therapeutic candidates; and
in the event of approval to market and commercialize a therapeutic candidate, an inability to meet commercial demands for our products.
We may not successfully engage in strategic transactions, including any additional collaborations we seek, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize therapeutic candidates, impact our cash position, increase our expenses, and present significant distractions to our management.
From time to time, we may consider strategic transactions, such as collaborations, acquisitions of companies, asset purchases, and out- or in-licensing of therapeutic candidates or technologies. In particular, in addition to our current arrangements with Kite, we intend to evaluate and, if strategically attractive, seek to enter into additional collaborations, including with major biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. The competition for collaborative partners is intense, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Any new collaboration may be on suboptimal terms for us, and we may be unable to maintain any new or existing collaboration if, for example, development or approval of a therapeutic candidate is delayed, sales of an approved therapeutic product do not meet expectations, or the collaborator terminates the collaboration. Any such collaboration, or other strategic transaction, may require us to incur non-recurring or other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures and pose significant integration or implementation challenges or disrupt our management or business.
These transactions would entail numerous operational and financial risks, including:
exposure to unknown liabilities;
disruption of our business and diversion of our management’s time and attention in order to manage a collaboration or develop acquired therapeutic candidates, or technologies;
incurrence of substantial debt or dilutive issuances of equity securities to pay transaction consideration or costs;
higher than expected collaboration, acquisition, or integration costs;
write-downs of assets or goodwill, or incurring impairment charges or increased amortization expenses; and
difficulty and cost in facilitating the collaboration or combining the operations and personnel of any acquired business or impairment of relationships with key suppliers, manufacturers, or customers of any acquired business due to changes in management and ownership and the inability to retain key employees of any acquired business.
Accordingly, although there can be no assurance we will undertake or successfully complete any transactions of the nature described above, any transactions we do complete may be subject to the foregoing or other risks and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects. Conversely, any failure to enter any collaboration or other strategic transaction beneficial to us could delay the development and potential commercialization of our therapeutic candidates and have a negative impact on the competitiveness of any therapeutic candidate reaching market.
We face competition from entities that have developed or may develop therapeutic candidates for our target disease indications, including companies developing novel treatments and technology platforms based on modalities and technology similar to us. If these companies develop technologies or therapeutic candidates more rapidly than we do, or their technologies, including delivery technologies, are more effective, our ability to develop and successfully commercialize therapeutic candidates may be adversely affected.
We participate in the highly competitive sector of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals and in the subsector of immune modulation. This subsector has undergone tremendous technological advancement over the last decade due to advancements in understanding the role of the immune system across multiple therapeutic areas, including oncology and autoimmune/inflammatory disease. While we believe our novel technology platform, discovery programs, knowledge, experience, and scientific resources offer competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, public and private research institutions, and others.
Any products we successfully develop and commercialize will face competition from currently approved therapies and new therapies potentially available in the future.
The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our products, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.
Many of the companies we compete against may have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, pre-clinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.
Specifically, our competitors include companies developing therapies with the same target(s) as ALPN-101 and ALPN-202 as well as companies building novel platforms to generate multi-specific antibody or non-antibody-based targeting proteins.
The competitors listed below have programs targeting either ICOS or CD28 (or one of their ligands). To our knowledge, there are currently no competitors with a single molecule targeting ICOS and CD28 simultaneously.
an anti-ICOSL/B7RP-1 monoclonal antibody being developed by Amgen, Inc. (may be referred to as prezalumab, AMG557 or MEDI5872);
an anti-BAFF, anti-ICOSL bispecific antibody being developed by Amgen, Inc. (AMG570/MEDI0700);
an anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody fragment being developed by OSE ImmunoTherapeutics SA (FR104); and
an anti-CD28 peptide being developed by AtoxBio, Inc.
an IL-10 - anti-CD86 cytokine-scFv fusion protein being developed by Aptevo, Inc. (APVO210)
ALPN-202 Program Competitors
There are numerous clinical trials for immuno-oncology products used as a single agent or in combination. One of the potentially novel attributes of the ALPN-202 program is it combines inhibitory receptor antagonism and activating costimulation with a single molecule interacting with multiple immune targets.
Examples of additional multi-target compounds for immuno-oncology are highlighted below. To our knowledge, there are currently no competitors with a single molecule capable of dual PD-L1/CTLA-4 antagonism and PD-L1-dependent CD28 agonism.
wild-type CD80-Fc being developed by Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc. (FPT155);
bifunctional fusion protein composed of monoclonal antibody against programmed death ligand 1 (“PD-L1”) fused to the extracellular domain of human transforming growth factor–β (“TGF-β”) receptor II being developed by EMD Serono, Inc and GSK plc (M7824);
bifunctional fusion protein composed of PD-1 and OX40L developed by Shattuck Labs, Inc. (SL-279252);
bispecific fusion protein targeting 4-1BB and PD-L1 being developed by Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PRS-344);
bispecific monoclonal antibodies being developed by Xencor, Inc. including XmAb20717 targeting CTLA-4 and PD-1, XmAb22841 targeting CTLA-4 and LAG-3, and XmAb23104 targeting PD-1 and ICOS;
bispecific constructs called “DARTs” being developed by Macrogenics, Inc., including MGD013 targeting PD-1 and LAG-3 and MGD019 targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4;
bispecific monoclonal antibody being developed by Tesaro, Inc., targeting PD-1 and LAG-3;
small molecule antagonists being developed by Aurigene Ltd and Curis, Inc., including CA-170 targeting PD-L1 and VISTA and CA-327 targeting PD-L1 and TIM-3;
FS118, a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting PD-L1 and LAG-3 being developed by F-star Biotechnology, Ltd.;
various combinations of separate anti PD-1/L1 and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies; and
various combinations of separate anti PD-1/L1 and costimulatory monoclonal antibodies such as OX-40, 4-1BB, and others.
Novel Platform Competitors
Multifunctional therapeutic protein platforms potentially competitive with our platform include:
Amgen, Inc. (BiTE®): fusion proteins consisting of two single-chain variable fragments to link T-cells to tumors;
Macrogenics, Inc. (DART®): Dual-Affinity Re-Targeting and Trident technology platforms bind multiple targets with a single molecule;
Xencor, Inc. (XmAb Bispecific): Optimized Fc domains for improved potency, half-life and stability;
Zymeworks, Inc. (Azymetric™): Proprietary amino acid modifications to facilitate interaction of distinct heavy chains;
Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Anticalin®): Engineered proteins derived from natural lipocalins found in blood plasma;
Compass Therapeutics, LLC (Targeted Immunomodulation™, StitchMabs™)): Antibody discovery targeting the tumor-immune synapse;
Harpoon Therapeutics, Inc.: TriTAC™ (Tri-specific T cell Activating Construct) contain CD3 binding domain, half-life extension domain, and antigen-binding domain;
Shattuck Labs, Inc.: Agonist Redirected Antibody platform claimed to bind tumor-necrosis factor (“TNF”) and checkpoint targets;
Ablynx NV (Nanobody®), purchased by Sanofi Pharma, Inc.: Platform technology of single-domain, heavy-chain antibody fragments derived from camelidae (e.g., camels and llamas);
Regeneron, Inc.: VEGF Trap and VelociSuite® antibody technology platforms; and
Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc.: Proprietary protein library and rapid protein production and testing platform.
Additionally, there are a number of other therapies for autoimmune/inflammatory diseases or cancer approved or in development that are also competitive with our lead program and other programs in development. Many of the other therapies include other types of immunotherapies with different targets than our programs. Other potentially competitive therapies work in ways distinct from our development programs.
Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, manufacturing, marketing, sales, and supply resources or experience than we have. If we successfully obtain approval for any therapeutic candidate, we will face competition based on many different factors, including safety and effectiveness, ease with which our products can be administered and the extent to which patients accept relatively new routes of administration, timing and scope of regulatory approvals, availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities, price, reimbursement coverage, and patent position of our products. Competing products could present superior treatment alternatives, including by being more effective, safer, less expensive, or marketed and sold more effectively than any products we may develop. Competitive products may make any products we develop obsolete or noncompetitive before we recover the expense of developing and commercializing our therapeutic candidates. Competitors could also recruit our employees, which could negatively impact our ability to execute our business plan.
Any inability to attract and retain qualified key management and technical personnel would impair our ability to implement our business plan.
Our success largely depends on the continued service of key management and other specialized personnel, including Mitchell H. Gold, M.D., our Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mark J. Litton, Ph.D., our President and Chief Operating Officer, Stanford Peng, M.D., Ph.D., our Executive Vice President of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer, and Paul Rickey, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.
The loss of one or more members of our management team or other key employees or advisors could delay our research and development programs and materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. The relationships our key managers have cultivated within our industry make us particularly dependent upon their continued employment with us. We are dependent on the continued service of our technical personnel because of the highly technical nature of our therapeutic candidates and technologies, and the specialized nature of the regulatory approval process. Because our management team and key employees are not obligated to provide us with continued service, they could terminate their employment with us at any time without penalty. We do not maintain key person life insurance policies on any of our management team members or key employees. Our future success will depend in large part on our continued ability to attract and retain other highly qualified scientific, technical, and management personnel, as well as personnel with expertise in clinical testing, manufacturing, governmental regulation, and commercialization. We face competition for personnel from other companies, universities, public and private research institutions, government entities, and other organizations, including significant competition in the Seattle employment market.
As our therapeutic candidates advance into clinical trials, we may experience difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations.
We have limited experience in therapeutic development and very limited experience with clinical trials of therapeutic candidates. As our therapeutic candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and clinical trials, we will need to expand our development, regulatory, and manufacturing capabilities or contract with other organizations to provide these capabilities for us. In the future, we expect to have to manage additional relationships with collaborators or partners, suppliers, and other organizations. Our ability to manage our operations and future growth will require us to continue to improve our operational, financial, and management controls, reporting systems, and procedures. We may not be able to implement improvements to our management information and control systems in an efficient or timely manner and may discover deficiencies in existing systems and controls.
If any of our therapeutic candidates are approved for marketing and commercialization and we are unable to develop sales, marketing and distribution capabilities on our own or enter into agreements with third parties to perform these functions on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully commercialize any such future products.
We currently have no sales, marketing, or distribution capabilities or experience. If any of our therapeutic candidates are approved, we will need to develop internal sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities to commercialize such products,
which may be expensive and time-consuming, or enter into collaborations with third parties to perform these services. If we decide to market our products directly, we will need to commit significant financial, legal, and managerial resources to develop a marketing and sales force with technical expertise and supporting distribution, administration, and compliance capabilities. If we rely on third parties with such capabilities to market our approved products, or decide to co-promote products with collaborators, we will need to establish and maintain marketing and distribution arrangements with third parties, and there can be no assurance we will be able to enter into such arrangements on acceptable, compliant terms or at all. In entering into third-party marketing or distribution arrangements, any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of the third parties and there can be no assurance such third parties will establish adequate sales and distribution capabilities or be successful in gaining market acceptance of any approved therapeutic. If we are not successful in commercializing any therapeutic approved in the future, either on our own or through third parties, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.
If we fail to comply with U.S. and foreign regulatory requirements, regulatory authorities could limit or withdraw any marketing or commercialization approvals we may receive and subject us to other penalties that could materially harm our business.
Our company, our therapeutic candidates, our suppliers, and our contract manufacturers, distributors, and contract testing laboratories are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the European Union, the United States, and other countries, with regulations differing from country to country.
Even if we receive marketing and commercialization approval of a therapeutic candidate, we and our third-party service providers will be subject to continuing regulatory requirements, including a broad array of regulations related to establishment registration and product listing, manufacturing processes, risk management measures, quality and pharmacovigilance systems, post-approval clinical studies, labeling and packaging, advertising and promotional activities, record keeping, distribution, adverse event reporting, import and export of pharmaceutical products, pricing, sales, and marketing, and fraud and abuse requirements.
We are required to submit safety and other post market information and reports, and are subject to continuing regulatory review, including in relation to adverse patient experiences with the product and clinical results reported after a product is made commercially available, both in the United States and in any foreign jurisdiction in which we seek regulatory approval. The FDA and certain foreign regulatory authorities, such as the EMA, have significant post-market authority, including the authority to require labeling changes based on new safety information and to require post-market studies or clinical trials to evaluate safety risks related to the use of a product or to require withdrawal of the product from the market.
The FDA also has the authority to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, or REMS, plan either before or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved therapeutic. The EMA now routinely requires risk management plans, or RMPs, as part of the marketing authorization application process, and such plans must be continually modified and updated throughout the lifetime of the product as new information becomes available. In addition, the relevant governmental authority of any EU member state can request an RMP whenever there is a concern about the risk/ benefit balance of the product.
The manufacturers and manufacturing facilities we use to make a future product, if any, will also be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA and other regulatory agencies, including for continued compliance with cGMP requirements. The discovery of any new or previously unknown problems with our third-party manufacturers, manufacturing processes or facilities may result in restrictions on the product, manufacturers or facilities, including withdrawal of the product from the market. If we rely on third-party manufacturers, we will have limited control over compliance with applicable rules and regulations by such manufacturers.
If we or our collaborators, manufacturers, or service providers fail to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements in the U.S. or foreign jurisdictions in which we seek to market our products, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, warning and untitled letters, clinical holds, a requirement to conduct additional clinical trials, delay or refusal by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, suspension, refusal to renew or withdrawal of regulatory approval, product recalls, seizures, or administrative detention of products, refusal to permit the import or export of products, operating restrictions, inability to participate in government programs including Medicare and Medicaid, and total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunction, restitution, disgorgement, debarment, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution.
Imposed price controls may adversely affect our future profitability.
In most countries, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic, and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing and reimbursement negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained.
Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of our therapeutic candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If reimbursement of any product candidate approved for marketing is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects could be adversely affected.
Our business entails a significant risk of product liability and our inability to obtain sufficient insurance coverage could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects.
Our business exposes us to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing, and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in an investigation by certain regulatory authorities, such as FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, of the safety and effectiveness of our products, our manufacturing processes and facilities, or our marketing programs and potentially a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used, or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources, substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients, and a decline in our valuation. We currently have product liability insurance we believe is appropriate for our stage of development and may need to obtain higher levels of product liability insurance prior to marketing any therapeutic candidates. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims with a potentially material adverse effect on our business.
Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include, but is not limited to:
intentional failures to comply with FDA or U.S. health care laws and regulations, or applicable laws, regulations, guidance, or codes of conduct set by foreign governmental authorities or self-regulatory industry organizations;
a provision of inaccurate information to any governmental authorities such as FDA;
noncompliance with manufacturing standards we may establish;
noncompliance with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations; and
a failure to report financial information or data accurately or a failure to disclose unauthorized activities to us.
In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws, regulations, guidance and codes of conduct intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws, regulations, guidance statements, and codes of conduct may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive program, health care professional, and other business arrangements.
Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions, including debarment or disqualification of those employees from participation in FDA regulated activities and serious harm to our reputation. This could include violations of provisions of the U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for
Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, other U.S. federal and state law, and requirements of non-U.S. jurisdictions, including the European Union Data Protection Directive.
It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws, regulations, guidance or codes of conduct. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending such actions or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines, exclusion from government programs, or other sanctions.
Our business involves the use of hazardous materials and we and our third-party manufacturers must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which may be expensive and restrict how we conduct business.
Our third-party manufacturers’ activities and our own activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous and flammable materials, including the components of our pharmaceutical product candidates, test samples and reagents, biological materials and other hazardous compounds. We and our manufacturers are subject to federal, state, local, and foreign laws and regulations governing the use, generation, manufacture, storage, handling, and disposal of these hazardous materials. Although we believe our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials and waste products comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from the use, storage, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials. In the event of an accident, state, or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of these materials and/or interrupt our business operations. In addition, if an accident or environmental discharge occurs, or if we discover contamination caused by prior operations, including by prior owners and operators of properties we acquire, we could be liable for cleanup obligations, damages, and fines. If such unexpected costs are substantial, this could significantly harm our financial condition and results of operations.
Compliance with governmental regulations regarding the treatment of animals used in research could increase our operating costs, which would adversely affect the commercialization of our technology.
The Animal Welfare Act, or AWA, is the federal law covering the treatment of certain animals used in research. Currently, the AWA imposes a wide variety of specific regulations governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by producers and users of research animals, most notably relating to personnel, facilities, sanitation, cage size and feeding, watering, and shipping conditions. Third parties with whom we contract are subject to registration, inspections, and reporting requirements under the AWA. Furthermore, some states have their own regulations, including general anti-cruelty legislation, which establish certain standards in handling animals. Comparable rules, regulations, and or obligations exist in many foreign jurisdictions. If we or our contractors fail to comply with regulations concerning the treatment of animals used in research, we may be subject to fines and penalties and adverse publicity, and our operations could be adversely affected.
Our information technology systems could face serious disruptions adversely affecting our business.
Our information technology and other internal infrastructure systems, including corporate firewalls, servers, leased lines, and connection to the Internet, face the risk of systemic failure potentially disruptive to our operations. A significant disruption in the availability of our information technology and other internal infrastructure systems could cause interruptions in our collaborations with our partners and delays in our research and development work.
Our current operations are concentrated in one location and any events affecting this location may have material adverse consequences.
Our current operations are located in facilities situated in Seattle. Any unplanned event, such as flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, extreme weather condition, medical epidemics, power shortage, power outage, telecommunication failure, or other natural or manmade accidents or incidents resulting in our company being unable to fully utilize the facilities, may have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of our therapeutic candidates, or interruption of our business operations. As part of our risk management policy, we maintain insurance coverage at levels we believe are appropriate for our business. However, in the event of an accident or incident at these facilities, we cannot assure you the amounts of insurance will be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses or that the insurance covers all risks. If our facilities are unable to operate because of an accident or incident or for any other reason, even for a short period of time, any or all of our research and development programs may be harmed. Any
business interruption may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, and prospects.
The investment of our cash, cash equivalents, and fixed income in marketable securities is subject to risks which may cause losses and affect the liquidity of these investments.
As of December 31, 2018, we had $52.3 million in cash and cash equivalents, and short-term investments. We expect to invest our excess cash in marketable securities. These investments are subject to general credit, liquidity, market and interest rate risks, including potential future impacts similar to the impact of U.S. sub-prime mortgage defaults previously affecting various sectors of the financial markets and which caused credit and liquidity issues. We may realize losses in the fair value of these investments, an inability to access cash in these investments for a potentially meaningful period, or a complete loss of these investments, which would have a negative effect on our financial statements.
Changes in accounting rules and regulations, or interpretations thereof, could result in unfavorable accounting charges or require us to change our compensation policies.
Accounting methods and policies for biopharmaceutical companies, including policies governing revenue recognition, research and development and related expenses, and accounting for stock-based compensation, are subject to review, interpretation, and guidance from our auditors and relevant accounting authorities, including the SEC. Changes to accounting methods or policies, or interpretations thereof, may require us to reclassify, restate, or otherwise change or revise our financial statements.
Our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes are likely subject to limitations.
In general, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, to offset future taxable income. In general, an ownership change occurs if the aggregate stock ownership of certain stockholders, generally stockholders beneficially owning five percent or more of a corporation’s common stock, applying certain look-through and aggregation rules, increases by more than 50 percentage points over such stockholders’ lowest percentage ownership during the testing period, generally three years. Nivalis may have experienced ownership changes in the past and may experience ownership changes in the future. In addition, the closing of the merger of Nivalis and Alpine in 2017 likely resulted in an ownership change for Nivalis. It is likely that, due to the method by which limitations on the utilization of NOL carryforwards are calculated, we will not be able to utilize any of Nivalis’ net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes. It is also possible that Alpine’s net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be subject to limitation as a result of ownership changes in the past and/or the closing of the merger. Consequently, even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of Alpine’s, or any of Nivalis’, net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes, which could have a material adverse effect on cash flow and results of operations.
Provisions of our debt instruments may restrict our ability to pursue our business strategies.
Our term loan agreement requires us, and any debt financing we may obtain in the future may require us, to comply with various covenants that limit our ability to, among other things:
complete mergers or acquisitions;
pay dividends or make other distributions to holders of our capital stock;
make specified investments;
engage in any new line or business; and
engagement in certain transactions with our affiliates.
These restrictions could inhibit our ability to pursue our business strategies. If we default under our term loan agreement, and such event of default is not cured or waived, the lenders could terminate commitments to lend and cause all amounts outstanding with respect to the debt to be due and payable immediately, which in turn could result in cross defaults under other debt instruments. Our assets and cash flow may not be sufficient to fully repay borrowings under our outstanding
debt instruments if some or all of these instruments are accelerated upon a default. We may incur additional indebtedness in the future. The debt instruments governing such indebtedness could contain provisions that are as, or more, restrictive than our existing debt instruments. If we are unable to repay, refinance or restructure our indebtedness when payment is due, the lenders could proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure such indebtedness or force us into bankruptcy or liquidation.
Our business may be affected by litigation and government investigations.
We may from time to time receive inquiries and subpoenas and other types of information requests from government authorities and others and we may become subject to claims and other actions related to our business activities. While the ultimate outcome of investigations, inquiries, information requests, and legal proceedings is difficult to predict, defense of litigation claims can be expensive, time-consuming and distracting, and adverse resolutions or settlements of those matters may result in, among other things, modification of our business practices, costs, and significant payments, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
We believe our development programs and platform have a particular mechanism of action, but this mechanism of action has not been proven conclusively.
Our scientific platform is novel, and the underlying science is not exhaustively understood nor conclusively proven. In particular, the interaction of vIgDs with the immune synapse, the ability of vIgDs to slow, stop, restart, or accelerate immune responses, and the ability of vIgD domains to interact with multiple counterstructures is still largely theoretical. Graphical representations of proposed mechanisms of action of our therapies, the size, actual or relative, of our therapeutics, and how our therapeutics might interface with other cells within the human body, inside the immune synapse, or inside the disease and/or the tumor microenvironment are similarly theoretical and not yet conclusively proven. The lack of a proven mechanism of action may adversely affect our ability to raise sufficient capital, complete preclinical studies, adequately manufacture drug product, obtain regulatory clearance for clinical trials, gain marketing approval, or conclude collaborations, or interfere with our ability to market our product to patients and physicians or achieve reimbursement from payors.
Any inability to present our data in scientific journals or at scientific conferences could adversely impact our business and stock price.
We may from time to time submit data related to our research and development activities in peer-reviewed scientific publications or apply to present data related to our research and development activities at scientific or other conferences. We have no control over whether these submissions or applications are accepted. Even if accepted for a conference, we have no control over whether presentations at scientific conferences will be accepted for oral presentation, poster presentation, or abstract publication only. Even when accepted for publication, we have no control over the timing of the release of the publication. Rejection by publications, delays in publication, rejection for presentation, or a less-preferred format for a presentation may adversely impact our stock price, ability to raise capital, and business.
Our business may be affected by adverse scientific publications or editorial or discussant opinions.
We may from time to time publish data related to our research and development activities in peer-reviewed scientific publications or present data related to our research and development activities at scientific or other conferences. Editorials or discussants unrelated to us may provide opinions on our presented data unfavorable to us. In addition, scientific publications or presentations may be made which are critical of our science or research or the field of immunotherapy in general. This may adversely affect our ability to raise necessary capital, complete clinical and preclinical studies, adequately manufacture drug product, obtain regulatory clearance for clinical trials, or approval for marketing, or interfere with our ability to market our product to patients and physicians or achieve reimbursement from payors.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection for our technology, including therapeutic candidates, therapeutic products, and platform technology, development of our therapeutic candidates and platform, and commercialization of our therapeutic products may be materially and adversely affected.
Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patents and other forms of intellectual property rights, including in-licenses of intellectual property rights of others, for our technology, including platform and therapeutic candidates and products, methods used to manufacture our therapeutic candidates and products, and methods for treating patients using our therapeutic candidates and products, as well as our ability to preserve our trade secrets, to prevent third parties from infringing upon our proprietary rights, and to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. As
of December 31, 2018, our patent portfolio consists of over 60 pending patent applications. We may not be able to apply for patents on certain aspects of our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, in a timely fashion or at all. Any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing therapeutics and technology. There is no guarantee that any of our pending patent applications will result in issued or granted patents, any of our issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or unenforceable, or any issued or granted patents will include claims sufficiently broad to cover our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, or to provide meaningful protection from our competitors. Moreover, the patent position of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can be highly uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual questions. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent our current and future technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. If third parties disclose or misappropriate our proprietary rights, it may materially and adversely impact our competitive position in the market.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Further, the standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection we will have on our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products. While we will endeavor to try to protect our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, with intellectual property rights such as patents, as appropriate, the process of obtaining patents is time-consuming, expensive, and sometimes unpredictable, and we can provide no assurances our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, will be adequately protected in the future against unauthorized uses or competing claims by third parties.
In addition, recent and future changes to the patent laws and to the rules of the USPTO or other foreign patent offices may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act enacted in 2011 involves significant changes in patent legislation. In addition, we cannot assure that court rulings or interpretations of any court decision will not adversely impact our patents or patent applications. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, there also may be uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, the USPTO, or made in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future.
Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification, or derivation action in court or before patent offices or similar proceedings before or after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such initial grant. In the course of such proceedings, which may continue for a protracted period of time, the patent owner may be compelled to limit the scope of the pending, allowed or granted claims thus attacked or may lose the allowed or granted claims altogether. Our patent risks include that:
others may, or may be able to, make, use, offer to sell, or sell compounds that are the same as or similar to our therapeutic candidates and products but that are not covered by the claims of the patents we own or license;
we or our licensors, collaborators, or any future collaborators may not be the first to file patent applications covering certain aspects of our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products;
others may independently develop similar or alternative technology or duplicate any of our technology without infringing our intellectual property rights;
a third party may challenge our patents and, if challenged, a court may not hold that our patents are valid, enforceable, or that a third party is infringing;
a third party may challenge our patents in various patent offices and, if challenged, we may be compelled to limit the scope of our pending allowed or granted claims or lose the allowed or granted claims altogether;
any issued patents we own or have licensed may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be challenged by third parties;
we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;
the patents of others could harm our business; and
our competitors could conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not or will not have enforceable patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in major commercial markets where we do not or will not have enforceable patent rights.
We may license patent rights from third-party owners or licensees. If such owners or licensees do not properly or successfully obtain, maintain or enforce the patents underlying such licenses, or if they retain or license to others any competing rights, our competitive position and business prospects may be materially and adversely affected.
We may rely upon intellectual property rights licensed from third parties to protect our technology, including platform technology and therapeutic candidates and products. To date, we have in-licensed some intellectual property on a non-exclusive basis relating to commercially-available cell lines involved in the manufacture of our vIgD programs; however, we may also license additional third-party intellectual property in the future, to protect our technology, including intellectual property relating to our platform technology and therapeutic candidates and products. Our success will depend in part on the ability of our licensors to obtain, maintain, and enforce patent protection for our licensed intellectual property, in particular those patents to which we have secured exclusive rights. Our licensors may elect not to prosecute, or may be unsuccessful in prosecuting, any patent applications licensed to us. Even if patents issue or are granted, our licensors may fail to maintain these patents, may determine not to pursue litigation against other companies infringing these patents, or may pursue litigation less aggressively than we would. Further, any licenses we enter into may be non-exclusive and we may not be able to obtain exclusive rights, which would potentially allow third parties to develop competing products or technology. Without protection for, or exclusive right to, any intellectual property we may license, other companies might be able to offer substantially identical or similar product for sale, which could adversely affect our competitive business position and harm our business prospects. In addition, we may sublicense any rights we have under third-party licenses to current or future collaborators or any future strategic partners. Any impairment of these sublicensed rights could result in reduced revenue under or result in termination of an agreement by one or more of our collaborators or any future strategic partners.
We may be unable to protect our patent intellectual property rights throughout the world.
Obtaining a valid and enforceable issued or granted patent covering our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, in the United States and worldwide can be extremely costly. In jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection, competitors may use our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, to develop their own products, and further, may commercialize such products in those jurisdictions and export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have not obtained patent protection. In certain instances, a competitor may be able to export otherwise infringing products in territories where we will obtain patent protection. In jurisdictions outside the United States where we will obtain patent protection, it may be more difficult to enforce a patent as compared to the United States. Competitor products may compete with our future products in jurisdictions where we do not or will not have issued or granted patents or where our issued or granted patent claims or other intellectual property rights are not sufficient to prevent competitor activities in these jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, make it difficult to enforce patents and such countries may not recognize other types of intellectual property protection, particularly relating to biopharmaceuticals. This could make it difficult for us to prevent the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally in certain jurisdictions. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.
We generally file a provisional patent application first (a priority filing) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. An international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, is usually filed within twelve months after the priority filing, at times with a United States filing. Based on the PCT filing, national and regional patent applications may be filed in various international jurisdictions, such as in Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, and the United States. We have so far not filed for patent protection in all national and regional jurisdictions where such protection may be available. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before they are granted. Finally, the grant proceeding of each national or regional patent is an independent proceeding which may lead to situations in which applications might in some jurisdictions be refused by the relevant registration authorities, while granted by others. It is also quite common that, depending on the country, various scopes of patent protection may be granted on the same therapeutic candidate, product, or technology. The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the United States, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. If we or our licensors encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished, and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions. Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our
licensors are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position in the relevant jurisdiction may be impaired and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.
We or our licensors, collaborators, or any future strategic partners may become subject to third party claims or litigation alleging infringement of patents or other proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate patents or other proprietary rights, and we may need to resort to litigation to protect or enforce our patents or other proprietary rights, all of which could be costly, time consuming, delay or prevent the development of our therapeutic candidates and commercialization of our therapeutic products, or put our patents and other proprietary rights at risk.
We or our licensors, licensees, collaborators, or any future strategic partners may be subject to third-party claims for infringement or misappropriation of patent or other proprietary rights. We are generally obligated under our license or collaboration agreements to indemnify and hold harmless our licensors, licensees, or collaborators for damages arising from intellectual property infringement by us. If we or our licensors, licensees, collaborators, or any future strategic partners are found to infringe a third-party patent or other intellectual property rights, we could be required to pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have willfully infringed. In addition, we or our licensors, licensees, collaborators, or any future strategic partners may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from a third party, which may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if a license can be obtained on acceptable terms, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same technology or intellectual property rights licensed to or from us. If we fail to obtain a required license, we or our licensee or collaborator, or any future licensee or collaborator, may be unable to effectively market therapeutic products based on our technology, which could limit our ability to generate revenue or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain our operations. In addition, we may find it necessary to pursue claims or initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights. The cost to us in defending or initiating any litigation or other proceeding relating to patent or other proprietary rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and litigation would divert our management’s attention. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could delay our research and development efforts and limit our ability to continue our operations.
Although we do not believe our technology infringes the intellectual property rights of others, we are aware of one or more patents or patent applications that may relate to our technology, and third parties may assert against our claims alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights regardless of whether their claims have merit. Infringement claims could harm our reputation, may result in the expenditure of significant resources to defend and resolve such claims, and could require us to pay monetary damages if we are found to have infringed the intellectual property rights of others.
If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, patent ineligibility, lack of novelty, lack of written description, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business. Patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, if competitors design around our protected technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, without legally infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.
It is also possible we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products. Third party intellectual property rights holders may also actively bring infringement claims against us. We cannot guarantee we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we are unable to successfully settle future claims on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to engage in or continue costly, unpredictable, and time-consuming litigation and may be prevented from, or experience substantial delays in, marketing our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products. If
we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing our technology, including a therapeutic product, held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign therapeutic candidates or products so we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.
If we fail to comply with our obligations under any license, collaboration, or other agreements, we may be required to pay damages and could lose intellectual property rights necessary for developing and protecting our technology, including our platform technology, therapeutic candidates, and therapeutic products, or we could lose certain rights to grant sublicenses, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and business prospects.
Our current licenses impose, and any future licenses we enter into are likely to impose, various development, commercialization, funding, milestone, royalty, diligence, sublicensing, insurance, patent prosecution and enforcement, and other obligations on us. If we breach any of these obligations, or use the intellectual property licensed to us in an unauthorized manner, we may be required to pay damages and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, which could result in us being unable to develop, manufacture, and sell or offer to sell products covered by the licensed technology or enable a competitor to gain access to the licensed technology. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on future sales of licensed products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in therapeutic products we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize therapeutic products, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability.
If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.
In addition to seeking patent protection for certain aspects of our technology, including platform technology and therapeutic candidates and products, we also consider trade secrets, including confidential and unpatented know-how, important to the maintenance of our competitive position. We protect trade secrets and confidential and unpatented know-how, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to such knowledge, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors, and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants obligating them to maintain confidentiality and assign their inventions to us. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. We also cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or has had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.
We are also subject both in the United States and outside the United States to various regulatory schemes regarding requests for the information we provide to regulatory authorities, which may include, in whole or in part, trade secrets or confidential commercial information. While we are likely to be notified in advance of any disclosure of such information and would likely object to such disclosure, there can be no assurance our challenge to the request would be successful.
We may be in the future subject to claims we or our employees or consultants have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of our employees’ or consultants’ former employers or their clients. These claims may be costly to defend and if we do not successfully do so, we may be required to pay monetary damages, may be prohibited from using some of our research and development and may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel.
Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our current and potential competitors. We may receive correspondence from other companies alleging the improper use or disclosure, and have received, and may in the future receive, correspondence from other companies regarding the use or disclosure, by certain of our employees who have previously been employed elsewhere in our industry, including with our competitors, of their former employer’s trade secrets or other proprietary information. Responding to these allegations can be costly and disruptive to our business, even when the allegations are without merit, and can be a distraction to management. We may be subject to claims in the future that our employees have, or we have, inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade
secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending current or future claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, personnel, or the ability to use some of our research and development. A loss of intellectual property, key research personnel, or their work product could hamper our ability to commercialize, or prevent us from commercializing, our therapeutic candidates, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.
If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be materially and adversely affected.
Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. Any trademark litigation could be expensive. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be materially and adversely affected.
Third parties may independently develop similar or superior technology.
There can be no assurance others will not independently develop, or have not already developed, similar or more advanced technologies than our technology or that others will not design around, or have not already designed around, aspects of our technology or our trade secrets developed therefrom. If third parties develop technology similar or superior to our technology, or they successfully design around our current or future technology, our competitive position, business prospects, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Breaches of our internal computer systems, or those of our contractors, vendors, or consultants, may place our patents or proprietary rights at risk.
The loss of clinical or preclinical data or data from any future clinical trial involving our technology, including therapeutic candidates and products, could result in delays in our development and regulatory filing efforts and significantly increase our costs. In addition, theft or other exposure of data may interfere with our ability to protect our intellectual property, including trade secrets, and other information critical to our operations. We have experienced in the past, and may experience in the future, unauthorized intrusions into our internal computer systems, including portions of our internal computer systems storing information related to our platform technology, therapeutic candidates and products, and we can provide no assurances that certain sensitive and proprietary information relating to one or more of our therapeutic candidates or products has not been, or will not in the future be, compromised. Although we have invested significant resources to enhance the security of our computer systems, there can be no assurances we will not experience additional unauthorized intrusions into our computer systems, or those of our CROs, vendors, contractors, and consultants, that we will successfully detect future unauthorized intrusions in a timely manner, or that future unauthorized intrusions will not result in material adverse effects on our financial condition, reputation, or business prospects. Payments related to the elimination of ransomware may materially affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Certain data breaches must also be reported to affected individuals and the government, and in some cases to the media, under provisions of HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, other U.S. federal and state law, and requirements of non-U.S. jurisdictions, including the European Union Data Protection Directive, and financial penalties may also apply.
Risks Related to Government Regulation
We may be unable to obtain U.S. or foreign regulatory approval and, as a result, may be unable to commercialize our therapeutic candidates.
Our therapeutic candidates are subject to extensive governmental regulations relating to, among other things, research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, promotion, storage, record-keeping, advertising, distribution, sampling, pricing, sales and marketing, safety, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and export and import of drugs. Rigorous preclinical testing and clinical trials and an extensive regulatory approval process are required to be completed successfully in the United States and in many foreign jurisdictions before a new therapeutic can be marketed. Satisfaction of these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain, and subject to unanticipated delays. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any therapeutic candidates, and it is possible none of the therapeutic candidates we may develop will obtain the regulatory approvals necessary for us or our collaborators to begin selling them.
We have very limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA as well as foreign regulatory authorities, such as the EMA. The time required to obtain FDA and foreign regulatory approvals is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials, depending upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the therapeutic candidate, and at the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. The standards the FDA and its foreign counterparts use when regulating us are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change. Any analysis we perform of data from preclinical and clinical activities is subject to confirmation and interpretation by regulatory authorities, who could delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval. We may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations, future legislation or administrative action, or from changes in the policy of FDA or foreign regulatory authorities during the period of product development, clinical trials, and regulatory review by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA or foreign, regulations, guidance, or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.
Because the therapeutic candidates we are developing may represent a new class of therapeutics, we are not aware of any definitive policies, practices, or guidelines that the FDA or its foreign counterparts have yet established in relation to these drugs. While we believe the therapeutic candidates we are currently developing are regulated as new biological products under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, the FDA could decide to regulate them or other products we may develop as drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA. The lack of policies, practices, or guidelines may hinder or slow review by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities of any regulatory filings we may submit. Moreover, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may respond to these submissions by defining requirements we may not have anticipated. Such responses could lead to significant delays in the clinical development of our therapeutic candidates.
Our therapeutic candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;
we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a therapeutic candidate is safe and effective for its proposed indication;
the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval;
we may be unable to demonstrate that a therapeutic candidate’s clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks;
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from pre-clinical studies or clinical trials;
the data collected from clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States, the European Union or elsewhere;
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies; and
the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.
Any delay or failure in obtaining required approvals could have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenues from the particular therapeutic candidate for which we are seeking approval. The FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process, and in determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for any of our therapeutic candidates. Even if we believe the data collected from preclinical and clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, the EMA or any other regulatory authority. Furthermore, any regulatory approval to market a product may be subject to limitations on the approved uses for which we may market the product or in the product labeling or be subject to other restrictions. Regulatory authorities also may impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the therapeutic. In addition, the FDA has the authority to require a REMS plan as part of the approval of a BLA or New Drug Application, or NDA, or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug or biologic, such as limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria, and requiring treated patients to enroll in a registry. These limitations and restrictions may limit the size of the market for the therapeutic and affect coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors.
We are also subject to numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing authorization, pricing, and third-party reimbursement. The foreign regulatory approval process varies among countries and may include all of the risks associated with FDA approval described above as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities outside the U.S. and vice versa.
If we fail to obtain orphan drug designation or obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for certain of our products, our competitors may sell products to treat the same conditions and our revenue may be reduced.
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a therapeutic product with orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the therapeutic product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same therapeutic product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity.
As in the United States, we may apply for designation of a therapeutic candidate as an orphan drug for the treatment of a specific indication in the European Union before the application for marketing authorization is made. In the European Union, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union. Additionally, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biological product or where there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment, or, if such a method exists, the medicine must be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. Sponsors of orphan drugs in the European Union can enjoy economic and marketing benefits, including reduction of fees or fee waivers and up to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved indication unless another applicant can show its therapeutic product is safer, more effective, or otherwise clinically superior to the orphan-designated therapeutic product. This period may be reduced to six 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
We plan to seek orphan drug designation from the FDA and the EMA for certain of our product candidates. However, we may never receive such designation. Even if we are able to obtain orphan designation, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any particular orphan indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, regulatory authorities may subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if they conclude that the later drug is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a product candidate nor gives the product candidate any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. In addition, orphan drug exclusivity could block the approval of one of our therapeutic candidates, if a competitor obtains approval of the same therapeutic product as defined by the FDA before we do, or if our therapeutic candidate is determined to be within the same class as the competitor’s therapeutic product for the same indication or disease.
The respective orphan designation and exclusivity frameworks in the United States and in the European Union are subject to change, and any such changes may affect our ability to obtain EU or U.S. orphan designations in the future.
If we or our existing or future collaborators, manufacturers, or service providers fail to comply with healthcare laws and regulations, we or such other parties could be subject to enforcement actions, which could adversely affect our ability to develop, market, and sell our therapeutics and may harm our reputation.
Although we do not currently have any products on the market, once we begin commercializing our therapeutic candidates, if approved, we will be subject to additional healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by the federal, state, and foreign governments of the jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any therapeutic candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud, abuse, and other healthcare laws and regulations constraining the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell, and distribute the therapeutic candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:
the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons from soliciting, receiving, offering, or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual for a healthcare item or service, or the purchasing or ordering of an item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare or Medicaid;
the U.S. federal False Claims Act, which imposes criminal and civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, false or fraudulent claims for payment or making a false statement to avoid, decrease, or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. In addition, the government may assert a claim including items and services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act;
state all-payor fraud laws, which impose criminal and civil liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services; similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;
HIPAA, HITECH, and their implementing regulations, which impose obligations on certain covered entity healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their business associates performing certain services involving the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information, and require notification to affected individuals and regulatory authorities of certain breaches of security of individually identifiable health information;
the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act and its implementing regulations, also referred to as “Open Payments,” issued under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or ACA, and any subsequent amending legislation or executive actions, which require manufacturers of pharmaceutical and biological drugs reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance Programs to report to the Department of Health and Human Services all consulting fees, travel reimbursements, research grants, and other payments, transfers of value or gifts made to physicians and teaching hospitals with limited exceptions; and
analogous state laws and regulations, such as, state anti-kickback and false claims laws potentially applicable to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; and 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 healthcare providers or marketing expenditures, and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
Ensuring our future business arrangements with third-parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. If our operations are found to be in violation of any such requirements, we may be subject to penalties, including civil or criminal penalties, monetary damages, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, or exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement, or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, any of which could adversely affect our financial results. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause our company to incur significant legal expenses and could
divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable laws and regulations may be costly to us in terms of money, time, and resources.
If we or our current or future collaborators, manufacturers, or service providers fail to comply with applicable federal, state, or foreign laws or regulations, we could be subject to enforcement actions, which could affect our ability to develop, market, and sell our therapeutics successfully and could harm our reputation and lead to reduced acceptance of our therapeutics by the market. These enforcement actions include, among others:
adverse regulatory inspection findings;
warning or untitled letters;
voluntary product recalls with public notification or medical product safety alerts to healthcare professionals;
restrictions on, or prohibitions against, marketing our therapeutics;
restrictions on, or prohibitions against, importation or exportation of our therapeutics;
suspension of review or refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications;
exclusion from participation in government-funded healthcare programs;
exclusion from eligibility for the award of government contracts for our therapeutics;
suspension or withdrawal of therapeutic approvals;
seizures or administrative detention of therapeutics;
restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil and criminal penalties and fines.
Enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of our therapeutic candidates.
The policies of the FDA or similar regulatory authorities may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, in 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, was signed into law. The Cures Act, among other things, is intended to modernize the regulation of drugs and biologics and spur innovation, but it is still being implemented and its ultimate implementation is unclear. If we or our collaborators are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or our collaborators are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our therapeutic candidates may not obtain or maintain regulatory approval, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.
We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these requirements will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.
Any therapeutics we develop may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage and reimbursement practices, or healthcare reform initiatives, thereby harming our business.
The regulations governing marketing approvals, pricing, coverage, and reimbursement for new drugs and biologics vary widely from country to country. Many countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. Although we intend to monitor these regulations, our programs are currently in the early stages of development and we will not be able to assess the impact of price regulations for a number of years. As a result, we might obtain regulatory approval
for a product in a particular country but then be subject to price regulations delaying our commercial launch of the product and negatively impacting the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country.
Our ability to commercialize any therapeutics successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. However, there may be significant delays in obtaining coverage for newly-approved therapeutics. Moreover, eligibility for coverage does not necessarily signify a therapeutic will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate covering our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution costs. Also, interim payments for new therapeutics, if applicable, may be insufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Thus, even if we succeed in bringing one or more therapeutics to the market, these products may not be considered cost-effective, and the amount reimbursed for any of them may be insufficient to allow us to sell them on a competitive basis. Because our programs are in the early stages of development, we are unable at this time to determine their cost effectiveness, coverage prospects, potential compendia listings, or the likely level or method of reimbursement, if covered. It is equally difficult for us to predict how Medicare coverage and reimbursement policies will be applied to our products in the future, and coverage and reimbursement under different federal healthcare programs are not always consistent. Medicare reimbursement rates may also reflect budgetary constraints placed on the Medicare program.
Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policies and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. These coverage policies and limitations may rely, in part, on compendia listings for approved therapeutics. Our inability to promptly obtain relevant compendia listings, coverage, and adequate reimbursement from both government-funded and private payors for new therapeutics we develop and for which we obtain regulatory approval could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products, and our financial condition.
We believe the efforts of governments and third-party payors to contain or reduce the cost of healthcare, and legislative and regulatory proposals to broaden the availability of healthcare, will continue to affect the business and financial condition of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies. A number of legislative and regulatory changes in the healthcare system in the United States and other major healthcare markets have been proposed, and such efforts have expanded substantially in recent years. These developments could, directly or indirectly, affect our ability to sell our products, if approved, at a favorable price. In addition, third-party payors who reimburse patients or healthcare providers, such as government and private insurance plans, are seeking greater upfront discounts, additional rebates, and other concessions to reduce the prices for therapeutics. If the price we are able to charge for any therapeutics we develop, or the reimbursement provided for such products, is inadequate, our return on investment could be adversely affected.
Pursuant to health reform legislation and related initiatives, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, are working with various healthcare providers to develop, refine, and implement Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs, and other innovative models of care for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, including the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative, the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative, the Duals Demonstration, and other models. The continued development and expansion of ACOs and other innovative models of care will have an uncertain impact on any future reimbursement we may receive for approved therapeutics administered by such organizations.
In addition, in recent years, the U.S. Congress has enacted various laws seeking to reduce the federal debt level and contain healthcare expenditures. For example, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, an annual 2% reduction to Medicare payments that took effect in 2013 has been extended through 2025. These across-the-board spending cuts could adversely affect our future revenues, earnings, and cash flows.
From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced, and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing coverage, reimbursement, and marketing of products regulated by CMS or other government agencies. In addition to new legislation, CMS coverage and reimbursement policies are often revised or interpreted in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. In particular, we expect the Administration and Congress will seek to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, U.S. healthcare legislation. A number of additional executive orders have been issued affecting, or potentially affecting, the ACA and other aspects of the healthcare market in the United States. There is a high degree of uncertainty with respect to the impact President Trump’s Administration and Congress may have, and any changes will likely take time to unfold. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from therapeutic candidates we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop therapeutic candidates. However, we cannot predict the ultimate content, timing, or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or executive orders or the impact of potential legislation and executive orders on us.
The healthcare industry is heavily regulated in the U.S. at the federal, state, and local levels, and our failure to comply with applicable requirements may subject us to penalties and negatively affect our financial condition.
As a healthcare company, our operations, clinical trial activities, and interactions with healthcare providers will be subject to extensive regulation in the United States, particularly if we receive FDA approval for any of our products in the future. For example, if we receive FDA approval for a therapeutic for which reimbursement is available under a federal healthcare program, it would be subject to a variety of federal laws and regulations, including those prohibiting the filing of false or improper claims for payment by federal healthcare programs, prohibiting unlawful inducements for the referral of business reimbursable by federal healthcare programs, and requiring disclosure of certain payments or other transfers of value made to U.S.-licensed physicians and teaching hospitals. We are not able to predict how government authorities will interpret these laws. They may challenge our practices and activities under one or more of these laws. If our past or present operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws, we could be subject to civil and criminal penalties, which could hurt our business, operations, and financial condition.
Similarly, some state laws prohibit, among other offenses, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private payors, or falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for items or services under a health care benefit program. We may also be subject to the privacy and security provisions of HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, which restricts the use and disclosure of patient-identifiable health information, mandates the adoption of standards relating to the privacy and security of patient-identifiable health information, and requires the reporting of certain security breaches to healthcare provider customers with respect to such information. Additionally, many states have enacted similar laws imposing more stringent requirements on entities like us. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could result in substantial penalties and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Our ability to obtain services, reimbursement, or funding from the federal government may be impacted by possible reductions in federal spending.
The U.S. federal budget remains in flux and could, among other things, cut Medicare payments to providers. The Medicare program is frequently mentioned as a target for spending cuts. The full impact on our business of any future cuts in Medicare or other programs is uncertain. In addition, we cannot predict any impact President Trump’s administration and Congress may have on the federal budget. If federal spending is reduced, anticipated budgetary shortfalls may also impact the ability of relevant agencies such as the FDA or the National Institutes of Health to continue to function at current levels. Amounts allocated to federal grants and contracts may be reduced or eliminated. These reductions may also impact the ability of relevant agencies to timely review and approve drug research and development, manufacturing, and marketing activities, which may delay our ability to develop, market, and sell any therapeutics we may develop.
If any of our therapeutic candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by the therapeutic product, our ability to market and derive revenue from the therapeutic products could be compromised.
In the event any of our therapeutic candidates receive regulatory approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects, adverse events, or other problems caused by one of our therapeutics, any of the following adverse events could occur, which could result in the loss of significant revenue to us and materially and adversely affect our results of operations and business:
regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the product and require us to take the product off the market or seize the product;
we may need to recall the therapeutic or change the way the therapeutic is administered to patients;
additional restrictions may be imposed on the marketing and promotion of the particular therapeutic or the manufacturing processes for the therapeutic or any component thereof;
we may not be able to secure or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for our proprietary therapeutic products from government (including U.S. federal health care programs) and private payors;
we may lose or see adverse alterations to compendia listings or treatment protocols specified by accountable care organizations;
we may be subject to fines, restitution, or disgorgement of profits or revenues, injunctions, or the imposition of civil penalties or criminal prosecution;
regulatory authorities may require the addition of labeling statements, such as a “black box” warning, or equivalent, or a contraindication;
regulatory authorities may require us to implement a REMS plan, or to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product;
we may be required to create a Medication Guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients;
we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients;
the therapeutic may become less competitive; and
our reputation may suffer.
Our therapeutic candidates for which we intend to seek approval as biologic products may face competition sooner than anticipated.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own pre-clinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty. While it is uncertain when such processes intended to implement BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.
We believe that any of our therapeutic candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our therapeutic candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.
Significant developments stemming from the United Kingdom’s recent referendum on membership in the European Union could have a material adverse effect on us.
In June 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum and voted in favor of leaving the European Union, and in March 2017, the government of the United Kingdom formally initiated the withdrawal process. This has created political and economic uncertainty, particularly in the United Kingdom and the European Union, and this uncertainty may last for years. Any business we conduct, now and in the future, in the United Kingdom, the European Union, and worldwide could be affected during this period of uncertainty, and perhaps longer, by the impact of the United Kingdom’s referendum. There are many ways in which our business could be affected, only some of which we can identify as of the date of this filing.
The decision of the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union has caused and, along with events that could occur in the future as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal, may continue to cause significant volatility in global financial markets, including in global currency and debt markets. This volatility could cause a slowdown in economic activity in the United Kingdom, Europe, or globally, which could adversely affect our operating results and growth prospects. In addition, our business could be negatively affected by new trade agreements or data transfer agreements between the United Kingdom and other countries, including the United States, and by the possible imposition of trade or other regulatory barriers in the United Kingdom.
It is currently unknown how regulations affecting clinical trials, the approval of our future products, and the sale of these products will be affected by this referendum either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe.
These possible negative impacts, and others resulting from the United Kingdom’s actual or threatened withdrawal from the EU, may adversely affect our operating results and growth prospects.
Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock
Our stock price may be volatile, and an active, liquid, and orderly trading market may not develop for our common stock. As a result, stockholders may not be able to resell shares at or above their purchase price.
Although our common stock is listed on Nasdaq, an active trading market for our common stock may not develop or, if it develops, may not be sustained. The lack of an active market may impair the ability of our stockholders to sell their shares at the time they wish to sell them or at a price that they consider reasonable, which may reduce the fair market value of their shares. Further, an inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling our common stock should we determine additional funding is required.
The market price of our common stock could be subject to significant fluctuations. Market prices for securities of early-stage pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other life sciences companies have historically been particularly volatile. Some of the factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate include:
our ability to obtain regulatory approvals for product candidates, and delays or failures to obtain such approvals;
the failure of any of our product candidates, if approved, to achieve commercial success;
issues in manufacturing our approved products, if any, or product candidates;
the results of current, and any future, preclinical or clinical trials of our product candidates;
the entry into, or termination of, key agreements, including key licensing, collaboration or acquisition agreements;
the initiation or material developments in, or conclusion of, litigation to enforce or defend any of our intellectual property rights or defend against the intellectual property rights of others;
announcements by commercial partners or competitors of new commercial products, clinical progress (or the lack thereof), significant contracts, commercial relationships, or capital commitments;
adverse publicity relating to our markets, including with respect to other products and potential products in such markets;
adverse publicity about our company, employees, therapeutic candidates, and/or therapeutic products in the media or on social media;
the introduction of technological innovations or new therapies competing with our potential products;
the loss of key employees;
changes in estimates or recommendations by securities analysts, if any, who cover our common stock;
general and industry-specific economic conditions potentially affecting our research and development expenditures;
changes in the structure of health care payment systems;
unanticipated serious safety concerns related to the use of any of our product candidates;
failure to meet or exceed financial and development projections we may provide to the public;
failure to meet or exceed the financial and development projections of the investment community;
the perception of the pharmaceutical industry by the public, legislators, regulators, and the investment community;
adverse regulatory decisions;
disputes or other developments relating to proprietary rights, including patents, litigation matters, and our ability to obtain patent protection for our technologies;
commencement of, or our involvement in, litigation;
sales of our common stock by us or our stockholders in the future;
trading volume of our common stock;
period-to-period fluctuations in our financial results; and
the other factors described in this “Risk Factors” section.
Moreover, the stock markets in general have experienced substantial volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of individual companies or the biotechnology sector. These broad market fluctuations may also adversely affect the trading price of our common stock.
In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, stockholders have often instituted class action securities litigation against those companies. Such litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and diversion of management attention and resources, which could significantly harm our business and reputation.
Our officers and directors, and their respective affiliates, have a controlling influence over our business affairs and may make business decisions with which stockholders disagree and which may adversely affect the value of their investment.
Our executive officers and directors together with their respective affiliates, beneficially own approximately 75% of our common stock as of January 31, 2019. As a result, if some of these persons or entities act together, they will have the ability to exercise significant influence over matters submitted to the stockholders for approval, including the election of directors, amendments to the certificate of incorporation and bylaws and the approval of any strategic transaction requiring the approval of the stockholders. These actions may be taken even if they are opposed by other stockholders. This concentration of ownership may also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of our company or discouraging others from making tender offers for our shares, which could prevent our stockholders from receiving a premium for their shares. Some of these persons or entities who make up our principal stockholders may have interests different from other stockholders. The significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock due to investors’ perception that conflicts of interest may exist or arise.
Future sales, or the perception of future sales, of a substantial amount of our common stock could depress the trading price of our common stock.
Our stock price could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares of our common stock or the perception that these sales could occur. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate.
For example, in connection with our January 2019 private placement, we entered into a registration rights agreement with the private placement investors that requires us to prepare and file a registration statement on the date on which we file this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Once declared effective by the SEC, this registration statement will permit the resale by the private placement investors of approximately 4.7 million shares of our common stock as well as approximately 1.8 million shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of warrants issued in the private placement. In addition, the shares subject to outstanding options and warrants, of which options and warrants to purchase 887,134 shares and 17,153 shares, respectively, were exercisable as of December 31, 2018, and the shares reserved for future issuance under our equity incentive plans will become available for sale immediately upon the exercise of such options.
We also register the offer and sale of all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity incentive plans. Once we register the offer and sale of shares for the holders of registration rights and option holders, they can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to any related lock-up agreements or applicable securities laws.
In addition, in the future, we may issue additional shares of common stock or other equity or debt securities convertible into common stock in connection with a financing, acquisition, litigation settlement, employee arrangements or otherwise. Any such future issuance, including any issuances pursuant to our “at the market” equity offering program, could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and could cause our stock price to decline.
We will have broad discretion over the use of the proceeds to us from our financing activities and may apply the proceeds to uses that do not improve our operating results or the value of your securities.
We will have broad discretion to use any net proceeds from our January 2019 private placement, as well as any net proceeds to us from our “at the market” equity offering program put in place in June 2018, and investors will be relying solely on the judgment of our board of directors and management regarding the application of these proceeds. Although we expect to use the net proceeds from our January 2019 private placement and our “at the market” equity offering program for general corporate purposes and to advance the development of our product candidates, we have not allocated these net proceeds for
specific purposes. Investors will not have the opportunity, as part of their investment decision, to assess whether the proceeds are being used appropriately.
The JOBS Act allows us to postpone the date by which we must comply with certain laws and regulations intended to protect investors and to reduce the amount of information we provide in our reports filed with the SEC. We cannot be certain if this reduced disclosure will make our common stock less attractive to investors.
The JOBS Act is intended to reduce the regulatory burden on “emerging growth companies.” As defined in the JOBS Act, we qualify as an “emerging growth company” and could remain an “emerging growth company” until as late as December 31, 2020. For so long as we are an “emerging growth company,” we will, among other things:
not be required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley;
not be required to hold a nonbinding advisory stockholder vote on executive compensation pursuant to Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act;
not be required to seek stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved pursuant to Section 14A of the Exchange Act;
be exempt from any rule adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, requiring mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplemental auditor discussion and analysis; and
be subject to reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements.
We have previously decided to opt out of an extended transition period under the JOBS Act that permits an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. Our decision is irrevocable. As a result, we will adopt new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for other companies.
Furthermore, if we take advantage of some or all of the reduced disclosure requirements above, investors may find our common stock less attractive, which may result in a less active trading market for our common stock and greater stock price volatility.
If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal controls, our ability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis could be impaired.
We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and regulations of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We must perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filing for that year, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
We may discover weaknesses in our system of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. Our internal control over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. An internal control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the internal control system’s objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all internal control systems, no evaluation of internal controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all internal control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.
If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements. If that were to happen, the market price of our common stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, the SEC, or other regulatory authorities.
Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.
Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management and recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any
disclosure controls and procedures as well as internal controls and procedures, no matter how well-conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are and will be met. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.
We will continue to incur costs and demands upon management as a result of complying with the laws and regulations affecting public companies.
We will incur significant legal, accounting, and other expenses associated with public company reporting requirements. We will also incur costs associated with corporate governance requirements, including requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as new rules implemented by the SEC and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC. Although the JOBS Act may for a limited period of time somewhat lessen the cost of complying with these additional regulatory and other requirements, we nonetheless expect that these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and to make some activities more time-consuming and costlier. For example, our management team consists in part of the executive officers of Alpine prior to the merger, some of whom may not have previously managed and operated a public company. These executive officers and other personnel will need to devote substantial time to gaining expertise regarding operations as a public company and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. These rules and regulations may also make it difficult and expensive for us to obtain directors and officer’s liability insurance. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified individuals to serve on our board of directors or as executive officers of our company, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and could cause our business or stock price to suffer.
Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware or Washington law could discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company, limit attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management and may affect the trading price of our common stock.
Our corporate documents contain provisions that may delay or discourage transactions involving an actual or potential change in our control or change in our management, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares, or transactions that our stockholders might otherwise deem to be in their best interests. Therefore, these provisions could adversely affect the price of our stock. Among other things, our certificate of incorporation and bylaws:
stagger the terms of our board of directors and require 66 and 2/3% stockholder voting to remove directors, who may only be removed for cause;
provide that the authorized number of directors may be changed only by resolution of the board of directors;
provide that all vacancies, including newly-created directorships, may, except as otherwise required by law, be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of directors then in office, even if less than a quorum;
authorize our board of directors to issue “blank check” preferred stock and to determine the rights and preferences of those shares, which may be senior to our common stock, without prior stockholder approval;
establish advance notice requirements for nominating directors and proposing matters to be voted on by stockholders at stockholders’ meetings;
prohibit our stockholders from calling a special meeting and prohibit stockholders from acting by written consent;
require 66 and 2/3% stockholder voting to effect certain amendments to our certificate of incorporation and bylaws; and
prohibit cumulative voting in the election of directors, which limits the ability of minority stockholders to elect director candidates.
In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with any “interested” stockholder for a period of three years following the date on which the stockholder became an “interested” stockholder. Likewise, because our principal executive offices are located in Washington, the anti-takeover provisions of the Washington Business Corporation Act may apply to us under certain circumstances now or in the future. These provisions prohibit a “target corporation” from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with any stockholder constituting an “acquiring person” for a period of five years following the date on which the stockholder became an “acquiring person.” These provisions could discourage, delay or prevent a transaction involving a change in control
of our company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for stockholders to elect directors of their choosing and cause us to take other corporate actions our stockholders desire.
Claims for indemnification by our directors and officers may reduce our available funds to satisfy successful third-party claims against us and may reduce the amount of available cash.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that we will indemnify our directors to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law.
In addition, as permitted by Section 145 of the DGCL, our amended and restated bylaws and our indemnification agreements that we have entered into with our directors and officers provide that:
we will indemnify our directors and officers for serving us in those capacities or for serving other business enterprises at our request, to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law. Delaware law provides that a corporation may indemnify such person if such person acted in good faith and in a manner such person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation and, with respect to any criminal proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe such person’s conduct was unlawful.
we may, in our discretion, indemnify other employees and agents in those circumstances where indemnification is permitted by applicable law.
we are required to advance expenses, as incurred, to our directors and officers in connection with defending a proceeding, except that such directors or officers shall undertake to repay such advances if it is ultimately determined that such person is not entitled to indemnification.
we will not be obligated pursuant to our amended and restated bylaws to indemnify any director or officer in connection with any proceeding (or part thereof) initiated by such person unless the proceeding was authorized in the specific case by our board of directors or such indemnification is required to be made pursuant to our amended and restated bylaws.
the rights conferred in our amended and restated bylaws are not exclusive, and we are authorized to enter into indemnification agreements with our directors, officers, employees and agents and to obtain insurance to indemnify such persons.
we may not retroactively amend our amended and restated bylaw provisions to reduce our indemnification obligations to our directors or officers.
As a result, if we are required to indemnify one or more of our directors or officers, it may reduce our available funds to satisfy successful third-party claims against us, may reduce the amount of available cash and may have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers, employees or agents to us or our stockholders, any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws or any action asserting a claim that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine, in each case subject to the Court of Chancery having personal jurisdiction over the indispensable parties named as defendants therein and the claim not being one which is vested in the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or forum other than the Court of Chancery or for which the Court of Chancery does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Any person purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any shares of our common stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to this provision of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. This choice of forum provision may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, employees and agents even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. Stockholders who do bring a claim in the Court of Chancery could face additional litigation costs in pursuing any such claim, particularly if they do not reside in or near Delaware. The Court of Chancery may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the
action, and such judgments or results may be more favorable to us than to our stockholders. Alternatively, if a court were to find this provision of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
We do not expect to pay any dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future.
We currently expect to retain all future earnings, if any, for future operations and expansion, and have no current plans to pay any cash dividends to holders of our common stock for the foreseeable future. Any decision to declare and pay dividends in the future will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on, among other things, our results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements, contractual restrictions and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. As a result, stockholders may not receive any return on an investment in our common stock unless stockholders sell our common stock for a price greater than that which they paid for it.
If equity research analysts do not publish research or reports, or publish unfavorable research or reports, about us, our business or our market, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us and our business. Equity research analysts may elect not to provide research coverage of our common stock or discontinue existing research coverage, and such lack of research coverage may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. We do not have any control over the analysts, or the content and opinions included in their reports. The price of our common stock could decline if one or more equity research analysts downgrade our stock or issue other unfavorable commentary or research. If one or more equity research analysts ceases coverage of us or fails to publish reports regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.
Nasdaq may delist our common stock from its exchange, which could limit investors’ ability to make transactions in our securities and subject us to additional trading restrictions.
Our common shares are listed on Nasdaq under the trading symbol “ALPN.” Our securities may fail to meet the continued listing requirements to be listed on Nasdaq. If Nasdaq delists our common shares from trading on its exchange, we could face significant material adverse consequences, including:
significant impairment of the liquidity for our common stock, which may substantially decrease the market price of our common stock;
a limited availability of market quotations for our securities;
a determination that our common stock qualifies as a “penny stock” which will require brokers trading in our common stock to adhere to more stringent rules and possibly resulting in a reduced level of trading activity in the secondary trading market for our common stock;
a limited amount of news and analyst coverage for our company; and
a decreased ability to issue additional securities or obtain additional financing in the future.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
Item 2. Properties.
We lease a facility containing our research and development, laboratory, and office space, which consists of approximately 17,342 square feet located at 201 Elliott Avenue West, Seattle, Washington. The lease expires on December 31, 2019 and has two options to extend the lease term with each option enabling us to extend the lease term by twelve months.
In March 2019, we entered into a lease with ARE-Seattle No. 28, LLC, or the Landlord, for 27,164 square feet of office and laboratory space located at 188 East Blaine Street, Seattle, Washington. The term of the lease is 10.8 years with one option to extend the term by 5.0 years. The target “Commencement Date” is May 1, 2019 and shall be the date that Landlord delivers the premises to us in substantially complete condition. The “Rent Commencement Date” shall be the date that is nine months after the Commencement Date. The annual base rent due under the lease is approximately $1.7 million for the first year and will increase by 3.0% each year thereafter. We will not be required to pay base rent from the Rent Commencement Date
through the last day of the ninth month following the Rent Commencement Date. We will receive a maximum tenant improvement allowance of $5.4 million, which is included in our base rent, and a maximum additional tenant improvement allowance of $1.8 million, which will result in additional rent amortized over the term of the lease at an annual rate of 8.0%. The lease also requires us to pay additional amounts for operating and maintenance expenses. In connection with the lease, we provided a $254,000 letter of credit as a security deposit.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
We are not engaged in any material legal proceedings. From time to time, we may become involved in litigation relating to claims arising from the ordinary course of business. We believe that there are no claims or actions pending against us currently, the ultimate disposition of which would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operation, financial condition or cash flows.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
From June 17, 2015 through July 24, 2017, our common stock was traded under the symbol “NVLS.” On July 24, 2017, in connection with the business combination of Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc. and Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc., we completed a 1-for-4 reverse stock split. Commencing on July 25, 2017, our common stock began trading on The NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “ALPN.” As of March 6, 2019, we have approximately 29 stockholders of record for our common stock, which excludes stockholders whose shares were held in nominee or street name accounts through brokers.
We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain any future earnings for use in the operation of our business and do not intend to declare or pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any further determination to pay dividends on our capital stock will be at the discretion of our board of directors, subject to applicable laws, and will depend on our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements, general business conditions and other factors that our board of directors considers relevant.
Stock Performance Graph
As a “smaller reporting company,” as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act, and pursuant to Instruction 6 to Item 201(e) of Regulation S-K we are not required to provide the stock performance graph.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
As a “smaller reporting company,” as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act, and pursuant to Item 301(c) of Regulation S-K we are not required to provide selected financial data.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition to historical information, some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business, future financial performance, expense levels and liquidity sources, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. You should read Risk Factors in Part I, Item 1A of this report for a discussion of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis.
We are a clinical-stage immunotherapy company focused on discovering and developing innovative, protein-based immunotherapies targeting the immune synapse to treat cancer, autoimmune/inflammatory disorders, and other diseases. Our proprietary scientific platform uses a process known as directed evolution to convert native immune system proteins from the Immunoglobulin Super Family, or IgSF, into multi-targeted therapeutics potentially capable of modulating the human immune system.
Our goal is to create modern therapies targeting the immune synapse, using our directed-evolution based scientific platform to treat patients with serious conditions such as cancer and inflammatory diseases. To achieve our goal, we intend to:
move our lead inflammation/autoimmune therapeutic ALPN-101 through clinical development for the treatment of inflammatory diseases;
move our lead oncology program ALPN-202 to clinical trials; and
maximize the value of our pipeline and platform via partnering activities.
Our operations to date have been limited to business planning, raising capital, developing our platform technology, identifying potential immunotherapy candidates, and other research and development activities. To date, we have financed operations primarily through private placements of common stock and convertible preferred stock, funds received from a license and research agreement, debt financing and assets acquired upon the close of our merger with Nivalis Therapeutics Inc., or Nivalis. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any product sales. Since inception and through December 31, 2018, excluding amounts borrowed through debt financing, we have raised an aggregate of $98.9 million to fund operations, of which $49.2 million was from the sale of convertible preferred stock, $5.6 million was through a license and research agreement, and $44.1 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities acquired through the merger with Nivalis. As of December 31, 2018, we had cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments totaling $52.3 million.
Our net loss was $36.5 million, $7.8 million and $1.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. We expect to continue incurring significant expenses and operating losses for at least the next several years as we:
initiate and complete clinical trials for product candidates, including ALPN-101, a dual ICOS/CD28 antagonist program targeting autoimmune/inflammatory disorders and ALPN-202, a CD80 vIgD-Fc, or multi PD-1 inhibitor and CD28 costimulatory vIgD targeting cancer;
contract to manufacture and perform additional process development for our product candidates;
continue research and development efforts to build our pipeline beyond the current product candidates;
maintain, expand, and protect our intellectual property portfolio;
hire additional clinical, quality control, scientific, and management personnel; and
add operational and financial personnel to support our product development efforts and operational capabilities applicable to operating as a public company.
We do not expect to generate product revenue unless and until we successfully complete development of, obtain marketing approval for and commercialize our product candidates, either alone or in collaboration with third parties. We expect these activities will take a number of years and our success in these efforts is subject to significant uncertainty. Accordingly, we will need to raise additional capital prior to the regulatory approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our operating activities through public equity or debt financings, collaborations or licenses, capital lease transactions, or other available financing transactions. However, additional capital may not be available on reasonable terms, if at all, and if we raise additional funds through the
issuance of additional equity or debt securities, it could result in dilution to our existing stockholders and increased fixed payment obligations.
In January 2019, we entered into a securities purchase agreement, or the Purchase Agreement, with a select group of institutional investors, pursuant to which we, in a private placement, sold $25.3 million of units, or the Units, for a purchase price of $5.37 per Unit. Each Unit consists of one share of our common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.39 shares of common stock. Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, we issued approximately 4.7 million shares of common stock and warrants to purchase an aggregate of approximately 1.8 million shares of common stock. The warrants have an exercise price of $12.74 and have a term of five years.
In March 2019, we entered into a lease with Landlord for 27,164 square feet of office and laboratory space located at 188 East Blaine Street, Seattle, Washington. The term of the lease is 10.8 years with one option to extend the term by 5.0 years. The target “Commencement Date” is May 1, 2019 and shall be the date that Landlord delivers the premises to us in substantially complete condition. The “Rent Commencement Date” shall be the date that is nine months after the Commencement Date. The annual base rent due under the lease is $1.7 million for the first year and will increase by 3.0% each year thereafter. We will not be required to pay base rent from the Rent Commencement Date through the last day of the ninth month following the Rent Commencement Date. We will receive a maximum tenant improvement allowance of of $5.4 million, which is included in our base rent, and a maximum additional tenant improvement allowance of $1.8 million, which will result in additional rent amortized over the term of the lease at an annual rate of 8.0%. The lease also requires us to pay additional amounts for operating and maintenance expenses. In connection with the lease, we provided a $254,000 letter of credit as a security deposit.
Collaboration and Licensing Revenue
We derive our collaboration revenue primarily from our License and Research Agreement (the “Collaboration Agreement”), with Kite. In October 2015, we entered into the Collaboration Agreement providing Kite with access to two transmembrane immunomodulatory protein, or TIP, programs for use in Kite’s engineered cellular therapy programs. We received $5.5 million in upfront cash and are eligible to receive up to $530.0 million upon successful achievement of pre-specified research, clinical, and regulatory milestones in addition to royalties on any products containing our TIPs. On October 20, 2017, we entered into an amendment, or the “Amendment, with Kite to extend the research term of the Collaboration Agreement. Under the Amendment, an additional $450,000 research support payment from Kite was split into two tranches (instead of a single tranche as previously contemplated by the Collaboration Agreement). In June 2018, we recognized the remaining deferred balance and the first support payment of $150,000 under the Amendment. In October 2018, we entered into another amendment with Kite, which amended portions of the research plan.
We have recognized a total of $5.6 million in revenue from inception through December 31, 2018 related to the Collaboration Agreement. We may generate revenue in the future from milestone payments made pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement, or from payments from future license or collaboration agreements, product sales, or government contracts and grants. We expect any revenue we generate will fluctuate from quarter to quarter.
Research and Development Expenses
We focus our resources on research and development activities, including the conduct of preclinical studies and product development and expense such costs as they are incurred. Our research and development expenses consist of:
employee-related expenses, including salaries, benefits, taxes, travel, and stock-based compensation expense for personnel in research and development functions;
expenses related to process development and production of product candidates paid to contract manufacturing organizations;
costs associated with preclinical activities and regulatory operations, including the cost of acquiring, developing, and manufacturing research material;
clinical trials and activities related to regulatory filings for our product candidates
allocation of facilities, depreciation, and amortization of laboratory equipment and other expenses.
We incurred $29.0 million, $10.6 million and $3.0 million in research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. We plan to increase our research and development activities for the foreseeable future as we continue to develop our platform and product candidates.
The successful development of our platform and product candidates is highly uncertain. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the nature, timing, or costs of the efforts necessary to finish developing any of our product candidates or the period in which material net cash, if any, from these product candidates may commence. This is due to the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing therapeutics, including the uncertainty of:
the scope, rate of progress, expense, and results of clinical trials;
the scope, rate of progress, and expense of process development and manufacturing;
preclinical and other research activities; and
the timing of regulatory approvals.
General and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and related costs for employees in executive, business development, finance, and administrative functions. Other significant general and administrative expenses include professional fees for accounting and legal services, expenses associated with obtaining and maintaining patents and other intellectual property, and allocation of facilities costs.
We expect general and administrative expenses will increase as we expand infrastructure and support operating as a public company. These increases will include increased costs for director and officer liability insurance, costs related to the hiring of additional personnel, and increased fees for directors, outside consultants, lawyers, and accountants. We expect to incur significant costs to comply with corporate governance, internal controls, and similar requirements applicable to public companies.
Loss on Sale of Intangible Asset
Loss on sale of intangible asset relates solely to the sale of the GSNOR asset to Laurel in June 2018. For additional information regarding the sale of the GSNOR asset, see Note 8 to our consolidated financial statements contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Bargain Purchase Gain
As Alpine was the accounting acquirer in the merger agreement with Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc., we allocated the purchase price to the acquired tangible and intangible assets and assumed liabilities of Nivalis based on their estimated fair values as of the acquisition date. The excess of the estimated fair values of net assets acquired over the acquisition consideration paid was recorded as a bargain purchase gain in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss). The determination of the fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed requires significant judgment, including third party valuation estimates relating to the value of the acquired in-process research and development asset, or IPR&D.
Interest expense consists of accrued interest and the amortization of the debt discount associated with our $5.0 million term loan.
Interest and Other Income
Interest income consists of interest earned on our cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments.
Income Tax Benefit (Expense)
Income tax benefit for 2018 relates to the sale of our in-process research and development, or IPR&D. Income tax benefit for 2017 relates to the deferred tax liability recorded in connection with the acquisition of our IPR&D, which had a financial reporting basis of $1.5 million and a tax basis of zero. The federal taxable income in 2016 is due to the acceleration of
our deferred revenue balance under Rev. Proc. 2004-34. Consequently, we have recorded current federal and state income tax payable for the year ended December 31, 2016.
Results of Operations
Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2018 and 2017
The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 (in thousands):
Years Ended December 31,
Research and development
General and administrative
Loss on sale of intangible asset
Total operating expenses
Loss from operations
Bargain purchase gain
Interest and other income
Loss before taxes
Income tax benefit (expense)
Basic and diluted net loss attributable to common stockholders
The $1.0 million decrease in revenue was primarily attributable to the timing of revenue recognized under our Collaboration Agreement with Kite, the recognition of the first research support payment under the Amendment, and the adoption of ASC 606. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, we received upfront payments of $5.5 million, which were initially recorded as deferred revenue and recognized over the period of the research term, which was completed during the first half of 2018. During 2018, the expected research term was extended pursuant to the Amendment and we recognized the first research support payment under the amended agreement. The adoption of ASC 606 resulted in $0.2 million in higher revenue for the 2018 period, as compared to what would have been recorded under previous accounting guidance.
Research and Development Expenses
The $18.3 million increase in research and development expenses was primarily attributable to an increase of $9.2 million in contract manufacturing and process development of our product candidates, an increase of $5.3 million in direct research activities, an increase of $2.7 million in personnel-related expenses as a result of growth in headcount to support ongoing discovery and development programs, an increase of $0.6 million in stock-based compensation, and an increase of $0.5 million in allocated overhead and facilities.
General and Administrative Expenses
The $2.3 million increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily attributable to a $1.6 million increase in personnel-related expenses related to an increase in administrative headcount, an increase of $0.9 million in stock-based compensation, and a $0.5 million increase in insurance and facility costs to support the growth and expansion of our business. Offsetting this increase was a $0.7 million decrease in professional and legal services, which relates primarily to lower merger-related costs, partially offset by higher costs to support operating as a public company for a full year in 2018.
Loss on Sale of Intangible Asset
Loss on sale of intangible asset relates solely to the sale of the GSNOR asset to Laurel in June 2018.
Bargain Purchase Gain
The bargain purchase gain relates solely to the excess of the estimated fair values of net assets acquired over the acquisition consideration paid for Nivalis.
Interest expense relates primarily to interest paid on our term loan with Silicon Valley Bank, which we drew down in June 2017, and the related non-cash interest expense associated with the amortization of the debt discount.
Interest and Other Income
The increase in interest and other income relates primarily to more interest earned on our short-term investments as we maintained a higher average investment balance during the 2018 period.
Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2016
The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 (in thousands):
Years Ended December 31,
Research and development
General and administrative
Total operating expenses
Loss from operations
Bargain purchase gain
Interest and other income
Loss before taxes
Income tax benefit (expense)
Basic and diluted net loss attributable to common stockholders
The $1.2 million decrease in revenues was primarily attributable to the timing of revenue recognized under our Collaboration Agreement with Kite. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, we received upfront payments of $5.5 million, which were initially recorded as deferred revenue and expensed over the period of the research term. During the current period, the expected research term was extended pursuant to the Amendment.
Research and Development Expenses
The $7.6 million increase in research and development expenses was primarily attributable to an increase of $3.9 million in direct research, contract manufacturing, and process development activities to support ALPN-101, an increase of $3.1 million in personnel-related expenses as a result of growth in headcount to support ongoing discovery and development programs, and an increase of $0.6 million in allocated overhead and facilities.
General and Administrative Expenses
The $4.9 million increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily attributable to a $2.8 million increase in professional and legal service fees to support the merger and operating as a public company, a $2.0 million increase in personnel-related expenses primarily related to an increase in administrative headcount, and a $0.1 million increase in insurance and facility costs to support the growth and expansion of our business.
Bargain Purchase Gain
The bargain purchase gain relates solely to the excess of the estimated fair values of net assets acquired over the acquisition consideration paid for Nivalis.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
As of December 31, 2018, we had cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments totaling $52.3 million. Excluding amounts borrowed through debt financing, we have raised an aggregate of $98.9 million to fund operations, of which $49.2 million was from the sale of convertible preferred stock, $5.6 million was through a license and research agreement, and $44.1 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities acquired through the merger with Nivalis. In June, 2017, we drew down a term loan of $5.0 million. In addition to our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, we are eligible to receive research and development funding and to earn milestone and other contingent payments for the achievement of defined collaboration objectives and certain development and regulatory milestones and royalty payments under the Collaboration Agreement. Our ability to earn these milestone and contingent payments and the timing of achieving these milestones is primarily dependent upon the outcome of Kite’s research and development activities and is uncertain.
We have incurred operating losses since inception. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future as we continue our research and preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates; expand the scope of our current studies for our product candidates; initiate additional preclinical, clinical or other studies for our product candidates, including under any collaboration agreements; change or add additional manufacturers or suppliers; seek regulatory and marketing approvals for any of our product candidates that successfully complete clinical studies; seek to identify, evaluate and validate additional product candidates; acquire or in-license other product candidates and technologies; maintain, protect and expand our intellectual property portfolio; attract and retain skilled personnel; and experience any delays or encounter issues with any of the above.
Until such time as we can generate substantial product revenue, if ever, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity or debt financings and collaboration agreements. Except for any obligations of our collaborator to make milestone payments under our agreement with them, we do not have any committed external sources of capital. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the future sale of equity or debt, the ownership interest of our stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our existing common stockholders. If we raise additional funds through collaboration agreements in the future, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.
Our future capital requirements are difficult to forecast and will depend on many factors, including:
the number and characteristics of the future product candidates we pursue either from our internal research efforts or through acquiring or in-licensing other product candidates or technologies;
the scope, progress, results and costs of independently researching and developing any of our future product candidates, including conducting preclinical research and clinical trials;
whether our existing collaboration generates substantial milestone payments and, ultimately, royalties on future approved products for us;
the timing of, and the costs involved in, obtaining regulatory approvals for any future product candidates we develop independently;
the cost of future commercialization activities, if any;
the cost of manufacturing our future product candidates and products, if any;
our ability to maintain our existing collaboration and to establish new collaborations, licensing or other arrangements and the financial terms of such arrangements;
the costs of preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patents, including litigation costs and the outcome of such litigation; and
the timing, receipt and amount of sales of, or royalties on, our current or future collaborators’ product candidates, and our future products, if any.
Based on our research and development plans and our timing expectations related to the progress of our programs, we expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as of the date of this report will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we expect. Additionally, the process of testing drug candidates in preclinical and clinical studies is costly, and the timing of progress in these studies remains uncertain.
In January 2019, we entered into a Purchase Agreement with a limited number of accredited investors, pursuant to which we, in a private placement, sold $25.3 million Units for a purchase price of $5.37 per Unit. Each Unit consists of one share of our common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.39 shares of common stock. Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, we issued approximately 4.7 million shares of common stock and warrants to purchase an aggregate of approximately 1.8 million shares of common stock. The warrants have an exercise price of $12.74 and have a term of five years.
Prior to execution and delivery of the merger agreement with Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc. certain holders of our Series A-1 convertible preferred stock purchased shares of our Series A-1 convertible preferred stock. In March 2017, we issued and sold 707,330 shares of Series A convertible preferred stock and received a total of $4.0 million. In April 2017, we issued and sold 2,947,211 shares of our Series A-1 convertible preferred stock for an aggregate of $16.7 million in net proceeds. In addition, contemporaneously with the close of the Merger, certain existing stockholders of Alpine purchased 1,335,118 additional shares of Alpine’s capital stock for an aggregate of $17.0 million in net proceeds.
In June 2018, we entered into an equity distribution agreement, or the Equity Distribution Agreement, with Piper Jaffray & Co., or Piper Jaffray, pursuant to which we may sell shares of our common stock through an “at the market” equity offering program for up to $50.0 million, in gross cash proceeds. Piper Jaffray will be entitled to compensation for its services of up to 3.0% of the gross sales price per share of all shares sold through Piper Jaffray under the Equity Distribution Agreement. The Equity Distribution Agreement may be terminated by us upon written notice to Piper Jaffray for any reason, or by Piper Jaffray upon written notice to us for any reason, or at any time under certain circumstances, including but not limited to if we experience a material adverse change.
Under the Equity Distribution Agreement, we will set the parameters for the sale of shares, including the number of shares to be issued, the time period during which sales are requested to be made, limitation on the number of shares that may be sold in any one trading day and any minimum price below which sales may not be made. We have no obligation to sell any shares under the Equity Distribution Agreement and may at any time suspend solicitation and offers under the Equity Distribution Agreement. The shares will be issued pursuant to our effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-212404), declared effective by the SEC on July 14, 2016. We filed a prospectus supplement, or the Prospectus Supplement, dated June 11, 2018, with the SEC in connection with the offer and sale of the shares pursuant to the Equity Distribution Agreement. The Prospectus Supplement relates to the offering of $14.5 million in shares of our common stock and we will be required to file an additional prospectus supplement in the event we seek to offer more than $14.5 million in shares of our common stock in accordance with the Equity Distribution Agreement. As December 31, 2018, we have made no sales under the Equity Distribution Agreement.
In December 2016, we entered into a term loan agreement with Silicon Valley Bank pursuant to which up to $5.0 million could be borrowed. On June 30, 2017, we drew down a term loan of $5.0 million pursuant to the agreement. The loan’s interest-only period expired on July 1, 2018, at which point we began making thirty consecutive equal monthly payments of principal (each in an amount that will fully amortize the loan), plus accrued interest. Interest accrues at a floating per annum rate equal to the lender’s prime rate minus 1.75%. As a condition to the loan, we agreed to pay a final payment fee of 7.5%, or $375,000, upon repayment of the loan. The final payment fee was recorded in long-term debt with an offsetting reduction in long-term debt and was accounted for as a debt discount.
Pursuant to the loan agreement we have pledged substantially all of our assets, excluding intellectual property, as collateral. The obligations under the loan agreement are subject to acceleration upon the occurrence of specified events of default, including a material adverse change in our business, operations or financial or other condition. The term loan agreement contains customary conditions to borrowings, events of default and negative covenants, including covenants that could limit our ability to, among other things, incur additional indebtedness, liens or other encumbrances, make dividends or other distributions; buy, sell or transfer assets; engage in any new line of business; and enter into certain transactions with affiliates. We were in compliance with our covenants as of December 31, 2018.
The following is a summary of our cash flows (in thousands):
Years Ended December 31,
Net cash used in operating activities
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities
Net cash used in operating activities:
Net cash used in operating activities was $28.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 and consisted primarily of our net loss of $36.5 million. This was offset by increases of $5.0 million in our net operating assets and liabilities and $3.1 million in our net non-cash adjustments, which primarily relates to the loss on the sale of our intangible asset, stock-based compensation, the write-off of our deferred tax liability, depreciation and amortization.
Net cash used in operating activities was $16.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 and consisted primarily of our net loss of $7.8 million and bargain purchase gain of $6.6 million. We also had a $3.2 million decrease in our net operating assets and liabilities, partially offset by a $1.0 million increase in our net non-cash adjustments.
Net cash used in operating activities was $3.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 and consisted primarily of our net loss of $1.2 million and our net decrease in operating assets and liabilities of $2.7 million. This was partially offset by $0.1 million in non-cash adjustments, which primarily include stock-based compensation and depreciation expense.
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities:
Cash flows from investing activities primarily reflect cash used to purchase short-term investments and proceeds from the maturities of short-term investments, thus causing a shift between our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investment balances. We manage our cash usage with respect to our total cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments.
Net cash provided by investing activities was $32.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 and consisted primarily of purchases and maturities of short-term investments in U.S. Treasury securities, commercial paper, and corporate debt securities as well as the purchases of property and equipment, primarily lab equipment, to support our research and development efforts.
Net cash used in investing activities was $29.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2017 and consisted primarily of the net purchases and sales of short-term investments, and purchases of property and equipment to build out our laboratory, partially offset by consideration acquired in the merger.
Net cash used in investing activities was $0.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, and primarily related to the purchase of property and equipment to build out our laboratory at our Seattle facility.
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities:
Net cash used in financing activities was $1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 and consisted of principal payments on our debt, partially offset by the proceeds from stock option exercises.
Net cash provided by financing activities was $42.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 and consisted primarily of $37.7 million in proceeds from the sale of preferred stock and $5.0 million from the advance of a long-term loan.
Net cash provided by financing activities was $11.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 and consisted primarily of the sale of preferred stock.
Contractual Obligations and Contingent Liabilities
As a “smaller reporting company,” as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act, we are not required to provide additional information on our contractual obligations and contingent liabilities pursuant to Item 303 of Regulation S-K.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We did not have during the periods presented, and we do not currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined under SEC rules.
On April 5, 2012, the JOBS Act was enacted. Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, for complying with new or revised accounting standards. Thus, an emerging growth company can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this extended transition period and, as a result, we will adopt new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for other public companies.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which we have prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, or GAAP. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, as well as the reported revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. We evaluate these estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Our actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements, we believe that the following accounting policies are the most critical to fully understanding and evaluating our financial condition and results of operations.
As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate accruals for professional services and research and development expenses. This process involves reviewing contracts and vendor agreements and communicating with applicable personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf. We estimate the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual cost. We estimate accrued liabilities as of each balance sheet date based on known facts and circumstances.
Although we do not expect our estimates to be materially different from amounts actually incurred, if our estimates of the status and timing of services performed differ from the actual status and timing of services performed, we may report amounts that are too high or too low in any particular period. To date, we have not experienced any significant adjustments to our estimates.
Revenue Recognition (effective January 1, 2018)
Revenue is recognized when control of the promised goods or services is transferred to our customers, in an amount that reflects the consideration we expect to be entitled to in exchange for those goods or services. Our steps for recognizing revenue consist of; (1) identifying the contract, (2) identifying the performance obligations as either distinct or bundled goods and services, (3) determining the transaction price associated with each performance obligation for which we expect to be entitled in exchange for transferring such goods and services, (4) allocating the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract and (5) recognizing revenue upon satisfaction of performance obligations.
Our collaboration agreements principally contain multiple performance obligations, which may include (1) grants of, or options to obtain, intellectual property licenses; (2) research and development services; and/or (3) manufacturing or supply services. Payments typically received under these arrangements include one or more of the following: non-refundable upfront license fees, option exercise fees, payment for research and/or development efforts, amounts due upon the achievement of
specified objectives, and/or royalties on future product sales. Our revenue is primarily derived from our License and Research Agreement, or the Collaboration Agreement, with Kite. See further discussion of the Collaboration Agreement in Note 12.
We allocate revenue to each performance obligation based on its relative stand-alone selling price. We generally determine stand-alone selling prices at the inception of the contract based on our best estimate of what the selling price would be if the deliverable was regularly sold by us on a stand-alone basis. Payments received prior to satisfying the relevant revenue recognition criteria are recorded as deferred revenue in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and recognized as revenue when the related revenue recognition criteria are met. We recognize revenue under the Collaboration Agreement based on employee hours contributed to each performance obligation.
The Collaboration Agreement provides for non-refundable milestone payments. We recognize revenue that is contingent upon the achievement of a substantive milestone in its entirety in the period in which the milestone is achieved. A milestone is considered substantive when the consideration payable to us for such milestone (1) is consistent with our performance necessary to achieve the milestone or the increase in value to the collaboration resulting from our performance; (2) relates solely to our past performance; and (3) is reasonable relative to all of the other deliverables and payments within the arrangement. In making this assessment, we consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the arrangement, including factors such as the scientific, regulatory, commercial, and other risks that must be overcome to achieve the milestone, the level of effort and investment required to achieve the milestone and whether any portion of the milestone consideration is related to future performance or deliverables.
We review the contributed employee hours for each performance obligation under the Collaboration Agreement and adjust the revenue recognized to reflect changes in assumptions relating to the estimated satisfaction of the performance obligation. We could accelerate revenue recognition in the event of early termination of programs or if our expectations change. Alternatively, we could decelerate revenue recognition if programs are extended or delayed. While such changes to our estimates have no impact on our reported cash flows, the timing of revenue recorded in future periods could be materially impacted.
We account for all stock-based compensation granted to employees and non-employees using a fair value method. Stock-based compensation awarded to employees and non-employees is measured at the grant date fair value for stock option grants. Stock-based compensation to employees is recognized over the requisite service period of the awards, usually the vesting period, on a straight-line basis. Stock-based compensation awarded to non-employees is revalued over its vesting period using a Black-Sholes option pricing model. We recognize forfeiture of awards as they occur rather than estimating the expected forfeiture rate.
We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock option grants. The Black-Scholes option pricing model relies on a number of key assumptions to calculate estimated fair value, including the risk-free interest rate, expected life, expected volatility, and expected dividend yield. For risk-free interest rate, we use the zero-coupon U.S. Treasury instruments security rate with a term equal to the expected life of the option. We use the “simplified method” for options to determine the expected term of stock option granted to employees. Under this approach, the weighted-average expected life is presumed to be the average of the vesting term and the contractual term of the option. For expected volatility, we analyzed the stock price volatility of companies at a similar stage of development to estimate expected volatility of our stock price. Our assumed dividend yield of zero as we have never paid cash dividends and have no present intention to pay cash dividends.
If factors change and we employ different assumptions for estimating stock-based compensation expense in future periods, or if we decide to use a different valuation model, the stock-based compensation expense we recognize in future periods may differ significantly from what we have recorded in the current period and could materially affect our financial statements.
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements
In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, No. 2016-02, Leases. ASU 2016-02 requires a lessee to separate the lease components from the non-lease components in a contract and recognize in the statement of financial position a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and a right-
of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term. It also aligns lease accounting for lessors with the revenue recognition guidance in ASU 2014-09. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years, and is to be applied at the beginning of the earliest period presented using a modified retrospective approach. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-11, related to another transition method in lease accounting. If elected, the transition method allows entities to initially apply the new lease standard at the adoption date and recognize a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings in the period of adoption. We plan to adopt ASU 2016-02 on January 1, 2019 and intend to initially apply the new lease standard at the adoption date and recognize a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of the accumulated deficit in the period of adoption as permitted under ASU 2018-11. Based on our leases in place on January 1, 2019 and considering the practical expedients, we expect the adoption of the new standard will not have a material effect on our consolidated statements of operations, will result in a gross-up on our consolidated balance sheets of less than $1.0 million relating to our office and laboratory leases, and will have no effect on our consolidated statements of cash flows.
In June 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-07, which aligns the measurement and classification guidance for share-based payments to nonemployees with the guidance for share-based payments to employees, with certain exceptions. Under the guidance, the measurement of equity-classified nonemployee awards will be fixed at the grant date. Upon transition, nonemployee awards will be required to be measured at fair value as of the adoption date with a cumulative-effect adjustment recognized in retained earnings as of the beginning of the annual period of adoption. ASU 2018-07 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within that fiscal year. Early adoption is permitted, but no earlier than an entity’s adoption date of ASC 606. We are evaluating the effect the standard will have on our financial statements and related disclosures.
In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-13, Fair Value Measurement. ASU 2018-13 modifies the disclosure requirements for fair value measurements by removing, modifying, or adding certain disclosures. This ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within those fiscal years, with early adoption permitted for any eliminated or modified disclosures. We are evaluating the effect of adopting this new accounting guidance to determine the impact it may have on our financial statements.
In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-18, Collaborative Arrangements: Clarifying the Interaction between Topic 808 and Topic 606. This ASU clarifies that certain transactions between collaborative arrangement participants should be accounted for as revenue when the collaborative arrangement participant is a customer in the context of a unit of account and precludes recognizing as revenue consideration received from a collaborative arrangement participant if the participant is not a customer. This ASU is effective for public companies for annual reporting periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2019. We are currently evaluating the effect, if any, that ASU 2018-18 will have on our consolidated financial statements.
Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, as amended, which we refer to as new revenue standard or ASC 606, which amends the guidance for revenue recognition to replace numerous industry specific requirements. ASC 606 implements a five-step process for customer contract revenue recognition focusing on transfer of control, as opposed to transfer of risk and rewards. ASC 606 also requires enhanced disclosures regarding the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenues and cash flows from contracts with customers. Other major provisions include ensuring the time value of money is considered in the transaction price and allowing estimates of variable consideration to be recognized before contingencies are resolved in certain circumstances. ASC 606 is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. On January 1, 2018, we adopted the new accounting standard and all of the related amendments using the modified retrospective method. We recognized the cumulative effect of initially applying the new revenue standard as an adjustment to the opening balance of our accumulated deficit. The cumulative effect of the changes related to the adoption of the new revenue standard and increased our beginning balances in accumulated deficit and deferred revenue by $203,000 within our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The comparative information has not been restated and continues to be reported under the accounting standards in effect for those periods. For further discussion of the impact of the adoption of ASC 606 see Note 2 in the notes to our consolidated financial statements.
Statement of Cash Flows
In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15 which provides new guidance on the classification of certain cash receipts and payments in the statement of cash flows. The new guidance is intended to reduce diversity in practice in how certain transactions are classified in the statement of cash flows. We adopted this new standard effective January 1, 2018. The adoption of this standard did not impact our financial statements.
In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-09 to provide clarity and reduce both diversity in practice and cost and complexity when applying the guidance in Compensation - Stock Compensation (“Topic 718”) about a change to the terms and conditions of a share-based payment award. The amendments in this update provide guidance about which changes to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award require an entity to apply modification accounting in Topic 718. The amendments in this update are effective for annual periods, including interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted and applied prospectively to modifications occurring on or after the adoption date. We adopted this this standard effective January 1, 2018. The adoption of this standard did not have an impact on our financial statements. For the year ended December 31, 2018, there were no modifications to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
As a “smaller reporting company,” as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act, and pursuant to Item 305 of Regulation S-K we are not required to provide quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
As a “smaller reporting company,” as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act and pursuant to Article 8, Regulation X and Item 302 of Regulation S-K, we are permitted to provide scaled Item 8 disclosure.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2018. The term “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, means controls and other procedures of a company that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Our management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and our management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2018, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level.
Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) and Rule 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Our internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that:
pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets;
provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of our management and directors; and
provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
The effectiveness of any system of internal control over financial reporting, including ours, is subject to inherent limitations, including the exercise of judgment in designing, implementing, operating, and evaluating the controls and procedures, and the inability to eliminate misconduct completely. Accordingly, any system of internal control over financial reporting, including ours, no matter how well designed and operated, can only provide reasonable, not absolute, assurances. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018. In making this assessment, our management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, or COSO, Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013). Based on our assessment using those criteria, our management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2018, our internal control over financial reporting was effective.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
No significant changes in our internal control over financial reporting occurred during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2018, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9B. Other Information.
In March 2019, we entered into a lease with the Landlord for 27,164 square feet of office and laboratory space located at 188 East Blaine Street, Seattle, Washington. The term of the lease is 10.8 years with one option to extend the term by 5.0 years. The target “Commencement Date” is May 1, 2019 and shall be the date that Landlord delivers the premises to us in substantially complete condition. The “Rent Commencement Date” shall be the date that is nine months after the Commencement Date. The annual base rent due under the lease is $1.7 million for the first year and will increase by 3.0% each year thereafter. We will not be required to pay base rent from the Rent Commencement Date through the last day of the ninth month following the Rent Commencement Date. We will receive a maximum tenant improvement allowance of $5.4 million, which is included in our base rent, and a maximum additional tenant improvement allowance of $1.8 million, which will result in additional rent amortized over the term of the lease at an annual rate of 8.0%. The lease also requires us to pay additional amounts for operating and maintenance expenses. In connection with the lease, we provided a $254,000 letter of credit as a security deposit. The foregoing description of the March 2019 lease is only a summary of its material terms, does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the March 2019 lease. A copy of the March 2019 lease will be filed as an exhibit to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2019.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Executive Officers and Directors
The following table sets forth the names, ages and positions of our executive officers and directors as of March 6, 2019:
Mitchell H. Gold, M.D.
Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Mark Litton, Ph.D.
President and Chief Operating Officer
Stanford Peng, M.D., Ph.D.
Executive Vice President of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Min Cui, Ph.D.
Peter Thompson, M.D.
James Topper, M.D., Ph.D.
Jay Venkatesan, M.D.
Mitchell H. Gold, M.D. has served as our executive chairman, chief executive officer and a member of our board of directors since the completion of the merger of Nivalis and Alpine in July 2017 and previously served as Alpine’s chief executive officer since June 2016 and as Alpine’s executive chairman and member of Alpine’s board of directors since January 2015. Prior to co-founding Alpine, Dr. Gold was Chairman and Founder of Alpine Biosciences, a privately-held biotech company, from 2012 to 2014. From 2001 to 2012, Dr. Gold served in a variety of roles with Dendreon Corporation (which was acquired by Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. through an asset purchase agreement), including President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the board of directors. Earlier in his career, Dr. Gold served as Vice President of Business Development at Data Critical from 2000 to 2001. From 1995 to 2000, Dr. Gold was President and Chief Executive Officer of Elixis Corporation. Dr. Gold is currently a Managing Partner at Alpine BioVentures. Dr. Gold holds an M.D. from Rush Medical College of Rush University Medical Center and a B.S. in Biology from the University of Wisconsin. We believe that Dr. Gold possesses specific attributes that qualify him to serve as a member of our board of directors, including more than 20 years of experience in senior executive management roles with both early stage and public biopharmaceutical companies.
Mark Litton, Ph.D. has served as our president and chief operating officer since August 2018. Dr. Litton previously served as the chief business officer, treasurer and secretary from 2004 to 2018 of Alder BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., a publicly-traded biopharmaceutical company co-founded by Dr. Litton in 2004. From 1999 to 2004, Dr. Litton served as vice president of business development for Celltech Group, where he was responsible for securing, commercializing and partnering numerous novel discoveries and therapeutic programs. In 1999, Dr. Litton joined Celltech Group as an employee of Chiroscience Group plc and was later promoted to vice president of business development after Chiroscience’s merger with Celltech Group in 1999. From 1997 to 1999, Dr. Litton served as the manager of business development for Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals Inc., currently Sirna Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where he helped form relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Roche Bioscience and GlaxoWellcome plc, currently GlaxoSmithKline plc, a biopharmaceutical company. From 1991 to 1994, Dr. Litton served as a research associate for DNAX Research Institute, a research facility of Schering-Plough, now Merck & Co., a publicly-traded pharmaceutical company. Dr. Litton holds a Ph.D. in Immunology from Stockholm University, an M.B.A. from Santa Clara University and a B.S. in Biochemistry from the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Stanford Peng has as served as our executive vice president of research and development and chief medical officer since the completion of the merger of Nivalis and Alpine in July 2017 and previously served as Alpine’s chief medical officer from
September 2016 to February 2017 and as Alpine’s executive vice president of research and development and chief medical officer since February 2017. Prior to joining Alpine, Dr. Peng was chief medical officer and head of clinical development at Stemcentrx, providing strategic oversight of the company’s clinical and translational programs from 2015 to 2016. Previously, Dr. Peng was executive medical director at Seattle Genetics where he developed multiple programs for antibody-drug conjugates from 2014 to 2015. Earlier in his career, he directed translational research and auto-immune related clinical trials as head of the Rheumatology Clinical Research Unit at the Benaroya Research Institute from 2009 to 2014 and served as senior director, clinical research and exploratory development at Roche from 2005 to 2008. Between 2009 and 2014, Dr. Peng also served as member physician at Virginia Mason Medical Center. Dr. Peng served as an assistant professor at the Washington University School of Medicine from 2002 to 2005. From 2008 to 2009, Dr. Peng served as senior director at ARYx Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARYX). Dr. Peng received an M.D. and Ph.D. in biology from the Yale University School of Medicine and a B.A. in music and B.S. in biological sciences from Stanford University.
Paul Rickey has served as our senior vice president and chief financial officer since the completion of the merger of Nivalis and Alpine in July 2017 and previously served as Alpine’s senior vice president and chief financial officer since April 2017. Mr. Rickey served as chief financial officer of Sound Pharmaceuticals, overseeing finance, accounting and human resources. Before joining Sound Pharmaceuticals in 2016, Mr. Rickey was vice president of finance and administration of Immune Design Corp., (Nasdaq: IMDZ) a publicly traded biotechnology company, where he helped complete the company’s private offerings, initial public offering, and follow-on financing, and also oversaw the corporate development, accounting and human resource functions. Before joining Immune Design in 2009, Mr. Rickey was corporate controller of Northstar Neuroscience, a publicly-traded medical device company, where he managed the company’s finance and accounting groups following Northstar’s initial public offering. Prior to his role at Northstar Neuroscience, Mr. Rickey was the accounting manager for Mobliss, Inc., a mobile technology company that was sold to Index Corp., of Japan. Mr. Rickey started his finance career at Ernst & Young LLP. Mr. Rickey graduated from the University of Washington with a B.A. and Masters in Professional Accounting and is a certified public accountant, inactive.
Robert Conway has served as a member of our board of directors since April 2015. From 1999 to 2012, Mr. Conway served as the chief executive officer and member of the board of directors of Array BioPharma (Nasdaq: ARRY), a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company. Prior to joining Array, Mr. Conway was the chief operating officer and executive vice president of Hill Top Research, from 1996 to 1999. From 1979 until 1996, Mr. Conway held various executive positions for Corning Inc. (NYSE: GLW), including corporate vice president and general manager of Corning Hazleton, a contract research organization. Since 2013, Mr. Conway has served on the board of directors of ARCA BioPharma (Nasdaq: ABIO), a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company, and was elected Chairman in June 2014. From 2004 to 2013, Mr. Conway served on the boards of directors of PRA International (Nasdaq: PRAH), which was a public company for a portion of his tenure there, and Bracket Corp., a private company. Mr. Conway has also served on the boards of directors of Bracket, Inc. and ClinOne, Inc., private clinical technology companies, since March 2017 and November 2018, respectively. In addition, Mr. Conway is a member of the strategic advisory committee of Genstar Capital. Mr. Conway received a B.S. in accounting from Marquette University in 1976. We believe that Mr. Conway’s experience and expertise in the pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical development and clinical trials, and corporate finance, governance, accounting and public company compliance give him the qualifications and skills to serve on our board of directors.
Min Cui has served as a member of our board of directors since January 2019. Dr. Cui has served as managing director of Decheng Capital, an investment firm focused on life sciences companies, since he founded the firm in 2011. Prior to founding Decheng, Dr. Cui was an investment partner at Bay City Capital, an international life science venture capital firm in San Francisco. Dr. Cui was previously director of strategic investment for the Southern Research Institute, a not-for-profit research organization. Prior to that, Dr. Cui co-founded Pan Pacific Pharmaceuticals and Hucon Biopharmaceuticals, where he led efforts in discovery and development of several key technologies in the fields of oncology, cardiology, infectious and inflammatory diseases. Dr. Cui has served as a member of the board of directors of ARMO BioSciences, Inc., a publicly-traded immuno-oncology company acquired by Eli Lilly and Company in May 2018, from August 2017 to May 2018, and also currently serves on the boards of directors of several private companies. Dr. Cui holds a Ph.D. in Cancer Biology from Stanford University and a BS and MS in Molecular Biology from Peking University. We believe that Dr. Cui’s venture capital and management experience in the pharmaceuticals industry provides him with the qualifications and skills necessary to serve as a member of our board of directors. Dr. Cui was appointed to the Board pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement.
Christopher Peetz has served as a member of our board of directors since April 2018. Mr. Peetz has been the president of Mirium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. since November 2018. He has also served as the chief executive officer of Flashlight Therapeutics, Inc. and an entrepreneur-in-residence at Frazier Healthcare Partners since May 2017. He served as chief financial
officer and head of corporate development at Tobira Therapeutics, Inc., a publicly-traded biotechnology company acquired by Allergan plc in November 2016, from May 2014 to December 2016. Prior to joining Tobira Therapeutics, Mr. Peetz served as vice president, finance & corporate development of Jennerex Biotherapeutics, a private biopharmaceutical company. Prior to Jennerex, Mr. Peetz held various positions at Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now Amgen), including oversight of financial planning and analysis, corporate strategy, product lifecycle management and commercial roles. Prior to Onyx, Mr. Peetz provided merger and acquisition advisory services at LaSalle Corporate Finance, a part of ABN AMRO, and held positions at Abgenix Inc. and Solazyme Inc. Mr. Peetz received an MBA from Stanford Graduate School of Business and a B.S.B.A. in Finance, International Business and French from Washington University in St. Louis. We believe Mr. Peetz’ experience in senior management positions in both business and finance and his experience supporting various corporate and financing transactions provide him with the qualifications and skills to serve on our board of directors.
Paul Sekhri has served as a member of our board of directors since February 2016. Mr. Sekhri is the president and chief executive officer of eGenesis, Inc., a private life sciences company. Before Mr. Sekhri joined eGenesis, he was the president and chief executive officer of Lycera Corp., a private biopharmaceutical company from February 2015 through January 2019. Prior to this position, he served as senior vice president, integrated care for Sanofi from April 2014 through January 2015, and as group executive vice president, global business development and chief strategy officer for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. from March 2013 to March 2014. Prior to joining Teva, Mr. Sekhri spent five years from January 2009 to February 2013, as operating partner and head of the biotechnology operating group at TPG Biotech, the life sciences venture capital arm of TPG Capital. From 2004 to 2009 Mr. Sekhri was founder, president, and chief executive officer of Cerimon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Prior to founding Cerimon, Mr. Sekhri was president and chief business officer of ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Previously, Mr. Sekhri spent four years at Novartis, as senior vice president, and head of global search and evaluation, business development and licensing for Novartis Pharma AG.
Mr. Sekhri has been a director on more than 24 private and public company boards, and is currently a member of the board of directors of Veeva Systems Inc. Mr. Sekhri is also the chairman of the board of Pharming N.V., Petra Pharma, Inc., Topas Therapeutics GmbH, and Compugen Ltd. Additionally, he serves on several non-profit boards including the BioExec Institute, Inc., the TB Alliance, Young Concert Artists, Inc., The English Concert in America (TECA), and the Caramoor Center for Music and the Arts. Mr. Sekhri also served as a member of the board of trustees of Carnegie Hall from 2010 to 2012, where he is now an active member of their Patrons Council. We believe that Mr. Sekhri’s extensive experience in operational and strategic drug development and his outstanding reputation and expertise in the biomedical community give him the qualifications and skills to serve as a director on our board of directors.
Peter Thompson, M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors since the completion of the merger of Nivalis and Alpine in July 2017 and previously served as a member of the board of directors of Alpine since June 2016. Dr. Thompson currently serves as a private equity partner for OrbiMed Advisors LLC, an investment firm focused on the healthcare sector, where he has also served as venture partner since joining in September 2010. Dr. Thompson is a co-founder of and has served as a member of the board of directors of Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: CRVS) since December 2014. Dr. Thompson also served as a director of Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc (Nasdaq: ADAP), a biopharmaceutical company, from 2014 until July 2018 and also currently serves on the boards of directors of several private companies. Dr. Thompson is a board-certified internist and oncologist and has served as Affiliate Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Washington since 2010. Dr. Thompson co-founded and served as the chief executive officer of Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from 2002 to 2009. Dr. Thompson previously held executive positions at Chiron Corporation and Becton Dickinson and served on the faculty of the National Cancer Institute following his medical staff fellowship there. Dr. Thompson holds a Sc. B. in Molecular Biology and Mathematics from Brown University and an M.D. from Brown University Medical School. We believe that Dr. Thompson’s venture capital and management experience in the pharmaceuticals industry provides him with the qualifications and skills necessary to serve as a member of our board of directors.
James N. Topper, M.D., Ph.D. has served as a member of our board of directors since the completion of the merger of Nivalis and Alpine in July 2017 and previously served as a member of the board of directors of Alpine since June 2016. Dr. Topper has been a partner with Frazier Healthcare Partners since August 2003, serving as general partner since 2005. Before joining Frazier Healthcare Partners, Dr. Topper served as head of the cardiovascular research and development division of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and ran Millennium San Francisco (formerly COR Therapeutics, Inc.) from 2002 to 2003. Before the merger of COR and Millennium in 2002, Dr. Topper served as the vice president of biology at COR from 1999 to 2002. Dr. Topper currently serves as a member of the board of directors of AnaptysBio, Inc. (Nasdaq: ANAB), Allena Pharmaceuticals (Nasdaq: ALNA), Aptinyx, Inc. (Nasdaq: APTX) and Entasis Therapeutics Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: ETTX) and has served on numerous other boards of directors, including Sierra Oncology, Inc. (formerly ProNai) (Nasdaq: SRRA), Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: FOLD), Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: PTLA), and La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company (Nasdaq: LJPC). Dr. Topper received his M.D. and Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University and his B.S. in biology from the University of Michigan. We believe that Dr. Topper’s experience overseeing Frazier Healthcare Partners’ investments in
biotechnology, his experience in senior management positions, and his significant knowledge of industry, medical and scientific matters, provide Dr. Topper with the qualifications and skills to serve on our board of directors.
Jay Venkatesan, M.D. has served as a member of our board of directors since the completion of the merger of Nivalis and Alpine in July 2017, served as our president from July 2017 to August 2018 and previously served as Alpine’s chief executive officer from November 2015 to June 2016 and Alpine’s president in June 2016. Dr. Venkatesan also served as a member of Alpine’s board of directors since November 2015. Since May 2018, Dr. Venkatesan has served as chief executive officer and a member of the board of directors of Angion Biomedica, Inc., a private pharmaceutical company. Prior to joining Alpine, Dr. Venkatesan was the executive vice president and general manager of Oncothyreon, Inc. (now Cascadian Therapeutics) from August 2014 to May 2015 following Oncothyreon’s acquisition of Alpine Biosciences, where he served as co-founder and chief executive officer. Previously, Dr. Venkatesan was the founder, portfolio manager, and managing director of Ayer Capital Management, a global healthcare equity fund from 2008 to 2013. Prior to that, he was a director at Brookside Capital Partners from 2002 to 2007. Earlier in his career, Dr. Venkatesan was involved in healthcare investing at Partricof & Co. Ventures from 1995 to 1996 and consulting at McKinsey & Company from 1993 to 1995. Dr. Venkatesan is currently a managing partner at Alpine BioVentures. In addition, Dr. Venkatesan currently serves on the board of directors of Transplant Genomics, CellBioTherapy, and Exicure Therapeutics. Dr. Venkatesan received an M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, an M.B.A. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and a B.A. in Chemistry from Williams College. We believe that Dr. Venkatesan possesses specific attributes that qualify him to serve as a member of our board of directors, including his experience on the boards of and in management positions with biopharmaceutical companies, including publicly-traded companies.
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires our directors and executive officers, and persons who own more than ten percent of a registered class of our equity securities, to file reports of ownership of, and transactions in, our securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and Nasdaq. Such directors, executive officers, and ten percent stockholders are also required to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms that they file.
SEC regulations require us to identify in this proxy statement anyone who filed a required report late during the most recent year. Based solely on a review of the copies of such forms received by us, or written representations from certain reporting persons, we believe that during 2018, our directors, executive officers, and 10% stockholders complied with all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to them.
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
We are committed to the highest standards of integrity and ethics in the way we conduct our business. Our board of directors has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which applies to all of our employees, officers and directors, including our chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and other executive and senior financial officers. Our code of conduct establishes our policies and expectations with respect to a wide range of business conduct, including preparation and maintenance of financial and accounting information, compliance with laws and conflicts of interest. In accordance with our code of conduct, each of our employees, officers and directors is required to report suspected or actual violations to the extent permitted by law. In addition, our board of directors has adopted separate policies and procedures concerning the receipt and investigation of complaints relating to accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters, which are administered by our audit committee. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is posted on the Corporate Governance portion of our website at https://ir.alpineimmunesciences.com/governance. We will post amendments to our Code of Business Conduct or waivers of our Code of Business Conduct for directors and executive officers on the same website.
The responsibilities of the audit committee include, but are not limited to, the following:
meeting with our independent auditors, our management team and such other personnel as it deems appropriate to conduct and assist with certain audit committee functions;
overseeing our accounting and financial reporting processes and audits of its financial statements;
deciding whether to appoint, retain or terminate our independent auditors, including the sole authority to approve all audit engagement fees and terms and to pre-approve all audit and permitted non-audit and tax services to be provided by the independent auditors;
reviewing and discussing with management and our independent auditors the financial statements of Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc, including certain disclosures, addressing any issues encountered in the course of the audit work, and evaluating the performance of our independent auditors;
discussing with management our earnings press releases, financial information and any earnings guidance provided to analysts and ratings agencies;
discussing with Alpine Immune Sciences and the internal auditors (if any) our disclosure controls, internal accounting and financial controls and accounting policies and practices;
discussing with management any outsourcing of the internal audit function (if any), including selection of vendor, fees paid and areas to be audited;
establishing procedures for the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints received by us regarding certain accounting or audit matters;
establishing policies governing the hiring by us of any current or former employee of our independent auditors;
reviewing our compliance with applicable laws and regulations and to review and oversee our policies and procedures designed to promote and monitor regulatory compliance;
obtaining assurance from the independent auditors that the audit of the financial statements was conducted in a manner consistent with Section 10A of the Exchange Act;
reviewing, approving and overseeing transactions between us and any related person and any other potential conflict of interest situation;
administering our Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Policy and responding to and resolving related complaints or concerns;
overseeing portions of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics as designated by our board of directors;
providing our board of directors with the results of its monitoring and recommendations derived from its responsibilities;
reviewing and approving our investment policy;
providing the independent and internal auditors with access to the board of directors; and
producing the report required to be prepared for inclusion in our annual proxy statement.
Since April 2018 the audit committee has been composed of three directors: Messrs. Conway (chairman), Peetz and Sekhri. From the completion of the merger of Nivalis and Alpine in July 2017 until April 2018 the committee was composed of three directors: Messrs. Conway (chairman) and Sekhri and Dr. Topper. Our board of directors has determined that Mr. Conway is an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in the SEC rules and made a qualitative assessment of Mr. Conway’s level of knowledge and experience based on several factors, including his prior experience, business acumen and independence. Our board of directors has concluded that the composition of the audit committee meets the requirements for independence under the rules and regulations of Nasdaq and the SEC.
The audit committee met four times during 2018. The audit committee also meets periodically with our outside auditors without management present, at such times as it deems appropriate. Our board of directors has adopted a written charter for the audit committee in compliance with the applicable rules of the SEC and the Nasdaq listing standards and which is available on our website at https://ir.alpineimmunesciences.com/governance.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
Summary Compensation Table
The following table provides information regarding the compensation of our named executive officers:
Name and Principal Position
Mitchell H. Gold, M.D.
Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Mark Litton, Ph.D. (5)
President and Chief Operating Officer
Stanford Peng, M.D., Ph.D.
Executive Vice President of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer
Amounts shown in this column do not reflect dollar amounts actually received by our NEOs. Instead, these amounts reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of the stock options granted, computed in accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 718.
Represents cash bonuses earned under our 2018 performance bonus plan, paid in 2019.
Represents parking expenses for Drs. Gold and Litton.
Excludes $37,000 paid in 2017, pursuant to the terms of a deferred salary arrangement.
Dr. Litton commenced employment with us on August 6, 2018.
Represents the probable value of $108,497 for Dr. Litton’s August 6, 2018 performance-based option award. The maximum value of such award is $216,993.
Executive Employment Arrangements
We entered into amended and restated executive employment agreements with each of Drs. Gold and Peng effective January 1, 2018 and an executive employment agreement with Dr. Litton on August 6, 2018. Pursuant to these agreements, the annual base salaries for Drs. Gold, Litton and Peng were $400,000, $410,000 and $400,000, respectively. In February 2019, the compensation committee approved adjusted salaries for Drs. Gold, Litton and Peng of $485,000, $415,000 and $425,000, respectively. Additionally, Drs. Gold, Litton and Peng are eligible to earn cash bonuses of up to 50%, 40% and 35%, respectively, of their base salary. The actual amount of such bonuses is tied to the achievement of various objectives for each year. Dr. Gold’s bonus is based solely on achievement of corporate objectives. The bonuses for Drs. Peng and Litton are based on 75% corporate objectives and 25% individual objectives. These agreements also provide for certain severance benefits upon the termination of employment or a change in control of the company pursuant to our Change in Control and Severance Policy, or the Severance Policy.
Pursuant to the Severance Policy, if we terminate the employment of any of Dr. Gold, Dr. Litton or Dr. Peng, each an Eligible Employee, other than for cause, death or disability, or the Eligible Employee resigns for good reason on or within 12 months following a change of control, then, subject to the Eligible Employee signing and not revoking a separation agreement and release of claims and continuing to adhere to the Eligible Employee’s non-competition, non-disclosure and invention assignment agreement, such Eligible Employee will be eligible to receive the following severance benefits, less applicable tax withholdings:
A lump-sum payment totaling 100% (or, in case of Dr. Gold, 150%) of the Eligible Employee’s applicable annual base salary.
A lump-sum payment equal to (1) 100% of the Eligible Employee’s applicable target annual bonus plus (2) a payment equal to the Eligible Employee’s pro-rated applicable target annual bonus.
100% of the Eligible Employee’s then-outstanding and unvested time-based equity awards will become vested and exercisable.
Payment or reimbursement of continued health coverage for the Eligible Employee and the Eligible Employee’s dependents under COBRA for a period of up to 12 months (or, in Dr. Gold’s case, 18 months).
Further, under the Severance Policy, if the Company terminates an Eligible Employee’s employment other than for cause, death or disability or such Eligible Employee resigns for good reason at any time other than during the period lasting from the date of a change of control or within 12 months thereafter, then, subject to the Severance Conditions, such Eligible Employee will be eligible to receive the following severance benefits, less applicable tax withholdings:
Continued payments totaling 75% (or, in Dr. Gold’s case, 100%) of the Eligible Employee’s applicable annual base salary over a period of 9 months (or in Dr. Gold’s case, 12 months).
100% of the Eligible Employee’s then-outstanding and unvested time-based equity awards granted prior to the closing of the merger by and between Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc. and Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc. that would have otherwise vested during the 12-month period following the date of the Eligible Employee’s termination, and 0% in all other cases.
Payment or reimbursement of continued health coverage for the Eligible Employee and the Eligible Employee’s dependents under COBRA for a period of up to 9 months (or, in Dr. Gold’s case, 12 months).
Mitchell H. Gold. Alpine entered into an employment agreement with Dr. Gold in March 2017, which pre-dated the merger of Nivalis and Alpine. The agreement had no specific term and constituted at-will employment. Effective January 2017, Dr. Gold’s annual base salary was $300,000. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Dr. Gold was subject to certain confidentiality obligations and was obligated to sign and comply with an agreement relating to proprietary information and inventions. During his employment, Dr. Gold was eligible to participate in our applicable benefit plans and was eligible for paid vacation and sick leave, with levels determined by our board of directors, all upon the same terms as offered to other senior executives. Effective January 2018, we entered into an amended and restated executive employment agreement with Dr. Gold on the terms and conditions described above.
Mark Litton. We entered into an employment agreement with Dr. Litton in August 2018 on the terms and conditions described above. Dr. Litton was also granted an initial stock option grant of 150,000 shares and an additional stock option grant of 50,000 shares which vests upon satisfaction of certain performance goals determined by the board of directors or the compensation committee of the board of directors. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Dr. Litton is subject to certain confidentiality obligations and was obligated to sign and comply with an agreement relating to proprietary information and inventions.
Stanford Peng. Alpine entered into an employment agreement with Dr. Peng in August 2016. The agreement had no specific term and constituted at-will employment. Effective January 2017, Dr. Peng’s annual base salary was $375,000. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Dr. Peng was subject to certain confidentiality obligations and is obligated to sign and comply with an agreement relating to proprietary information and inventions. Effective January 2018, we entered into an amended and restated executive employment agreement with Dr. Peng on the terms and conditions described above.
Outstanding Equity Awards at Year-End
The following table provides information regarding the equity awards outstanding at December 31, 2018 held by each of our NEOs.
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options (#)
Mitchell H. Gold
One-half of the shares shall vest on May 16, 2016, and 1/32nd of the remaining shares shall vest on each monthly anniversary thereafter, such that 100% of the shares shall be fully vested and exercisable as of the 4-year anniversary of January 16, 2015.
1/4th of the shares will vest on the one-year anniversary of the vesting commencement date, and 1/36th of the remaining shares shall vest on each monthly anniversary thereafter, such that 100% of the shares shall be vested and exercisable as of the four-year anniversary of the vesting commencement date.
The shares underlying the Option vest in two equal tranches upon satisfaction of certain performance goals determined by the board of directors or the compensation committee of the board of directors.
1/2 of the shares subject to the option become vested and exercisable on October 1, 2020 and the balance of the shares subject to the option become vested and exercisable on October 1, 2022, subject to continued service through each such date.
We have adopted the WTIA 401(k) Multiple Employer Plan, maintained by Washington Technology Industry Association, which is a defined contribution retirement plan, in which all Alpine employees providing at least 20 hours of service a week are eligible to participate. This plan provides our eligible employees with an opportunity to save for retirement on a tax advantaged basis, and participants are able to defer a portion of their eligible compensation. All participants’ interests in their deferrals are 100% vested when contributed. The 401(k) plan permits us to make matching contributions and profit-sharing contributions to eligible participants. We have not provided a discretionary company match to employee contributions during the periods presented. Pre-tax contributions are allocated to each participant’s individual account and are then invested in selected investment alternatives according to the participants’ directions. The 401(k) plan is intended to qualify under Sections 401(a) and 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. As a tax-qualified retirement plan, contributions to the 401(k) plan and earnings on those contributions are not taxable to the employees until distributed from the 401(k) plan and all contributions are deductible by us when made.
Director Compensation Policy
In July 2015, our board of directors approved a director compensation policy for our non-employee directors that became effective following our initial public offering and which was subsequently amended in March 2018. For purposes of the policy, the board of directors classified each director into one of the two following categories: (1) an “employee director,” is a director who is employed by us; and (2) a “non-employee director,” is a director who is not an employee director. Only non-employee directors will receive compensation under the director compensation policy. Non-employee directors will receive compensation in the form of equity and cash under the director compensation policy, as described below. We believe our non-employee director compensation program provides reasonable compensation to our non-employee directors that is appropriately aligned with our peers and is commensurate with the services and contributions of our non-employee directors.
Non-employee directors receive an initial stock option grant to purchase shares of our common stock upon appointment or election to the board of directors. Pursuant to the March 2018 amendments to the policy, the size of the initial stock option grant is 7,650 shares. Non-employee directors also receive on an annual basis, an additional stock option grant to purchase 7,650 shares. These annual grants occur on the first trading day in January of each year. All options are expected to have an exercise price equal to the closing price of our common stock as reported by Nasdaq on the date of grant subject to vesting in 36 equal monthly installments over a three-year period from the grant date for initial option grants, or in 12 equal monthly installments over a 12-month period from the grant date for annual stock option grants, subject to further evaluation by the compensation committee. On a change in control, all outstanding, unvested options held by non-employee directors are expected to vest in full.
Each non-employee director is eligible to receive the following cash annual retainer, which will be paid quarterly in arrears on a prorated basis.
Annual retainer for board membership
Annual retainer for board chairperson
Annual retainer for audit committee chairperson
Annual retainer for audit committee member
Annual retainer for compensation committee chairperson
Annual retainer for compensation committee member
Annual retainer for nominating and corporate governance committee chairperson
Annual retainer for nominating and corporate governance committee member
2018 Director Compensation Table
The following table shows for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 certain information with respect to the compensation of our non-employee directors who served on our board of directors during any part of 2018.
or paid in
Option Awards ($)(1)
Peter Thompson, M.D.(3)
James N. Topper, M.D., Ph.D.(4)
Jay Venkatesan, M.D.(7)
Amounts shown in this column do not reflect dollar amounts actually received by our non-employee directors. Instead, these amounts reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of the stock options granted, computed in accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 718.
As of December 31, 2018, Mr. Conway held outstanding options to purchase 15,505 shares of common stock.
As of December 31, 2018, Dr. Thompson held outstanding options to purchase 7,650 shares of common stock.
As of December 31, 2018, Dr. Topper held outstanding options to purchase 7,650 shares of common stock.
As of December 31, 2018, Mr. Sekhri held outstanding options to purchase 13,593 shares of commons stock.
As of December 31, 2018, Mr. Peetz held outstanding options to purchase 7,650 shares of common stock.
As of December 31, 2018, Dr. Venkatesan held outstanding options to purchase 115,063 shares of common stock. Dr. Venkatesan served as our president until August 2018 and did not receive or earn any fees during that time. The amount shown in the “Fees Earned or paid in Cash ($)” column excludes cash compensation paid to Dr. Venkatesan in 2018 while Dr. Venkatesan was serving as our president. The amount shown in the “Option Awards” column includes the aggregate grant date fair value of the stock options granted while Dr. Venkatesan was serving as our president.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
The following table provides information as of December 31, 2018, with respect to the shares of our common stock that may be issued under existing equity compensation plans:
Securities to be
Column A) (1)
Equity compensation plans approved by
Amended and Restated 2015 Stock Plan, as amended, or the 2015 Stock Plan
2015 Equity Incentive Plan
2018 Equity Incentive Plan
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders (2)
Represents the number of securities remaining available for future issuance under the 2015 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2015 Stock Plan, the 2018 Equity Incentive Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan. The number of shares available for issuance under the 2018 Equity Incentive Plan is subject to an annual increase on the first day of each year equal to the lesser of (a) 1,500,000 shares or (b) 5% of the total number of shares of common stock outstanding on December 31 of the preceding calendar year or (c) a lesser number of shares of common stock approved by the board of directors prior to January 1 of a given year.
Represents 150,000 shares of our common stock subject to the Stand-Alone Inducement Stock Option Grant for Mark Litton. This stock option was not approved by security holders pursuant to an exemption permitted under the rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC.
The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of January 31, 2019 for:
each person who we know beneficially owns more than 5% of our common stock;
all of our directors and executive officers as a group.
The percentage of beneficial ownership shown in the table is based upon 18,560,905 shares outstanding as of January 31, 2019.
We have determined beneficial ownership in accordance with the rules of the SEC. Except as indicated by the footnotes below, we believe, based on the information furnished to us, that the persons and entities named in the table below have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of common stock that they beneficially own, subject to applicable community property laws.
In computing the number of shares beneficially owned by a person and the percentage ownership of that person, we take into account shares of common stock issuable pursuant to stock options, warrants and restricted stock units that may be exercised or that are scheduled to vest on or before the 60th day after January 31, 2019. These shares are deemed to be outstanding and beneficially owned by the person holding those options, warrants or restricted stock units for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of that person, but they are not treated as outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of any other person.
Except as otherwise noted below, the address for each person or entity listed in the table is c/o Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc., 201 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 230, Seattle, Washington 98119.
Name of Beneficial Owner
Alpine Immunosciences, L.P.(1)
OrbiMed Private Investments VI, LP(2)