TransCode Therapeutics (RNAZ) Risk Factors

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, preliminary or topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including our Phase 0 trial with radiolabeled TTX-MC138, which are based on preliminary analyses of then-available data. These results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following more comprehensive reviews of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim, preliminary or topline results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Interim data from studies or trials that we may complete, such as our Phase 0 trial for TTX-MC138, are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data becomes available or as patients from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. The final results of the trial may not be as positive as the interim data and these differences could be meaningful. Topline data from completed studies remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the topline data we previously published. As a result, preliminary and topline data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is typically based on extensive data, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. If the interim, preliminary or topline data that we report differs from subsequent results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions we reach, our ability to seek and obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition. In addition, disclosure of interim, preliminary or topline data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any therapeutic candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our therapeutic candidates are safe and effective in humans. Clinical trials are expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. In particular, the general approach for FDA approval of a new drug is dispositive data from two well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trials of the relevant drug in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve hundreds of patients, have significant costs and take years to complete. A therapeutic candidate can fail at any stage of testing, even after observing promising signals of activity in earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our therapeutic candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of therapeutic candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Therapeutic candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most therapeutic candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as therapeutic products, and there can be no assurance that any of our future clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of TTX-MC138 or any of our other therapeutic candidates. Therapeutic candidates that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons, including: Øpreclinical studies or clinical trials may show the therapeutic candidates to be less effective than expected (e.g., a clinical trial could fail to meet its primary endpoint(s)) or to have unacceptable side effects or toxicities; Øfailure to establish clinical endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful; Øfailure to receive the necessary regulatory approvals; Ømanufacturing costs, development, scaling and formulation issues, pricing or reimbursement issues, or other factors that make a therapeutic candidate uneconomical; and Øthe proprietary rights of others and their competing products and technologies that may prevent one of our therapeutic candidates from being commercialized. In addition, differences in trial design between early-stage clinical trials and later-stage clinical trials make it difficult to extrapolate the results of earlier clinical trials to later clinical trials. Our FIH clinical trial with radiolabeled TTC-MC138 is designed as a single microdose trial, the purpose of which is to demonstrate safety and proof of delivery of TTX-MC138 to metastatic lesions. This design is not meant or expected to produce efficacy signals or to show that TTX-MC138 reaches into metastatic tumor cells although these may occur. Our planned Phase 1 clinical trial with TTX-MC138 is a Bayesian Optimal Interval Design, or BOIN design, with dose escalation and expansion. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their therapeutic candidates performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Additionally, we expect that some of our trials will be open-label studies, where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational therapeutic candidate as a monotherapy or in combination with an existing approved drug. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational therapeutic candidate and sometimes do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an "investigator bias" where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Therefore, it is possible that positive results observed in open-label trials will not be replicated in later placebo-controlled trials. In addition, the standards that the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities use when regulating our therapeutic candidates require judgment and can change, which makes it difficult to predict with certainty how they will be applied. Although we are initially focusing our efforts on development of small- molecule drug products, we may in the future pursue development of biological products, which could make us subject to additional regulatory requirements. Any analysis we perform of data from preclinical and clinical activities is subject to confirmation and interpretation by regulatory authorities, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations. Examples of such regulations include future legislation or administrative action, or changes in FDA policy during the period of product development and FDA regulatory review. We cannot 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. The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain approval of any therapeutic candidates that we develop. We may seek to conduct clinical trials in foreign countries, as well as in the United States. If we continue to seek to conduct clinical trials in foreign countries or pursue marketing approvals in foreign jurisdictions, we must comply with numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and 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 from foreign regulatory agencies may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities outside the United States and vice versa. Successful completion of clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a marketing application to the FDA and similar marketing applications to comparable foreign regulatory authorities, for each therapeutic candidate and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of any therapeutic candidates. We may experience negative or inconclusive results, which may result in our deciding, or our being required by regulators, to conduct additional clinical studies or trials or abandon some or all of our product development programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Undesirable side effects or death caused by any of our therapeutic candidates could cause IRBs, our contract research organizations, or CROs, the FDA or other regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or discontinue clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval for our therapeutic candidates. This, in turn, could prevent us from commercializing our therapeutic candidates and generating revenues from their sale. Also, any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing the product, which in turn could delay or prevent us from becoming profitable.

We currently have no products that are approved for commercial sale and may never be able to develop marketable products. We are very early in our development efforts, and only one of our therapeutic candidates, TTX-MC138, is in clinical development with an open Phase 0 clinical trial and a planned Phase 1 clinical trial. If we are unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize TTX- MC138, or we experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed. Advancing TTX-MC138 will require substantial investment before we can seek regulatory approval and potentially launch commercial sales. Further development of TTX-MC138 will require production scaleup, clinical studies, regulatory review and approval in the U.S. and other jurisdictions, development of sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity, and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales, if approved. In developing TTX-MC138, among other risks, we may not be successful in synthesizing or producing the components of our proprietary formulation, or there may be toxicology issues from key components of our formulation that we have not anticipated. We have not manufactured TTX-MC138 using the current synthesis protocol, production processes, equipment and materials in the larger quantities that would be necessary to meet clinical trial treatment demands for all anticipated patients. We may experience setbacks that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, our therapeutic candidates, including: Ønegative or inconclusive results from our preclinical studies or clinical trials or positive results from the clinical trials of others for competing therapeutic candidates similar to ours, leading to their approval and a possible decision by us to conduct additional preclinical testing or clinical trials or abandon a program; Øside effects related to our therapeutic candidates experienced by patients or subjects in our clinical trials or by individuals using drugs or therapeutics that we, the FDA, other regulators or others view as relevant to the development of our therapeutic candidates; Ødelays in submitting IND applications or comparable foreign applications or delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators to commence a clinical trial, or a suspension or termination of a clinical trial once commenced; Øconditions imposed by the FDA or comparable foreign authorities regarding the scope or design of our clinical trials, including our clinical endpoints; Ødelays in enrolling subjects in clinical trials, including due to the COVID-19 pandemic; Øhigh drop-out rates of subjects from clinical trials; Øinadequate supply or quality of therapeutic candidates or other materials necessary for the conduct of our clinical trials; Øgreater than anticipated clinical trial costs; Øinability to compete with other therapies; Øpoor efficacy of our therapeutic candidates during clinical trials; Øtrial results taking longer than anticipated; Øtrials being subjected to fraud or data capture failure or other technical mishaps leading to the invalidation of our trials in whole or in part; Øunfavorable FDA or other regulatory agency inspection and review of a clinical trial site; Øfailure 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; Ødelays related to the impact of the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the impact of COVID-19 on the FDA's ability to continue its normal operations; Ødelays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines, including the imposition of additional regulatory oversight around clinical development generally or with respect to our technology in particular; or Øvarying interpretations of data by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies. We do not have complete control over many of these factors, including certain aspects of clinical development and the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and our manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sales efforts or that of any future collaborator.

Our therapeutic candidates are development-stage technologies which require more, complex future development as well as regulatory approval prior to commercialization. It is impossible to fully mitigate the risks associated with bringing forward new technology and developing therapeutic candidates. These therapeutic candidates may fail at any point in development, manufacturing or in clinical trials. Therefore, there is no assurance that any of our therapeutic candidates will be successfully developed, be approved or cleared for sale by regulators, be accepted in the market or be profitable. Any delay or setback in the development of a product-candidate could materially adversely affect us. We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional therapeutic candidates or we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular therapeutic candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on therapeutic candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success. In addition to development risks, we also face the risk that existing or evolving drug regulations may create barriers to licensure that we are unable to overcome, making it impossible for us to license any product we develop. Our therapeutic candidates may fail in clinical trials. We may never achieve the product claims necessary to successfully launch any products commercially. We may not succeed in changing the practice of medicine such that our products are adopted as we anticipate. The data we generate in our clinical programs may not be viewed by physicians as strong enough for them to use and by third-party payers as effective enough for them to reimburse the cost of our products. Further, changes in the practice of medicine may render our approved products obsolete. We also face the risk of: Øcompetitors introducing technologies which render our development efforts or approved products obsolete; Ødata from our clinical trials not being strong enough to support therapeutic approval or the marketing claims needed for market success and to achieve our financial projections; and Øbeing unable to manufacture or supply, or have manufactured or supplied on our behalf, approved products cost-effectively.

We may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for some or all of our current and future product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by FDA may also be eligible for other expedited approval programs, including Accelerated Approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to candidate products considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification. Thus, even though we intend to seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for some or all of our current and future product candidates, there can be no assurance that we will receive Breakthrough Therapy designation.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a therapeutic candidate or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan Drug Designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. 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. After the FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan Drug Designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. If a therapeutic candidate that has obtained Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to Orphan Drug Exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including an NDA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with Orphan Drug Exclusivity or if the FDA finds that the holder of the Orphan Drug Exclusivity has not shown it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. As a result, even if one of our therapeutic candidates receives Orphan Drug Exclusivity, the FDA can still approve other drugs that have a different active ingredient for use in treating the same indication or disease. Furthermore, the FDA can waive Orphan Drug Exclusivity if we are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of the approved product. We have received two Orphan Drug Designations in the U.S. and may pursue additional Designations for other current or future therapeutic candidates in additional orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Even when we obtain Orphan Drug Designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and 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. In addition, although we intend to seek Orphan Drug Designation for other therapeutic candidates, we may never receive such designations. For example, the FDA has expressed concerns regarding the regulatory considerations for Orphan Drug Designation as applied to tissue agnostic therapies, and the FDA may interpret the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder in a way that limits or blocks our ability to obtain Orphan Drug Designation or Orphan Drug Exclusivity, if our therapeutic candidates are approved, for our targeted indications. On August 3, 2017, Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA. FDARA, among other things, codified FDA's pre-existing regulatory interpretation to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive Orphan Drug Exclusivity. The legislation reverses prior precedent holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Moreover, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Congress did not further change this interpretation when it clarified that the interpretation codified in FDARA would apply in cases where FDA issued an orphan designation before the enactment of FDARA, but where product approval came after the enactment of FDARA. FDA may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when, or how FDA may change orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

We have very limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA, and, as a company, we have no experience in obtaining approval of any product-candidate. The time required to obtain FDA and other approvals is unpredictable but typically takes one or more years following completion of clinical trials, depending upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product-candidate. We may encounter delays or rejections during any stage of regulatory review and approval process based upon the failure of clinical or laboratory data to demonstrate compliance with, or upon the failure of a product-candidate to meet, FDA requirements for safety, efficacy and quality. The standards that the FDA and its foreign counterparts use when regulating us are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change. Because the therapeutic candidates we are developing may represent a new class of drug, the FDA and its foreign counterparts have not yet established any definitive relevant policies, practices or guidelines in relation to these therapeutic candidates. The lack of policies, practices or guidelines may hinder or slow review by the FDA of regulatory filings that we may submit. Moreover, the FDA may respond to these submissions by defining requirements we may not have anticipated. Such responses could lead to significant delays in and added costs for the clinical development of our therapeutic candidates. Any analysis of data from preclinical and clinical activities that we perform is subject to confirmation and interpretation by regulatory authorities, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We may also encounter unexpected delays or increased costs due to new government regulations, for example, from future legislation or administrative action, or from changes in FDA policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and FDA regulatory review. 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. In addition, the FDA may delay, limit, or deny approval of an IND or a product-candidate for many reasons, including: Ødisagreement with the design or implementation of clinical trials; Øwe may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA that a product-candidate is safe and effective for any indication; Øwe may be unable to demonstrate that a product-candidate's clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks; Øthe FDA may disagree with our interpretation of data from manufacturing results, preclinical studies or clinical trials; Øthe results of our clinical trials may not demonstrate the safety or efficacy required by the FDA for approval; or Øthe FDA may find deficiencies in our manufacturing processes or facilities; and the FDA's approval policies or regulations may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval. After submission of a New Drug Application, or NDA, the FDA may refuse to review the application, deny approval of the application, require additional testing or data or, if the NDA is filed and later approved, require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of a product. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs. The FDA's timelines are flexible and subject to change based on workload and other potential review issues which may delay FDA's review of an NDA. For example, during the COVID-19 public health emergency, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA's inability to complete required inspections for their applications. FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended. Further, the terms of approval of any NDA, including the product labeling, may be more restrictive than we desire which could affect the marketability of our products. Even if we comply with all FDA regulatory requirements, we may not obtain regulatory approval for any of our product-candidates. If we fail to obtain regulatory approval for any of our product-candidates, we will have no commercialized products for sale and therefore have no ability to general significant, if any, revenue. 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. 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 the labeling or other restrictions. In addition, the FDA has the authority to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, plan as part of or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved product, 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 product and affect reimbursement by third-party payors. We are also subject to numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and 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 United States and vice versa. If we or any 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 products successfully and could harm our reputation and lead to reduced acceptance of our products by the market. Enforcement actions can include, among others: Øadverse regulatory inspection findings; Øwarning letters; Øvoluntary or mandatory product recalls or public notification or medical product safety alerts to healthcare professionals; Ørestrictions on, or prohibitions against, marketing our products; Ørestrictions on, or prohibitions against, importation or exportation of our products; Øsuspension of review or refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications; Øexclusion from participation in government-funded healthcare programs; Øexclusion from eligibility for the award of government contracts for our products; Øsuspension or withdrawal of product approvals; Øproduct seizures; Øinjunctions; and Øcivil and criminal penalties and fines. In addition, if any of our products cause serious or unexpected side effects or are associated with other safety risks after receiving marketing approval, a number of potential significant negative consequences could result, including: Øregulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the product; Øwe may be required to recall the product, change the way it is administered, conduct additional clinical trials or change the labeling of the product; Øthe product may be rendered less competitive and sales may decrease; Ølitigation or class action lawsuits; Øour reputation may suffer generally both among clinicians and patients; or Øregulatory authorities may require certain labeling statements, such as warnings or contraindications or limitations on the indications for use or impose restrictions on distribution in the form of a REMS in connection with approval, if any. We may voluntarily suspend or terminate our clinical trials if at any time we believe that they present an unacceptable risk to participants or if preliminary data demonstrate that our products are unlikely to receive regulatory approval or unlikely to be successfully commercialized.

We have little experience in the development of in vitro diagnostics and, as such, we may rely on future collaborators in developing appropriate in vitro diagnostics to pair with our current or future therapeutic candidates. We have not yet begun discussions with any potential partners with respect to the development of complementary diagnostics and/or companion diagnostics and may be unsuccessful in entering into collaborations for the development of any complementary and/or companion diagnostics for our programs and our current or future therapeutic candidates. In vitro diagnostics are subject to regulation by the FDA and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States as medical devices and require separate regulatory approval or clearance prior to commercialization. If we, our collaborators, or any third-parties that we engage to assist us, are unable to successfully develop complementary diagnostics and/or companion diagnostics for our therapeutic candidates and any future therapeutic candidates, or experience delays in doing so: Øthe development of our therapeutic candidates and any other future therapeutic candidates may be adversely affected if we are unable to appropriately select patients for enrollment in our clinical trials; and Øwe may not realize the full commercial potential of our therapeutic candidates and any other future therapeutic candidates that receive marketing approval if, among other reasons, we are unable to appropriately identify, or it takes us longer to identify, patients who are likely to benefit from therapy with our products, if approved. If any of these events were to occur, our business would be harmed, possibly materially.

Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential therapeutic candidates, yet fail to yield therapeutic candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including: Øour inability to design such therapeutic candidates with the pharmacological properties that we desire or attractive pharmacokinetics; Øour inability to design and develop a suitable manufacturing process; or Øpotential therapeutic candidates may, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be medicines that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. Research programs to identify new therapeutic candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. If we are unable to identify suitable compounds for preclinical and clinical development, we will not be able to obtain product revenue in future periods, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents we may own or license, we seek to rely on trade secret protection, confidentiality agreements, and license agreements to protect proprietary know-how that may not be patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information, or technology that may not be covered by patents. Although we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third- parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, trade secrets can be difficult to protect, and we have limited control over the protection of trade secrets used by our collaborators and suppliers. We cannot be certain that we have or will obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary information. Moreover, any of these parties might breach the agreements and intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights and trade secrets to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the U.S. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the U.S. and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third-parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. If we choose to go to court to stop a third-party from using any of our trade secrets, we may incur substantial costs. These lawsuits may consume our time and other resources even if we are successful. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third-parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third-party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party's relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third-parties except in specific circumstances. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary technology by third-parties. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third-parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Recent patent reform legislation in the U.S. and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act has transformed the U.S. patent system into a "first inventor to file" system. The first-inventor-to-file provisions, however, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not yet clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could make it more difficult to obtain patent protection for our inventions and increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Additionally, there have been recent proposals for additional changes to the patent laws of the U.S. and other countries that, if adopted, could impact our ability to obtain patent protection for our proprietary technology or our ability to enforce our proprietary technology. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, 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 that we might obtain in the future.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest claimed U.S. provisional filing date. Various extensions such as patent term adjustments and/or extensions, may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our therapeutic candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new therapeutic candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

As is common in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, and although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of a former employer or other third-parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and, if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. This type of litigation or proceeding could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other intellectual property related proceedings could adversely affect our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Among the ways we attempt to protect our intellectual property is by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, and outside scientific advisors, contractors and collaborators. These agreements are intended to protect (i) proprietary know-how that may not be patentable or that we may elect not to patent, (ii) processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and (iii) other elements of our technology not covered by patents. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our intellectual property, our employees, consultants, contractors, or outside scientific advisors might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our intellectual property to competitors or others. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access to our intellectual property or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Enforcing a claim that another party illegally obtained and is using any of our intellectual property is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the U.S. sometimes are less willing than U.S. courts to protect intellectual property. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our intellectual property could materially and adversely affect our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on us.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their regular responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing, patient support or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. As noted above, some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace, including compromising our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third-parties, or enter into development collaborations that would help us commercialize our current or future therapeutic candidates, if approved. Any of the foregoing events would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patents and other forms of intellectual property rights, including in-licensing intellectual property rights of others, for our therapeutic candidates, methods used to manufacture our therapeutic candidates and methods for treating patients using our therapeutic candidates, as well as our ability to preserve our trade secrets, to prevent third-parties from infringing our proprietary rights and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others. We and our current or future licensors and licensees may not be able to apply for or prosecute patents on certain aspects of our technologies at reasonable cost, in a timely fashion, or at all. The patent position of oncology companies can be highly uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual questions. There is no guarantee that any of our pending patent applications will result in issued or granted patents, that any of our issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or unenforceable, or that any issued or granted patents will include claims that are sufficiently broad to cover our therapeutic candidates or delivery technologies or provide meaningful protection from our competitors. If third-parties disclose or misappropriate our proprietary rights, it may materially and adversely affect us. While we will endeavor to try to protect our technologies with intellectual property rights such as patents, the process of obtaining patents is time-consuming, expensive and sometimes unpredictable. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the process of pursuing patent coverage. 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 otherwise would have been the case. 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 oncology patents. Moreover, changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws may diminish the value of our intellectual property. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we might have with respect to our proprietary technologies. Further, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States and in industrialized countries generally, a patent expires 20 years after the first claim of priority (or first provisional U.S. patent application). Various limited extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for our technologies, we may be more susceptible to competition, including from generic versions of our therapeutic candidates. Further, the extensive period of time between patent filing and regulatory approval for a product- candidate limits the time during which we can market a product-candidate under patent protection, which may particularly and adversely affect our profitability.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our therapeutic candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third- parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, inter partes review, post grant review, and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may be exposed to, or threatened with, future litigation by third-parties having patent or other intellectual property rights alleging that our therapeutic candidates and/or proprietary technologies infringe their intellectual property rights. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third-parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our therapeutic candidates. As the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our therapeutic candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of drugs, products or their methods of use or manufacture. Thus, because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our fields, there may be a risk that third-parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our therapeutic candidates, technologies or methods. If a third-party claims that we infringe its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including, but not limited to: Øinfringement and other intellectual property claims which, regardless of merit, may be expensive and time-consuming to litigate and may divert our management's attention from our core business; Øsubstantial damages for infringement, which we may have to pay if a court decides that the therapeutic candidate or technology at issue infringes on or violates the third-party's rights, and, if the court finds that the infringement was willful, we could be ordered to pay treble damages and the patent owner's attorneys' fees; Øa court prohibiting us from developing, manufacturing, marketing or selling our therapeutic candidates, or from using our proprietary technologies, unless the third-party licenses its product rights to us, which it is not required to do; Øif a license is available from a third-party, we may have to pay substantial royalties, upfront fees and other amounts, and/or grant cross-licenses to intellectual property rights for our therapeutic candidates and any license that is available may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property; and Øthe need to redesign our therapeutic candidates or processes so they do not infringe, which may not be possible or may require substantial monetary expenditures and time. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and, if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. This type of litigation or proceeding could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. 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. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure.

We have limited intellectual property rights outside the United States. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on therapeutic candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third-parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to oncology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third-parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Our business will depend in large part on obtaining and maintaining patent, trademark and trade secret protection of our proprietary technologies and our therapeutic candidates, their respective components, synthetic intermediates, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop unauthorized third-parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our therapeutic candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents that cover these activities and whether a court would issue an injunctive remedy. If we are unable to secure and maintain patent protection for any product or technology we develop, or if the scope of the patent protection secured is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to commercialize any therapeutic candidates we may develop may be adversely affected. The patenting process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. The patenting process is subject to numerous risks and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining patents for which we have applied. In addition, we may not pursue, obtain, or maintain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from or license to third-parties and are reliant on our licensors or licensees. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical fields involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our therapeutic candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third-parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our technology, including our therapeutic candidates, or prevent others from designing around the claims in our patents. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patent applications we hold with respect to our therapeutic candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our therapeutic candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our therapeutic candidates under patent protection would be reduced. We cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our technology, including our therapeutic candidates, and, if we were not, we may be precluded from obtaining patent protection for our technology, including our therapeutic candidates. Some of the patents that we control were filed prior to March 16, 2013, and are thus based on the "first- inventor-to-invent" criterion. We cannot be certain that we are the first to invent the inventions covered by pending patent applications and, if we are not, we may be subject to priority disputes. Furthermore, for United States applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. Similarly, for United States applications in which at least one claim is not entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, derivation proceedings can be instituted to determine whether the subject matter of a patent claim was derived from a prior inventor's disclosure. We may be required to disclaim part or all of the term of certain patents. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent or patent application claim. There also may be prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. No assurance can be given that if challenged, our patents would be declared by a court to be valid or enforceable or that even if found valid and enforceable, would adequately protect our therapeutic candidates, or would be found by a court to be infringed by a competitor's technology or product. We may analyze patents or patent applications of our competitors that we believe are relevant to our activities and consider that we are free to operate in relation to our therapeutic candidates, but our competitors may achieve issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated, which block our efforts or may potentially result in our therapeutic candidates or our activities infringing such claims. The possibility exists that others will develop products that have the same effect as our products on an independent basis and that do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property rights or will design around the claims of patents that may issue that cover our products. Recent or future patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. Under the enacted Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, after March 2013, the United States moved from a "first-to-invent" to a "first-inventor-to-file" system. Under a "first-inventor-to-file" system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to a patent on the invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The America Invents Act includes a number of other significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and establish a new post-grant review system. The effects of these changes are currently unclear, as the USPTO only recently developed new regulations and procedures in connection with the America Invents Act and many of the substantive changes to patent law, including the "first-inventor-to-file" provisions. In addition, the courts have yet to address many of these provisions and the applicability of the America Invents Act and new regulations on specific patents discussed herein, for which issues have not been determined and would need to be reviewed. However, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example: Øothers may be able to make or use compounds that are similar to the compositions of our therapeutic candidates but that are not covered by the claims of our patents or those of our licensors; Øwe or our licensors, as the case may be, may fail to meet our obligations to the U.S. government in regards to any licensed patents and patent applications invented or developed using U.S. government funding, leading to the loss of patent rights; Øwe or our licensors, as the case may be, might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions; Øothers may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies; Øit is possible that our pending patent applications will not result in issued patents; Øit is possible that there are prior public disclosures that could invalidate our or our licensors' patents, as the case may be, or parts of our or their patents; Øit is possible that others may circumvent our owned or licensed patents; Øit is possible that there are unpublished applications or patent applications maintained in secrecy that may later issue with claims covering our products or technology similar to ours; Øthe laws of foreign countries may not protect our or our licensors', as the case may be, proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States; Øthe claims of our owned or licensed issued patents or patent applications, if and when issued, may not cover our therapeutic candidates; Øour owned or in-licensed issued patents may not provide us with any competitive advantages, may be narrowed in scope, or be held invalid or unenforceable as a result of legal challenges by third-parties; Øthe inventors of our owned or licensed patents or patent applications may become involved with competitors, develop products or processes which design around our patents, or become hostile to us or the patents or patent applications on which they are named as inventors; Øit is possible that our owned or licensed patents or patent applications omit individual(s) that should be listed as inventor(s) or include individual(s) that should not be listed as inventor(s), which may cause these patents or patents issuing from these patent applications to be held invalid or unenforceable; Øwe have engaged in scientific collaborations in the past and expect to continue to do so in the future. Such collaborators may develop adjacent or competing products to ours that are outside the scope of our patents; Øwe may not develop additional proprietary technologies for which we can obtain patent protection; Øit is possible that therapeutic candidates or diagnostic tests we develop may be covered by third- parties' patents or other exclusive rights; or Øthe patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for TTX-MC138 or another product-candidate may require post-marketing surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product and may require us to conduct post-approval clinical studies. The FDA may also require a REMS in order to approve our therapeutic candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our therapeutic candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our therapeutic candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements can include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP and GCP, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval and applicable product tracking and tracing requirements. Compliance with ongoing and changing requirements takes substantial resources and, should we be unable to remain in compliance, our business could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, if we pursue, and ultimately obtain, accelerated approval of TTX-MC138 based on a surrogate endpoint, the FDA would require us to conduct a confirmatory trial to verify the predicted clinical benefit as well as additional safety studies. The results from the confirmatory trial may not support the clinical benefit, which would result in the approval being withdrawn. Manufacturers and their facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any marketing application, and previous responses to inspection observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our therapeutic candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the therapeutic candidate. The FDA may also require a REMS as a condition of approval of our therapeutic candidates, which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our therapeutic candidates, we will have to comply with requirements including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our therapeutic candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, or the making of unsupported claims, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: Ørestrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of our products, withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls; Øfines, warning letters or holds on clinical trials; Ørefusal by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or suspension or withdrawal of approvals; Øproduct seizure or detention or refusal to permit the import or export of our therapeutic candidates; and Øconsent decrees or injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. Products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is not inconsistent with the labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. The policies of the FDA and of other regulatory authorities may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our therapeutic candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

We may seek approval of TTX-MC138 and may seek approval of future therapeutic candidates using the FDA's accelerated approval pathway. A therapeutic candidate may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. In addition, it must demonstrate an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence. In addition, unless it determines otherwise, FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials for products receiving accelerated approval, which could adversely affect the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Thus, even if we seek to utilize the accelerated approval pathway, we may not be able to obtain accelerated approval and, even if we do, we may not experience a faster development, regulatory review or approval process for that therapeutic candidate. In addition, receiving accelerated approval does not assure that the product's accelerated approval will eventually be converted to a traditional approval.

If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the drug sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation for a particular indication. We may seek Fast Track designation for some or all of our current and future product candidates, but there is no assurance that the FDA will grant this status to any of our current or future product candidates. Marketing applications filed by sponsors of products in Fast Track development may qualify for Priority Review under the policies and procedures offered by the FDA, but the Fast Track designation does not assure any such qualification or ultimate marketing approval by the FDA. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant Fast Track designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, and receiving a Fast Track designation does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. In addition, the FDA may withdraw any Fast Track designation at any time.

Among other matters, U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations, which are collectively referred to as Trade Laws, prohibit companies and their employees, agents, clinical research organizations, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors, and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting, or receiving directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of Trade Laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations. We plan to engage third-parties for clinical trials and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals, and we could be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents, or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example, changes to our manufacturing arrangements; additions or modifications to product labeling; the recall or discontinuation of our products; or additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business. In the United States, there have been and likely will continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries. The ACA, among other things, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts from the negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer's outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D. Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in Texas ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the "individual mandate" was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On March 2, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case. On June 17, 2021, the Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. It is unclear how such litigation and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business. In addition, the former Trump administration issued various Executive Orders which eliminated cost sharing subsidies and included provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Additionally, Congress has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. On December 20, 2019, former President Trump signed into law the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1865), which repealed the so called "Cadillac" tax, the health insurance provider tax, and the medical device excise tax. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation's automatic reduction to several government programs, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013, and subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or BBA, will remain in effect through 2030, unless additional congressional action is taken. However, these Medicare sequester reductions were suspended from May 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The BBA also amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, by increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and closing the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the "donut hole." On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our therapeutic candidates. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, the former Trump administration's budget for fiscal year 2021 included a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the former Trump administration sent "principles" for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. The former Trump administration previously released a "Blueprint" to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contained proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule that would allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS's policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. On July 24, 2020, former President Trump signed four Executive Orders aimed at lowering drug prices. The Executive Orders direct the Secretary of HHS to: (1) eliminate protection under an AKS safe harbor for certain retrospective price reductions provided by drug manufacturers to sponsors of Medicare Part D plans or pharmacy benefit managers that are not applied at the point-of-sale; (2) allow the importation of certain drugs from other countries through individual waivers, permit the re-importation of insulin products, and prioritize finalization of the proposed rule to permit the importation of drugs from Canada; (3) ensure that payment by the Medicare program for certain Medicare Part B drugs is not higher than the payment by other comparable countries (depending on whether pharmaceutical manufacturers agree to other measures); and (4) require Federally Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs, participating in the 340B drug program to provide insulin and injectable epinephrine to certain low-income individuals at the discounted price paid by the FQHC, plus a minimal administrative fee. On October 1, 2020, the FDA issued the final rule allowing importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. On August 6, 2020, former President Trump signed an additional Executive Order directing U.S. government agencies to encourage the domestic procurement of Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs, which include among other things, active pharmaceutical ingredients and drugs intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of COVID-19. The FDA has been directed to release a full list of Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs affected by this Order by November 5, 2020. On September 13, 2020, former President Trump signed an Executive Order directing HHS to implement a rulemaking plan to test a payment model, pursuant to which Medicare would pay, for certain high-cost prescription drugs and biological products covered by Medicare Part B, no more than the most-favored-nation price (i.e., the lowest price) after adjustments, for a pharmaceutical product that the drug manufacturer sells in a member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that has a comparable per-capita gross domestic product. Although a number of these and other measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Additionally, on July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order directing the FDA to, among other things, continue to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and identify and address any efforts to impede generic drug competition. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biologic product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our therapeutic candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such therapeutic candidate is prescribed or used. Additionally, we expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any future approved therapeutic candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, cost containment initiatives and additional legislative changes.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval for our therapeutic candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval for TTX-MC138, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product-candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as preclinical studies and clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product-candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we charge for our product is also subject to regulatory approval. We may also submit marketing applications in other countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval of therapeutic candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our therapeutic candidates will be harmed.

Although we do not currently have any drugs on the market, if we begin commercializing our current or future therapeutic candidates, we will be subject to additional healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we conduct our business. Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any current or future therapeutic candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our current or future therapeutic candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following: Øthe federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other hand. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. 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; Øthe federal False Claims Act imposes criminal and civil penalties, including through civil whistle-blower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. In addition, manufacturers can be held liable under the False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to "cause" the submission of false or fraudulent claims. False Claims Act liability is potentially significant in the healthcare industry because the statute provides for treble damages and mandatory penalties. Government enforcement agencies and private whistle-blowers have investigated pharmaceutical companies for or asserted liability under the False Claims Act for a variety of alleged promotional and marketing activities, such as providing free products to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the products; providing consulting fees and other benefits to physicians to induce them to prescribe products; engaging in promotion for "off-label" uses; and submitting inflated best price information to the Medicaid Rebate Program. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items and services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false of fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act; Øthe federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, imposes 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; Øthe federal physician payment transparency requirements, sometimes referred to as the "Sunshine Act" under the ACA require manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies that are reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program to report to the Department of Health and Human Services information related to physician payments and other transfers of value and the ownership and investment interests of such physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and their immediate family members. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners; ØHIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, which also imposes obligations on certain covered entity healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their business associates that perform 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. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys' fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions; and Øanalogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply 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 health care 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 pre-empted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. Ensuring that our future business arrangements with third-parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations, including anticipated activities to be conducted by our sales team, were to be found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

We depend, or may depend in the future, upon third-parties to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, under agreements with universities, medical institutions, CROs, strategic collaborators and others. We expect to have to negotiate budgets and contracts with such third-parties, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely especially heavily on universities, medical institutions, CROs and other third-parties for the conduct of our clinical trials. While we are obligated to ensure compliance by third-parties with clinical trial protocols and other aspects of our clinical trials, and to have mechanisms in place to monitor our clinical trials, the sites at which they are conducted, and the investigators and other personnel involved in our clinical trials, we have limited control over these entities and individuals and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to their compliance with the approved clinical protocol. Our reliance on third- parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards. We and these third-parties are required to comply with GCP requirements for therapeutic candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third-parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to suspend or terminate these trials or perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP requirements. Our failure or any failure by these third-parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients meeting requirements for enrollment in the trial may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third-parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws. Any third-parties conducting aspects of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will not be our employees and, except for remedies that may be available to us under our agreements with such third-parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our preclinical studies and clinical programs. These third-parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other therapeutic development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third-parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the preclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons or if, due to federal or state orders or absenteeism due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they are unable to meet their contractual and regulatory obligations, our development timelines, including clinical development timelines, may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our therapeutic candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our therapeutic candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed. If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or others terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or other third-parties or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO begins work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar 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.

We have very limited manufacturing facilities and personnel. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, primarily on third-parties for the manufacture of TTX-MC138 and any future potential therapeutic candidates that we may develop. There can be no assurance that our preclinical and clinical development product supplies will not be limited or interrupted, or that they will be of satisfactory quality or continue to be available at acceptable prices. For example, the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic impacts our ability to procure sufficient supplies for the development of our therapeutic candidates will depend on the severity and duration of the spread of the virus and the actions undertaken to contain COVID-19 or treat its effects. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, several vaccines for COVID-19 have received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, some of which later received marketing approval. Additional vaccines may be authorized or approved in the future. The resultant demand for vaccines and potential for manufacturing facilities and materials to be commandeered under the Defense Production Act of 1950, or equivalent foreign legislation, may make it more difficult to obtain materials or manufacturing slots for the products needed for our clinical trials, which could lead to delays in these trials. Any replacement of our manufacturer could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. We may be unable to establish additional agreements, or extend existing agreements, with third-party manufacturers or to do so on terms acceptable to us. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including: Øreliance on the third-party for sufficient quantity and quality at acceptable costs which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts; Øthe possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third-party; Øfailure to meet our manufacturing specifications; Øfailure to meet our manufacturing schedule; Ømisappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how; Øthe possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third-party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us; Ødisruptions to the operations of our manufacturers or suppliers caused by conditions unrelated to our business or operations, including the bankruptcy of a manufacturer or supplier; and Øreliance on the third-party for regulatory compliance, quality assurance and safety reporting. Our reliance on others for our manufacturing will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations regarding manufacturing. Our therapeutic candidates and any products that we may develop may compete for access to manufacturing facilities with other therapeutic candidates and products. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate in accordance with cGMP regulations that might be capable of manufacturing for us which could restrict our ability to supply products and, as a result, have a material adverse effect on us. Any of these events could lead to clinical trial delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval or could otherwise adversely affect our ability to commercialize our approved products. Some of these events could be the basis for costly FDA action, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of production. We will have limited control over the day-to-day manufacturing and quality operations of our contract manufacturers. While we intend to ensure vendor management oversight and exercise commercially reasonable efforts to oversee operations and embed our quality system standards and controls in our manufacturing agreements, we will remain subject to the performance of our contract manufacturers. We will be dependent on our suppliers for proper oversight and control of their operations while we will be deemed the responsible party. Our outside manufacturers may themselves rely on other parties that they do not control. Our suppliers might fail to obtain, or experience delays in obtaining, regulatory approvals applicable to the aspects of their business that pertains to us. As a result, the development and commercialization of our products may be delayed. If this occurs, we may need to identify alternative sources of supply which may not be feasible, or which may adversely affect our timelines and financial results. Our dependence upon others for the manufacture of our therapeutic candidates or products may adversely affect our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis. Thus, our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for manufacturing may adversely affect our timelines, our future profit margins or our ability to commercialize any therapeutic candidates that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

The costs of healthcare internationally have risen significantly over the past decade. Numerous initiatives and reform by legislators, regulators and third-party payers to curb these costs have reduced reimbursement rates. One outcome of these dynamics is that hospitals and others are consolidating into larger integrated delivery networks and group purchasing organizations in an effort to reduce administrative costs and increase purchasing power. This consolidation has resulted in greater pricing pressure on suppliers, decreased average selling prices and changes in medical practices. If we secure marketing approval for our therapeutic candidates, our commercial success will be determined by, among other things, our ability to obtain acceptable pricing for approved products which will be subject to, among other things, the factors described above. The expansion of group purchasing organizations, integrated delivery networks and large single accounts among hospitals could also put price pressure on our approved products. We expect that market demand, government regulation, third-party reimbursement policies, government contracting requirements and societal pressures will continue to change the worldwide healthcare industry, resulting in further business consolidations and alliances among our customers and competitors. The result may be further downward pressure on the prices we are able to obtain, thus adversely affecting us. Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our therapeutic candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and others in the medical community.

In addition, inflation rates, particularly in the United States, have increased recently to levels not seen in decades. Increased inflation has resulted in increased operating costs (including our labor costs), and may result in reduced liquidity, and limitations on our ability to access capital, including by raising debt and equity capital. In addition, the United States Federal Reserve has raised interest rates in response to concerns about inflation. Increases in interest rates, especially if coupled with reduced government spending and volatility in financial markets, may further increase economic uncertainty and heighten these risks.

Our overall performance depends, in part, on worldwide economic conditions. In recent months, we have observed increased economic uncertainty in the United States and abroad. Impacts of such economic circumstances include: Øreduced credit availability; Øhigher borrowing costs; Øreduced liquidity; Øvolatility in credit, equity and foreign exchange markets; Ødeclines in equity valuations, especially in the biopharmaceutical sector; and Øbankruptcies. These developments could lead to supply chain disruption, inflation, higher interest rates, and uncertainty about business continuity, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and our results of operations. They are likely to make obtaining equity capital more difficult and more expensive.

To conserve financial resources, we utilize consultants, advisors and other parties for certain functions including regulatory affairs, clinical trials, medical practice issues, product management and human resources. If other parties are not available to provide services through completion of our programs at the time we require their services, or if the expertise we require is not readily available, the development and commercialization of our therapeutic candidates may be delayed.

Many factors are expected to influence the sales cycle for our approved products. These factors include the future state of the market, the perceived value of our therapeutic candidates, the evolution of competing technologies, insurance coverage or prior authorization requirements and changes in medical practices. Any of these may adversely affect our sales cycles and the rate of market acceptance of our approved products.