Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. (AKBA) Business

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company with two commercial products for patients impacted by kidney disease. We have built a business focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics that we believe serve as a foundation for future growth, including by contributing net product revenue to support the development and advancement of our robust pipeline of mid-stage programs targeting rare kidney diseases and early-stage programs targeting kidney disease and non-kidney focused indications.

We have established the Company as a leader in the kidney community and believe our cross-organizational expertise in kidney disease positions us for success. Chronic kidney disease, or CKD, is a condition in which the kidneys are progressively damaged to the point that they cannot properly filter the blood circulating in the body. This damage causes waste products to build up in the patient’s blood, leading to other health problems, including anemia, cardiovascular disease and bone disease. CKD significantly impacts the United States, or U.S., healthcare system, potentially affecting approximately 35.5 million patients. In 2022, in the U.S. treating Medicare beneficiaries with CKD cost an estimated $95.7 billion, and treating people on dialysis cost an estimated $45.3 billion. Our two commercial products address certain complications of kidney disease.

Our current product portfolio includes:

Vafseo® (vadadustat) is an orally administered medicine that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, in March 2024 for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in adult patients on dialysis for at least three months. The current U.S. market opportunity for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in patients with dialysis is approximately $1 billion based on current erythropoiesis stimulating agent, or ESA, pricing. Vafseo is the only oral hypoxia inducible factor, or HIF, based treatment available in the U.S. Vafseo entered the market in January 2025, at which time we had commercial supply agreements for the purchase of Vafseo in place with dialysis organizations caring for nearly 100% of dialysis patients in the U.S. Throughout 2025, we worked closely with dialysis organizations as their medical teams developed, implemented and operationalized protocols to enable prescribers to write Vafseo prescriptions for clinically appropriate patients. Currently, approximately 290,000 dialysis patients in the U.S. have prescribing access to Vafseo.

Vafseo is approved for use in adults in 37 countries and is marketed in certain countries outside the U.S. by our partners. See the section titled, "License and Collaboration Agreements" for details.

Auryxia® (ferric citrate) is an orally administered medicine approved and marketed in the U.S. for two indications: (1) the control of serum phosphorus levels in adult patients with dialysis dependent chronic kidney disease, or DD-CKD, and (2) the treatment of iron deficiency anemia, or IDA, in adult patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease, or NDD-CKD.

Today, we market Auryxia in the U.S. Auryxia became part of our portfolio in 2018 and has historically contributed meaningful revenue to the business. In March 2025, Auryxia reached loss of exclusivity, or LoE. On January 22, 2026, Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd., or Teva, received tentative approval for its Abbreviated New Drug Application for Auryxia. Currently, there is only one authorized generic for Auryxia sold by our distributor, but we expect additional generic competition in 2026. If additional generics are approved and enter the market, we expect it will adversely impact our revenue.

Ferric citrate is approved for use and marketed in certain countries outside the U.S. by our partners. See the section titled "License and Collaboration Agreements" for details.

Our development pipeline includes:

Our mid-stage rare kidney disease pipeline assets, praliciguat and AKB-097, are being evaluated to target areas of unmet need. In June 2021, we licensed praliciguat from Cyclerion Therapeutics, Inc., or Cyclerion, via an exclusive global license, which includes certain intellectual property rights to research, develop and commercialize the asset. Praliciguat is an oral, once-daily soluble guanylate cyclase, or sGC, stimulator. We are evaluating praliciguat for the treatment of biopsy-confirmed focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, or FSGS, a rare kidney disease, in a Phase 2 clinical trial. The first patient was dosed in this trial in December 2025. We also plan to assess the use of praliciguat in other rare podocytopathies in the future.

In November 2025, we entered into an asset purchase agreement with Q32 Bio Inc. and Q32 Bio Operations Inc., together Q32, pursuant to which we purchased and assumed substantially all assets and liabilities of Q32 and its

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 6

Table of Contents

affiliates related to the research, development, manufacture and commercialization of Q32’s clinical-stage development candidate known as ADX-097, now referred to as AKB-097, an anti-C3d-Factor H fusion protein complement inhibitor. AKB-097 is a potential next-generation complement inhibitor, and we believe AKB-097 has applicability across a wide range of complement-mediated rare kidney diseases. AKB-097 is intended to provide targeted regulation of complement activation at sites of tissue injury while limiting systemic complement inhibition. We expect to initiate a Phase 2 basket study in the second half of 2026 to evaluate AKB-097 for the following indications: IgA Nephropathy, or IgAN; C3 Glomerulopathy, or C3G; and Lupus Nephritis, or LN.

Our early-stage pipeline assets include AKB-9090 and AKB-10108, which are HIF molecules. We plan to initially evaluate AKB-9090 for the treatment of cardiac surgery-related acute kidney injury, or CS-AKI, and we expect to initiate a Phase 1 study in healthy volunteers in the first half of 2026. We may also study AKB-9090 in acute respiratory distress syndrome, or ARDS, as well as other acute treatment indications. AKB-10108 will potentially be evaluated for retinopathy of prematurity, or ROP, in neonates, and other indications, and is currently in preclinical development.

We continue to explore additional commercial and development opportunities to expand our pipeline and portfolio of novel therapeutics through both internal research and external innovation to leverage our fully integrated team.

Strategy

Our deep understanding of kidney disease helps us serve the unmet needs of kidney patients and others impacted by chronic and debilitating illness. Our commitment to patients informs our business decisions and short and long-term planning. There is a clear need to improve quality of life and clinical outcomes of people living with kidney disease. The progression of CKD towards renal failure is complicated by multiple conditions which further deteriorate kidney function and the general health of patients if left untreated.

With two revenue-generating products and the research and development capabilities to discover, advance and commercialize new therapies, we continue to work toward our purpose to better the lives of those impacted by kidney disease.

Our strategic imperatives are threefold:

1.Drive Vafseo to be standard of care for the treatment of anemia due to CKD for patients on dialysis in the U.S. In January 2025, Vafseo became available in the U.S. for adult patients with anemia due to CKD on dialysis for at least three months. As of December 31, 2025, nearly 1,000 total prescribers from 24 different dialysis organizations have written a Vafseo prescription for a patient. To accomplish our goal to make Vafseo standard of care, we continue to work towards increasing prescribing access to Vafseo, as well as the breadth and depth of prescribing among dialysis organizations with prescribing access. We also continue to generate data that we believe could identify additional clinical benefits of Vafseo compared to the current standard of care, ESAs.

2.Build on our commitment to those impacted by kidney disease. We plan to continue to support the commercial availability of Auryxia and advance our rare kidney disease pipeline. We currently have two mid-stage programs that we plan to evaluate for multiple rare kidney diseases. We expect to continue to enroll patients in a Phase 2 clinical trial of praliciguat for the treatment of FSGS. We also plan to initiate a Phase 2 basket study in the second half of 2026 to evaluate AKB-097 in IgAN, C3G and LN. We expect to report initial data from this study in 2027. We also expect to initiate a Phase 1 study of AKB-9090 in healthy volunteers in the first half of 2026. AKB-9090, the first product candidate from our internal discovery efforts, is targeted initially for development in CS-AKI.

3.Create a future for Akebia beyond kidney disease. We intend to leverage our robust discovery, research and development expertise in HIF biology gained through the development of Vafseo, to advance our early pipeline assets.

We also plan to continue to explore strategic growth opportunities that further our strategic imperatives and continue our approach of financial discipline, cross-organizational efficiency and operational effectiveness.

Drive Vafseo to be Standard of Care in the Treatment of Anemia due to CKD for Patients on Dialysis in the U.S.

Anemia is common in patients with CKD, and its prevalence increases with disease progression. Anemia due to CKD results from inadequate erythropoietin, or EPO, levels, negatively affecting red blood cell production. Left untreated, anemia accelerates the overall deterioration of patient health with increased morbidity and mortality. According to the U.S. Renal Data System 2025 Annual Data Report, there were more than 558,000 patients in the U.S. on dialysis by the end of 2023, of which approximately 85% were on in-center hemodialysis and the remainder on home dialysis, which includes both peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 7

Table of Contents

The current standard of care for anemia due to CKD is treatment by injectable recombinant human ESAs such as Epogen® (epoetin alfa), Aranesp® (darbepoetin alfa) or Mircera® (methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta). Patients could also receive a blood transfusion. When administered to a patient, injectable ESAs provide supraphysiological levels of exogenous EPO to stimulate production of red blood cells, or RBCs. While injectable ESAs can be effective in raising hemoglobin levels, they have the potential to cause significant side effects and need to be injected subcutaneously or intravenously.

The current market opportunity for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in adult patients on dialysis is approximately $1 billion in the U.S. based on current ESA pricing. We believe there is a significant opportunity for Vafseo to become standard of care for the treatment of anemia due to CKD for adult patients on dialysis.

Vafseo is an oral HIF, prolyl hydroxylase, or HIF-PH inhibitor, that stimulates the body's natural response to hypoxia. Through activation of the HIF pathway, Vafseo stimulates the body's natural production of EPO and improves mobilization of stored iron to help dialysis patients with CKD manage their anemia. Our data from the INNO2VATE trials show Vafseo corrected and maintained hemoglobin within target range through a gradual increase over time with evidence of fewer hemoglobin overshoots. Our clinical data showed that Vafseo has a safety profile similar to the ESA standard of care. These findings contribute to why we believe Vafseo offers a compelling choice for physicians for anemia management. Upon Vafseo approval, we implemented a launch plan to commercialize Vafseo for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in adult patients on dialysis to make Vafseo available in the U.S. beginning in January 2025. Prior to availability in the U.S., we completed critical commercialization initiatives, including securing reimbursement for Vafseo under the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, or TDAPA, and securing access to Vafseo for patients through commercial supply agreements with dialysis organizations.

Medications covered under the end-stage renal disease, or ESRD, Prospective Payment System, or PPS, in Medicare are known as the ESRD Bundle, a payment structure with a flat base rate per dialysis session adjusted for individual patient and facility characteristics. Dialysis-related drugs are included in the ESRD Bundle if they fall into functional categories such as anemia management. The TDAPA provides separate payment for new drugs for two years based on the drug’s average sales price that is in addition to the base rate in the bundle to facilitate the adoption of innovative therapies. Vafseo met the criteria for TDAPA in the anemia management ESRD PPS functional category beginning on January 1, 2025. The TDAPA program provides two years of reimbursement for Vafseo in addition to the ESRD bundled rate to dialysis organizations.

Most dialysis clinics operate within dialysis organization networks, the largest of which are DaVita, Inc., or DaVita, Fresenius KidneyCare Group LLC, or Fresenius, and U.S. Renal Care, or USRC. Together with Dialysis Clinic, Inc. or DCI, and Innovative Renal Care, or IRC, these top five U.S. dialysis organizations treat 82% of the total dialysis patient population. Following Vafseo's U.S. approval, we engaged with dialysis organizations and group purchasing organizations to secure commercial supply agreements for Vafseo. Prior to the availability of Vafseo in the U.S. in January 2025, we had contracts in place with dialysis organizations caring for nearly 100% of dialysis patients.

Treatment is usually driven by medical protocols that dialysis organizations implement across their entire network of clinics. With commercial supply contracts in place, our medical team worked closely with dialysis organization medical professionals, and the dialysis organizations developed protocols for the use of Vafseo in appropriate patient populations. When implemented, protocols can facilitate uptake in prescriptions for the patient population covered by the protocol. In 2025, several dialysis organizations developed, implemented and operationalized protocols, enabling prescribing access. Currently, approximately 290,000 patients on dialysis in the U.S. have prescribing access to Vafseo through protocols operationalized at dialysis organizations.

We are aware that some of these dialysis organizations continue to add or refine their protocols. For instance, both USRC and IRC added a protocol for the use of Vafseo with observed dosing for in-center patients as a result of the recommendations of each dialysis organization’s medical professionals, based in part on efficacy and safety data for vadadustat when dosed three times weekly. The process of refining or adding protocols at dialysis organizations that already have a protocol in place continues, while other dialysis organizations are working to implement an initial protocol for Vafseo.

Today, we have an established and embedded commercial team with approximately 35 key account managers, or KAMs, supported by our commercial operations and national accounts teams. In 2025, in parallel with protocol development, our KAMs continued to detail Vafseo to prescribers. In 2026, the KAMs will continue to engage providers at dialysis organizations with Vafseo prescribing access with the goal of increasing the breadth and depth of prescriptions. Nephrologists have identified home dialysis patients as a particularly underserved patient group given that injectable ESAs, which are typically used by this patient segment, are cumbersome. We anticipate Vafseo near-term adoption in this patient population, particularly among dialysis organizations that do not have an observed dosing protocol in place.

Effective commercialization provides the foundation for a new treatment to potentially become the standard of care. We also rely on our medical affairs team to share data and engage in scientific exchange with prescribers, key medical experts and other medical professionals within dialysis organizations. In addition to currently available data related to Vafseo, we believe

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 8

Table of Contents

it is also important to generate additional data to educate physicians on potential clinical benefits and differentiation as they make care decisions.

In November 2025, Glenn M. Chertow, M.D., M.P.H., Professor of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, presented a post-hoc win-odds analysis of all-cause mortality and hospitalization from the Phase 3 INNO2VATE trials of vadadustat at the American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week 2025. The analysis demonstrated favorable and statistically significant effects of Vafseo relative to the ESA darbepoetin alfa on the composite endpoint of death and hospitalization. A win-odds analysis is a statistical method used to analyze clinical trial data to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments. It provides a novel way to measure treatment effect by comparing the number of wins and losses for the treatment and control group in studies that prioritized multiple outcomes. In June 2025, enrollment was completed in the Vafseo Outcomes In-Center Experience, or VOICE, collaborative clinical trial being conducted with USRC. Approximately 2,100 patients were randomized to oral Vafseo 300 mg tablets administered three times per week or epoeitin alpha, an ESA. The primary endpoint is the win-odds hierarchical analysis of all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization, the same endpoint that was analyzed in the win-odds analysis of the Phase 3 INNO2VATE trials. The VOICE trial was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority for the primary endpoint. We expect to report top-line data from the VOICE trial in early 2027.

We also initiated the VOCAL trial, a post-marketing study conducted within DaVita clinics, to generate data to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three times per week dosing of vadadustat compared to standard of care ESA in patients with anemia of CKD receiving in-center hemodialysis. 353 patients have been enrolled, and top-line data from the VOCAL trial is expected in late 2026. The VOCAL trial includes a sub-study of 27 patients from three clinics who will have blood samples collected and analyzed over the course of a 6-month treatment period. One major factor contributing to the anemia of CKD patients is reduced RBC quality. The intent of the sub-study is to better understand the impact of Vafseo on RBC characteristics compared to ESA treatment.

We previously completed the FO2CUS study and the MO2DIFY study which both evaluated alternative dosing. See Part I, Item 1, Clinical Development Programs, for additional information on the FO2CUS study and the MO2DIFY study.

We believe there is an unmet need for an oral treatment for patients with anemia due to CKD who are not on dialysis. We planned to conduct the VALOR clinical trial for the use of vadadustat to treat anemia in patients with late-stage CKD not on dialysis. However, following a Type C meeting with the FDA in October 2025, we believe that, based on the FDA feedback, regulatory alignment on a path forward for the design of the VALOR trial would require a significantly larger number of patients than proposed, and accordingly would require meaningfully more time and cost to complete than we anticipated. As a result, we announced in October 2025 that we do not plan to initiate the VALOR trial and, therefore, will not pursue a broad label for Vafseo for CKD non-dialysis dependent patients. We continue to engage with the FDA regarding smaller subpopulations of CKD non-dialysis dependent patients where we believe we may be able to align on a potential path forward. Based on our communications to date, however, we remain cautious about a path forward.

Build on our Commitment to People Impacted by Kidney Disease

We believe our leadership in the kidney community and deep understanding of the CKD market creates a competitive advantage to develop and commercialize therapeutics for kidney disease, including rare kidney diseases. We market Auryxia in the U.S., which launched in December 2014.

Auryxia – An oral treatment for hyperphosphatemia and iron deficiency anemia

Hyperphosphatemia is a metabolic disorder characterized by elevated serum phosphorus levels. Phosphorus is a vital element required for most cellular processes and, in individuals with normal kidney function, excess dietary phosphorus is removed by the kidneys and excreted in urine. In adults on dialysis, elevated phosphorus levels, or hyperphosphatemia, can be associated with adverse effects, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease, bone disease and death. According to the U.S. Renal Data System 2023 Annual Data Report, in 2021 there were approximately 541,000 patients in the U.S. on dialysis, of which approximately 81% were treated with a phosphate binder. Phosphate binders and phosphate inhibitors are the only interventions marketed for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia.

IDA is a common form of anemia that is caused by patients not having enough iron to manufacture healthy RBCs. Although anyone can develop IDA, it is particularly common in patients with CKD not on dialysis. IDA is associated with fatigue, lethargy, decreased quality of life, cardiovascular complications, hospitalizations and increased mortality. We estimate there are more than 500,000 adult patients in the U.S. with CKD not on dialysis diagnosed with IDA and managed by a nephrologist. Currently, there are two forms of iron therapy used to treat IDA: oral iron supplements and iron delivered via intravenous infusion, or IV.

Auryxia, an oral-only phosphate binder, was included in the ESRD PPS bundle payment beginning in January 2025, representing a shift, as Auryxia was previously covered by Medicare under Part D and commercial channels. In addition, dialysis organizations will receive a TDAPA payment for claims that include phosphate binders through

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 9

Table of Contents

2026. After two years, CMS will adjust the bundle price based on the amount spent on phosphate binders during that time and no longer include an extra TDAPA payment in claims. We enabled broad access to Auryxia by executing contracts with dialysis organizations that care for nearly 100% of patients on dialysis in the U.S. and deliver Auryxia directly to dialysis organizations or to their distribution partners. In March 2025 Auryxia reached LoE. On January 22, 2026, Teva received tentative approval for its Abbreviated New Drug Application for Auryxia. Currently, there is only one authorized generic for Auryxia sold by our distributor, but we expect additional generic competition in 2026. If additional generics are approved and enter the market, we expect it will adversely impact our revenue.

We also leverage our research and development competency to address areas of unmet medical need and have invested resources to build our mid-stage rare kidney disease pipeline.

Praliciguat – An oral soluble sGC stimulator being studied in a Phase 2 trial for FSGS

FSGS is a condition characterized by focal and segmental scarring in the kidney’s filtering units known as glomeruli. At least 40,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with FSGS, which can cause various symptoms including high blood pressure and the presence of too much protein in urine (known as proteinuria), and approximately 50% of FSGS patients will progress to kidney failure. Currently, there are no FDA-approved drugs indicated for FSGS, although an endothelin receptor blocker is in development and under review by the FDA. Treatments such as steroids, other immunosuppressives and antihypertensives may slow kidney failure progression caused by FSGS. Since FSGS is heterogenous in nature, we expect more than one therapy may be needed to fully address the needs of FSGS patients, and a combination of therapies may have a beneficial impact for FSGS patients.

Praliciguat is a sGC stimulator licensed from Cyclerion Therapeutics, Inc. since June 2021. sGC is an enzyme that catalyzes the synthesis of cyclic guanosine 3’,5’-monophosphate in response to nitric oxide, or NO, binding. In the kidney, this pathway influences the structure and function of podocytes, highly specialized cells in the kidney’s glomerulus, protecting podocytes from injury, foot process effacement, and cell loss. Praliciguat amplifies endogenous NO signaling to stimulate this pathway.

Data from nonclinical studies of praliciguat in kidney disease models showed praliciguat protected glomerular structure, inhibited fibrosis, inhibited inflammation, preserved kidney function and lowered blood pressure. In a Phase 2 trial of praliciguat in patients with diabetic kidney disease, or DKD, data demonstrated a reduction in the urinary albumin creatinine ratio, or UACR, in the modified intent-to-treat population. We evaluated praliciguat in two animal models of FSGS either as a monotherapy or in combination with renin-angiotensin system, or RAS, inhibitors. Data demonstrated that praliciguat synergized with the RAS inhibitor, which is standard of care, to preserve podocyte health, reducing glomerulosclerosis. Data also demonstrated that praliciguat administered in addition to the standard of care showed improvement in renal function and lessened proteinuria. No significant safety issues were observed with praliciguat in Phase 1 studies in healthy volunteers and Phase 2 studies in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and DKD. Praliciguat adverse events were infrequent and consistent with its known blood pressure lowering effect.

Importantly, through efforts of the PARASOL (Proteinuria and GFR as Clinical Trial Endpoints in FSGS) Project, an initiative co-sponsored by NephCure, the International Society of Glomerular Disease, the FDA, the Kidney Health Initiative, and the National Kidney Foundation, the FDA accepted proteinuria as an approvable endpoint for FSGS clinical trials.

In December 2025, we initiated a Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of praliciguat in adults with biopsy-confirmed FSGS. Approximately 60 patients who are currently receiving maximally tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or ACEi, or an angiotensin receptor blocker, or ARB, will be randomized 1:1 to receive either praliciguat or a placebo for an initial 24-week treatment period. Following this double-blind period, all patients will receive praliciguat in the open-label portion of the study for an additional 24 week treatment period. The primary endpoint is defined as change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, or UPCR, measured at week 24. The secondary endpoint is defined as the percentage of patients with partial remission at week 24 (measured as a 40% reduction in UPCR and UPCR1.5 gram/gram). The first patient in the study was dosed in December 2025.

AKB-097 – Anti-C3d-Factor H fusion protein complement inhibitor

AKB-097 is an investigational recombinant fusion protein designed to modulate activation of the alternative pathway of the complement system. The complement system is a component of innate immunity that, when dysregulated, has been implicated in certain inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, including multiple kidney disorders.

AKB-097 consists of a monoclonal antibody directed against C3d, a degradation fragment of complement component C3 that remains deposited at sites of complement activation, genetically fused to regulatory domains derived from human Factor H. Factor H is a naturally occurring negative regulator of the alternative complement pathway. By

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 10

Table of Contents

binding to deposited C3d, AKB-097 is designed to localize Factor H regulatory activity to sites of tissue complement activation. Factor H promotes dissociation of alternative pathway C3 and C5 convertases and, together with Factor I, mediates inactivation of C3b, thereby limiting further complement amplification.

AKB-097 is intended to provide targeted regulation of complement activation at sites of tissue injury while limiting systemic complement inhibition. However, this tissue-targeting hypothesis has not been clinically validated, and there can be no assurance that AKB-097 will demonstrate safety or efficacy in clinical trials.

In preclinical studies conducted by Q32, AKB-097 demonstrated tissue distribution consistent with its mechanism of action and pharmacodynamic effects on markers of complement activation. In a completed Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy volunteers, AKB-097 was generally well tolerated, and anti-drug antibodies were observed at low incidence. These early-stage data are limited, and results in healthy volunteers may not be predictive of outcomes in patients with complement-mediated diseases.

We plan to initiate a Phase 2 open label basket study in the second half of 2026 that is expected to enroll multiple cohorts. In the basket study, we plan to evaluate AKB-097 for:

•C3G, an ultra-rare complement-mediated kidney disease with an estimated incidence of 1-3 cases per million people in the U.S.

•IgAN, chronic immune-mediated kidney disease characterized by proteinuria and risk of progressive kidney function decline, with a U.S. prevalence range of 198,887 - 208,184 persons.

•LN, a kidney manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus, or SLE, clinically evident in 50-60% of the approximately 200,000 people with SLE in the U.S.

The primary objectives of the planned study are expected to include evaluation of safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and effects on disease-relevant biomarkers, including proteinuria and measures of kidney function. We expect to report initial data from this study in 2027, subject to enrollment rates, regulatory interactions, and other development factors.

Our commitment to people impacted by kidney disease motivates our team to explore the potential to treat additional kidney-related diseases and injury. Our early-stage pipeline includes AKB-9090, a HIF-based product candidate that we believe could be appropriate as a potential acute care treatment for use in CS-AKI.

Cardiac Surgery-related Acute Kidney Injury

AKI is a sudden decline in the ability of the kidneys to perform their normal functions. AKI occurs in many settings including 20-30% of the approximately two million patients worldwide who undergo cardiac surgery with the use of cardio-pulmonary bypass each year. There are no current treatments available for CS-AKI. Stabilization of HIF by prolyl hydroxylase inhibition leads to the release of erythropoietin, a shift to anaerobic metabolism (glycolysis) and decreased inflammatory responses that collectively lessen kidney ischemia-reperfusion injury and ameliorate the decline in kidney function seen in many clinical settings including CS-AKI. Data from our preclinical studies showed AKB-9090 to be highly active in lessening the severity of AKI in an animal model of ischemia-reperfusion injury. We expect to initiate a Phase 1 trial of AKB-9090 in the first half of 2026.

Create a Future for Akebia in Kidney Disease and Beyond

Our expertise in HIF science enables our research and development team to further examine the central role of oxygen sensing in many diseases. As we have seen through the development of Vafseo as a treatment for anemia due to CKD, when stabilized, HIF triggers wide-ranging adaptive, protective responses during hypoxic or ischemic conditions. In addition to studying AKB-9090 in CS-AKI, we expect to explore its potential use in ARDS. AKB-10108 is a second early-stage HIF-based product candidate in our pipeline. We are exploring AKB-10108 for potential use in ROP.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)

ARDS is a life-threatening acute form of lung disease characterized by acute bilateral pulmonary edema and severe hypoxemia (low blood oxygen). Despite improvement in supportive care, a third-party study indicated high hospital mortality rates for patients with ARDS admitted to participating intensive care units. The mortality rate among patients with ARDS in the study was: 34.9% with mild ARDS; 40.3% with moderate ARDS and 46.1% with severe ARDS. There are currently no treatments available for ARDS except for supportive care. Stabilization of HIF by prolyl hydroxylase inhibition leads to the release of erythropoietin, increased extracellular adenosine signaling, increased glycolytic activity and decreased inflammation in lung epithelial cells that promote resolution of the lung injury. In earlier studies, vadadustat lessened the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia in a clinical trial (NCT04478071) and improved outcomes in animal models of acute lung injury. In addition, the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston initiated a Phase 2 study (NCT07086755) to assess the efficacy and safety of vadadustat for treating

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 11

Table of Contents

hospitalized patients with non-intubated ARDS secondary to pathogen-associated lung injury. We intend to leverage existing data and potential data from the current Phase 2 study to potentially support clinical development of AKB 9090 for ARDS.

Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP)

ROP is the leading cause of blindness in preterm infants globally and occurs due to incomplete retinal development and abnormal blood vessel growth in the retina. ROP is caused by the high-oxygen therapy used to treat preterm babies, which prevents retina growth. Annually, there are approximately 100,000 new cases of infant blindness worldwide due to ROP and currently no preventative therapy. HIF-PH inhibitors can protect the retina by stabilizing HIF, which degrades during hyperoxia, allowing normal retinal development and preventing abnormal blood vessel growth that can lead to scarring, bleeding, retinal detachment and blindness. Data from our preclinical studies of AKB-10108 in mouse and rat models of ROP showed significant improvements in retinal development under hyperoxic conditions, as well as significant reductions in abnormal blood vessel growth after returning to normal oxygen levels.

Clinical Development Programs

Below is a summary of the clinical development work completed for vadadustat.

Vadadustat Global Phase 3 Clinical Program in Anemia Due To CKD

We conducted a global Phase 3 clinical development program for vadadustat, which included two programs, INNO2VATE and PRO2TECT. INNO2VATE evaluated vadadustat in adult DD-CKD patients with anemia due to CKD in two studies, and PRO2TECT evaluated vadadustat in adult NDD-CKD patients with anemia due to CKD in two studies. Combined, we enrolled approximately 7,500 patients in these studies and evaluated a once daily oral dosing of vadadustat against an injectable ESA active comparator, darbepoetin alfa.

Both the INNO2VATE and PRO2TECT Phase 3 programs were global, multicenter, open-label, sponsor-blind, active-controlled non-inferiority programs. In both programs, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either oral vadadustat or injectable darbepoetin alfa. The primary efficacy endpoint for each study in the INNO2VATE and PRO2TECT programs was the mean change in hemoglobin between baseline and the primary evaluation period. Non-inferiority, or NI, for the primary efficacy endpoint was achieved if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the between-group difference of the mean hemoglobin change did not fall below the pre-specified NI margin. Both the INNO2VATE and PRO2TECT programs included the primary safety endpoint of the assessment of MACE, with a comparison of vadadustat to darbepoetin alfa. MACE is defined as the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke. The primary safety analysis for each program was based on the combined MACE events from the two studies in each of INNO2VATE and PRO2TECT. NI for the primary safety analysis was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio, or HR, of vadadustat to darbepoetin alfa did not exceed the pre-specified NI margin. We prospectively defined and agreed to non-inferiority margins with the U.S. and European regulatory authorities and agreed with the U.S. regulatory authorities on the key components of our statistical analysis plan.

Top-line Results from Global Phase 3 INNO2VATE Program within DD-CKD Adult Patients

The two INNO2VATE studies (Correction/Conversion and Conversion), which collectively enrolled 3,923 patients, evaluated the efficacy and safety of vadadustat versus darbepoetin alfa for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in DD-CKD adult patients.

Vadadustat achieved the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoint in each of the two INNO2VATE studies, demonstrating non-inferiority to darbepoetin alfa as measured by a mean change in hemoglobin, or Hb, between baseline and the primary evaluation period (weeks 24 to 36) and secondary evaluation period (weeks 40 to 52). Vadadustat also achieved the primary safety endpoint of the INNO2VATE program, defined as non-inferiority of vadadustat versus darbepoetin alfa in time to first occurrence of MACE across both INNO2VATE studies.

Vadadustat achieved the INNO2VATE program’s primary safety endpoint of non-inferiority for MACE. In the primary analysis of time to first MACE event, vadadustat demonstrated non-inferiority to darbepoetin alfa using a non-inferiority margin of 1.25 based on discussion with the FDA and a non-inferiority margin of 1.3 based on discussion with the EMA. INNO2VATE results on key secondary safety endpoints showed that vadadustat also demonstrated non-inferiority to darbepoetin alfa in analyses of expanded MACE, cardiovascular MACE, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Top-line Results from Global Phase 3 PRO2TECT Program within NDD-CKD Adult Patients

The two PRO2TECT studies (Correction and Conversion), which collectively enrolled 3,476 patients, evaluated the efficacy and safety of vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in NDD-CKD adult patients.

Vadadustat achieved the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoint in each of the two PRO2TECT studies, demonstrating non-inferiority to darbepoetin alfa as measured by a mean change in Hb between baseline and the primary evaluation period

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 12

Table of Contents

(weeks 24 to 36) and secondary evaluation period (weeks 40 to 52). Vadadustat did not meet the primary safety endpoint of the PRO2TECT program, defined as non-inferiority of vadadustat versus darbepoetin alfa in time to first occurrence of MACE, across both PRO2TECT studies.

Primary and Key Secondary Efficacy Endpoint Results

Vadadustat achieved each of the PRO2TECT studies' primary efficacy endpoints of mean change in Hb between baseline and the primary evaluation period compared to darbepoetin alfa, in adult patients on dialysis, demonstrating non-inferiority to darbepoetin alfa using an NI margin of -0.75 g/dL.

In PRO2TECT's Correction study (n=1,751):

•Primary Efficacy Endpoint Result: Vadadustat was non-inferior to darbepoetin alfa. The least square mean difference in Hb was 0.05 g/dL (95% CI: -0.04, 0.15), achieving the pre-specified NI criterion of -0.75 g/dL. The mean (SD) Hb level at week 24 to week 36 was 10.39 (0.99) g/dL for vadadustat-treated patients compared to 10.35 (1.03) g/dL for darbepoetin alfa-treated patients.

•Key Secondary Efficacy Endpoint Result: Vadadustat sustained the target Hb efficacy response at weeks 40 to 52 achieving non-inferiority compared to darbepoetin alfa. The least square mean difference in Hb was 0.04 g/dL (95% CI: -0.06, 0.14). The mean (SD) Hb level at week 40 to week 52 was 10.48 (1.05) g/dL for vadadustat-treated patients compared to 10.45 (1.01) g/dL for darbepoetin alfa-treated patients.

In PRO2TECT's Conversion study (n=1,725):

•Primary Efficacy Endpoint Result: Vadadustat was non-inferior to darbepoetin alfa. The least square mean difference in Hb was -0.01 g/dL (95% CI: -0.09, 0.07), achieving the pre-specified NI criterion of -0.75 g/dL. The mean (SD) Hb level at week 24 to week 36 was 10.77 (0.98) g/dL for vadadustat-treated patients compared to 10.77 (0.99) g/dL for darbepoetin alfa-treated patients.

•Key Secondary Efficacy Endpoint Result: Vadadustat sustained efficacy in the Conversion study demonstrating non-inferiority to darbepoetin with a least square mean difference in Hb of 0.00 g/dL (95% CI: -0.10, 0.09). The mean (SD) Hb level at week 40 to week 52 was 10.80 (1.04) g/dL in the vadadustat-treated patients compared to 10.79 (1.05) g/dL for darbepoetin alpha-treated patients.

Primary Safety Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) Endpoint Result

The PRO2TECT program (Correction and Conversion studies) (n=3,471):

•Primary Safety MACE Endpoint Result: Vadadustat did not meet the PRO2TECT program's primary safety endpoint of non-inferiority for MACE. The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the HR was above the pre-specified NI margin of 1.25 for primary MACE analysis (HR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.36).

Analysis of MACE events conducted by the Company in the PRO2TECT program revealed that the greater number of MACE events observed among vadadustat patients as compared to the active comparator was primarily related to an excess of non-cardiovascular death and death-of-unknown-cause in regions outside of the U.S. where significant differences in treatment patterns for NDD-CKD patients were observed.

The PRO2TECT analysis plan was prospectively designed to analyze the effect of regional differences, most notably, well-known differences in Hb treatment targets. Within PRO2TECT, U.S. patients were treated to a target Hb range of 10 to 11 g/dL and non-U.S. patients were treated to a target Hb range of 10 to 12 g/dL. In October of 2020, we presented a pre-specified regional analysis that showed vadadustat was not associated with a clinically meaningful increase in cardiovascular risk compared to darbepoetin alfa in U.S. patients treated to a target Hb range of 10 to 11 g/dL, in an analysis of MACE (HR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.29).

The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, during the Correction study in the vadadustat-treated patients was 90.9%, and 91.6% in darbepoetin alfa-treated patients. During the study, the most common TEAEs reported in vadadustat/darbepoetin alfa-treated patients were end-stage renal disease (34.7%/ 35.2%), hypertension (17.7%/ 22.1.%), hyperkalemia (12.3.%/ 15.6%), urinary tract infection (12.9%/ 12.0%), diarrhea (13.9%/ 10.0%), peripheral oedema (12.5%/ 10.5%), fall (9.6%/ 10%) and nausea (10%/ 8.2%). Serious TEAEs were 65.3% for vadadustat-treated patients and 64.5% for darbepoetin alfa-treated patients. The incidence of TEAEs during the Conversion study in vadadustat treated patients was 89.1% and 87.7% in darbepoetin alfa-treated patients. During the study, the most common TEAEs reported in vadadustat/darbepoetin alfa-treated patients were end-stage renal disease (27.5%/ 28.4%), hypertension (14.4%/ 14.8%), urinary tract infection (12.2%/ 14.5%), diarrhea (13.8.%/ 8.8.%), peripheral oedema (9.9%/ 10.1%) and pneumonia (10.0%/ 9.7%). Serious TEAEs were 58.5% for vadadustat-treated patients and 56.6% for darbepoetin alfa-treated patients.

Hepatic Safety Profile of Vadadustat in Clinical Studies

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 13

Table of Contents

During the conduct of our Phase 3 program our team and hepatic experts analyzed hepatic cases (unblinded to treatment). Further, following the completion of our global Phase 3 clinical program for vadadustat, there was a review of hepatic safety across the vadadustat clinical program, which included eight completed Phase 2 and 3 studies in NDD-CKD patients, 10 completed Phase 1, 2, and 3 studies, and two then-ongoing Phase 3b studies in DD-CKD patients, and 18 completed studies in healthy subjects (17 Phase 1 and one Phase 3). This review consisted of a blinded re-assessment of hepatic events conducted by a separate panel of hepatic experts. While hepatocellular injury attributed to vadadustat was reported in less than 1% of patients, there was one case of severe hepatocellular injury with jaundice, and we cannot guarantee that similar events will not happen in the future. In the clinical review of our NDA in March 2024, the FDA concluded that there is a hepatocellular injury risk with the use of vadadustat in patients with CKD, although the risk of serious liver injury appears rare.

Modified Dosing Studies

From May 2020 to January 2023, we also conducted additional studies of vadadustat evaluating a modified approach to a once-daily and three-times weekly dosing, including assessment of a vadadustat starting dose based on an individual’s pre-conversion ESA dose prior to study entry and higher titration doses of vadadustat (up to 1200 mg).

The FO2CUS study evaluated the efficacy and safety of vadadustat in hemodialysis patients who were converted from a long-acting ESA to three-times weekly oral vadadustat dosing for the maintenance treatment of anemia. FO2CUS was an open-label, active-controlled, sponsor-blinded study that evaluated 456 hemodialysis patients who were randomized (1:1:1) into a vadadustat 600mg starting dose, vadadustat 900mg starting dose, or a long-acting ESA (Mircera®) treatment arms.

The MO2DIFY study evaluated the efficacy and safety of vadadustat in hemodialysis patients using a modified once-daily dosing regimen different from the INNO2VATE program dosing and a three-times-weekly dosing regimen of oral vadadustat compared to darbepoetin alfa.

FO2CUS Study

Primary and Secondary Efficacy Endpoint Results

In the FO2CUS study, each vadadustat starting dose regimen (600 mg, 900 mg) and the combined vadadustat-treated group achieved the primary efficacy endpoint of the mean change in Hb between baseline and the primary evaluation period (weeks 20-26) compared to Mircera in adult patients on hemodialysis, demonstrating non-inferiority to Mircera based on a non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL. Similarly, each starting dose regimen of vadadustat and the combined vadadustat-treated group achieved the secondary efficacy endpoint of the mean change in Hb between baseline and the secondary evaluation period (weeks 46-52).

In the FO2CUS study in hemodialysis patients (n=456):

•Primary Efficacy Endpoint Results: Vadadustat demonstrated non-inferiority to Mircera. The least square mean difference in Hb was -0.43 g/dL (-0.67, -0.20) for the vadadustat 600 mg starting dose group, -0.23 g/dL (-0.46, 0.01) for the vadadustat 900 mg starting dose group, and -0.33 g/dL (-0.53, -0.13) for the combined vadadustat-treated group, achieving the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL. The mean Hb level during the primary evaluation period was 10.11 (0.061) g/dL for the combined vadadustat-treated group compared to 10.41 (0.068) g/dL for Mircera-treated group.

•Secondary Efficacy Endpoint Results: Vadadustat demonstrated non-inferiority to Mircera. The least square mean difference in Hb was -0.27 g/dL (-0.54, -0.00) for the vadadustat 600 mg starting dose group, -0.38 g/dL (-0.67, -0.10) for the vadadustat 900 mg starting dose group, and -0.33 g/dL (-0.56, -0.09) for the combined vadadustat-treated group. The mean Hb level during the secondary evaluation period was 10.03 (0.066) g/dL for the combined vadadustat-treated group compared to 10.28 (0.076) g/dL for the Mircera-treated group.

Safety Results

In the FO2CUS study, a total of 78.7% of patients experienced any TEAEs in the combined vadadustat-treated group, and 75.3% experienced any TEAEs in the Mircera-treated group. The data demonstrated that 44.5% of patients experienced any serious TEAEs in the combined vadadustat-treated group, and 44.7% of patients experienced any serious TEAEs in the Mircera-treated group. During the study, the most common TEAEs reported in vadadustat-/Mircera- treated patients were COVID-19 (14.6%/16.0%), diarrhea (12.3%/8.0%) and hyperkalaemia (9.0%/10.7%).

MO2DIFY Study

Primary and Secondary Efficacy Endpoint Results

In the MO2DIFY study, the vadadustat once-daily, or QD, treatment (starting dose: 300 or 450 mg) achieved the primary efficacy endpoint of the mean change in Hb from baseline to the primary evaluation period (weeks 20-26) compared to darbepoetin alfa in adult patients on hemodialysis, demonstrating non-inferiority to darbepoetin alfa based on a non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL. Vadadustat three-times-weekly, or TIW, treatment (starting dose: 600 or 750) did not

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 14

Table of Contents

demonstrate noninferiority to darbepoetin alfa. Based on a sensitivity analysis using the per protocol population, both vadadustat dosing regimens demonstrated noninferiority to darbepoetin alfa of the mean change in Hb between baseline and the primary evaluation period.

Neither dosing regimen of vadadustat achieved the secondary efficacy endpoint of the mean change in Hb between baseline and the secondary evaluation period (weeks 46-52).

In the MO2DIFY study in hemodialysis patients (n=319):

•Primary Efficacy Endpoint Results: Vadadustat QD treatment was non-inferior to darbepoetin alfa. The least square mean difference in Hb was -0.27 g/dL (-0.55, 0.01) for the vadadustat QD-treated group, meeting the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL. The least square mean difference in Hb was -0.53 g/dL (-0.80, -0.25) for the vadadustat TIW-treated group. The mean Hb level during the primary evaluation period was 10.23 (1.07) g/dL and 10.02 (0.87) g/dL for the vadadustat QD and vadadustat TIW groups respectively, compared to 10.45 (0.83) g/dL for the darbepoetin alfa group.

•Secondary Efficacy Endpoint Results: The secondary efficacy endpoint was the change in average Hb between baseline and the secondary evaluation period (Weeks 46 to 52). The least square mean difference in Hb was -0.40 g/dL (-0.79, -0.02) for the vadadustat QD-treated group and -0.42 g/dL (-0.81, -0.02) for the vadadustat TIW-treated group. Since noninferiority for the secondary efficacy endpoint of vadadustat TIW to darbepoetin alfa was not established, no claims of noninferiority were made for the secondary efficacy endpoint.

•Other efficacy Endpoint: The proportion of subjects with an average Hb value within the target range (US [10.0 to 11.0 g/dL] and Europe [10.0 to 12.0 g/dL]) was similar in the vadadustat QD, vadadustat TIW and darbepoetin alfa treatment groups during the primary evaluation period (weeks 20 to 26) (51.0%, 50.7%, and 54.5%, respectively) and secondary evaluation period (weeks 46 to 52) (50.4%, 48.3%, and 51.3%, respectively).

Safety Results

Among all randomized patients who received at least one dose of the study medication (n=317), 84.8% and 84.6% of patients in the vadadustat QD and TIW groups, respectively, experienced any TEAEs, compared to 80.6% in the darbepoetin alfa group. The data showed that 44.8% of patients in the vadadustat QD group and 45.2% in the vadadustat TIW group experienced any treatment-emergent serious adverse events, compared to 43.5% of patients in the darbepoetin alfa group. The most commonly reported TEAEs in patients treated with vadadustat QD, vadadustat TIW, and darbepoetin alfa were COVID-19 (13.3%, 12.5%, and 13.0% respectively), diarrhea (13.3%, 14.4%, and 5.6% respectively), and anemia (7.6%, 10.6%, and 9.3% respectively).

Manufacturing and Supply

Overview

We neither own nor operate, and currently have no plans to own or operate, any manufacturing or distribution facilities. We rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to produce all of our preclinical, clinical and commercial supply, and third-party distributors to distribute Auryxia and Vafseo. We have established relationships with several CMOs and expect to continue to rely on either existing or alternative CMOs and distributors to manufacture or distribute our products to support ongoing and planned preclinical, clinical and commercial distribution activities. Our CMOs have other clients and may have other priorities that could affect manufacturing line capacity and/or delivery schedules. Both of these occurrences would be beyond our control. All clinical and commercial supplies are manufactured under current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMPs, which is a regulatory requirement for the production of pharmaceuticals that will be used in humans.

We utilize third parties for the commercial distribution of Auryxia and Vafseo, including wholesale distributors and certain specialty pharmacy providers. We have also engaged Cardinal Health, Inc., as the exclusive third-party logistics distribution agent for commercial sales of Auryxia and Vafseo. The third-party logistics distribution agent provides services to us that include storage, distribution, processing product returns, customer service support, logistics support, electronic data interface and system access support.

Vafseo

We currently rely on suppliers for the direct manufacture of our drug substance and drug product for clinical and commercial supply of Vafseo. We have entered into supply agreements with STA Pharmaceutical Hong Kong Limited, or STA, for the manufacture of Vafseo drug substance and drug product for commercial use and Patheon Inc. for the manufacture of Vafseo drug product for commercial use. We plan to mitigate potential commercial supply risks for Vafseo, if any, through inventory management and we may enter into additional manufacturing arrangements for both drug substance and drug product. For more information about our manufacturing agreements for Vafseo, see Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 15

Table of Contents

and Note 10, Commitments and Contingencies, to our consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

Vadadustat is a small molecule. The synthesis of vadadustat is reliable and reproducible from starting materials available from multiple sources at commercially relevant scale using no unusual manufacturing equipment. Vadadustat is formulated into compressed tablets using proprietary processes. As with any supply program, obtaining raw materials and finished drug product of the required quality and quantity cannot be guaranteed, and we cannot ensure that we will be successful in this endeavor.

Auryxia

The active pharmaceutical ingredient of Auryxia, ferric citrate, is a small molecule. The synthesis of ferric citrate is reliable and reproducible from starting materials available from multiple sources at a commercial scale. Ferric citrate is formulated into compressed tablets using proprietary manufacturing processes. As with any supply program, obtaining raw materials and finished drug product of the required quality and quantity cannot be guaranteed, and we cannot ensure that we will be successful in this endeavor.

We have established CMO relationships for the supply of Auryxia to help ensure that we will have sufficient material for ongoing commercial sales and clinical trials. We currently rely on single-source suppliers for the manufacture of our drug substance and drug product for clinical and commercial supply of Auryxia, including to supply our authorized generic. The drug substance for Auryxia is supplied by Siegfried Evionnaz SA, or Siegfried, pursuant to a supply agreement, as amended, with pricing structured on a per-kilogram basis. Auryxia drug product is supplied by Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC (Thermo Fisher) pursuant to a Master Manufacturing Service Agreement with per-bottle pricing structured on a tiered basis, with the price reduced as the product volume increases. The supply agreement with Siegfried requires that we satisfy certain minimum purchase requirements, but we are not obligated to use Siegfried as our exclusive supplier. For more information about our manufacturing agreements for Auryxia, see Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Note 10, Commitments and Contingencies, to our consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

License and Collaboration Agreements

Vafseo License and Collaboration Agreements

Medice License Agreement

On May 24, 2023, or the Medice Effective Date, we entered into a License Agreement, or the Medice License Agreement, with Medice, under which we granted to Medice an exclusive license to develop and commercialize Vafseo for the treatment of anemia in adult patients with chronic kidney disease in the European Economic Area, or EEA, UK, Switzerland and Australia, or the Medice Territory.

Under the Medice License Agreement, we received an up-front payment of $10.0 million and are eligible to receive the following payments:

(i)     commercial milestone payments up to an aggregate of $100.0 million, and

(ii)     tiered royalties ranging from 10% to 30% of Medice's annual net sales of Vafseo in the Medice Territory, subject to reduction in certain circumstances.

The royalties will expire on a country-by-country basis upon the latest to occur of (i) the date of expiration of the last-to-expire valid claim of ours, Medice or joint patent that covers Vafseo in such country in the Medice Territory, (ii) the date of expiration of data or regulatory exclusivity for Vafseo in such country in the Medice Territory and (iii) the date that is 12 years from first commercial sale of Vafseo in such country in the Medice Territory.

Under the Medice License Agreement, we retain the right to develop Vafseo for non-dialysis patients with anemia due to CKD in the Medice Territory. If we develop Vafseo for non-dialysis patients and Vafseo receives marketing approval for non-dialysis patients in the Medice Territory, Medice will commercialize Vafseo for both indications in the Medice Territory. In this instance, we would receive 70% of the net product margin of any sales of Vafseo in the non-dialysis patient population, unless Medice requests to share the cost of the development necessary to gain approval to market Vafseo for non-dialysis patients in the Medice Territory and the parties agree on alternative financial terms.

We and Medice established a joint steering committee to oversee the development and commercialization of Vafseo in the Medice Territory.

The Medice License Agreement expires on the date of expiration of all payment obligations due thereunder with respect to Vafseo in the last country in the Medice Territory, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms of the Medice License Agreement. Either party may, subject to a cure period, terminate the Medice License Agreement in the event of the

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 16

Table of Contents

other party's uncured material breach. Medice has the right to terminate the Medice License Agreement in its entirety for convenience upon twelve months' prior written notice delivered on or after the date that is twelve months after the Medice Effective Date.

The Medice License Agreement includes customary terms relating to, among others, indemnification, confidentiality, remedies, and representations and warranties.

On September 13, 2024, we entered into a supply agreement, or the Medice Supply Agreement, with Medice under which we supply Vafseo drug product to Medice for commercial and developmental use in the Medice Territory.

On November 12, 2025, we entered into Amendment #1 to the Medice License Agreement, or the Medice Amendment, with Medice. Pursuant to the Medice Amendment, we agreed to supply vadadustat drug substance, or the Drug Substance, to Medice pursuant to the terms of a supply agreement dated concurrently with the Medice Amendment and granted Medice the right to manufacture Vafseo tablets using the Drug Substance to be supplied by us. In addition, the Amendment provides that any know-how or patent rights arising out of Medice’s manufacture of Vafseo tablets will be owned by us.

TPC Collaboration Agreement

In December 2015, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Tanabe Pharma Corporation, or TPC, formerly known as Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, as amended, or the TPC Agreement, providing TPC with exclusive development and commercialization rights to Vafseo in Japan and certain other Asian countries, or the TPC Territory. In addition, we supply Vafseo to TPC for both clinical and commercial use in the TPC Territory, and TPC has the option to manufacture commercial drug product in the TPC Territory. On July 15, 2020, we entered into a supply agreement with TPC for the commercial supply of Vafseo for use in Japan and certain other Asian countries, as contemplated by the TPC Agreement, which was amended effective as of December 5, 2022.

Unless earlier terminated, the TPC Agreement will continue in effect on a country-by-country basis until the later of the following: (i) expiration of the last-to-expire patent covering Vafseo in such country in the TPC Territory; (ii) expiration of marketing or regulatory exclusivity in such country in the TPC Territory; or (iii) ten years after the first commercial sale of Vafseo in such country in the TPC Territory. TPC may terminate the TPC Agreement upon twelve months’ notice. Either party may terminate the TPC Agreement upon the material breach of the other party that is not cured within a specified time period or upon the insolvency of the other party.

Under the terms of the TPC Agreement, we are eligible to receive payments from TPC of up to approximately $225.0 million in the aggregate based on the achievement of certain development, regulatory and sales milestones, as well as tiered royalty payments ranging from 13% to 20% on annual net sales of Vafseo in the TPC Territory, subject to reduction upon launch of a generic product on a country-by-country basis.

In February 2021, we entered into a royalty interest acquisition agreement with HealthCare Royalty Partners IV, L.P., or HCR, whereby we sold our right to receive royalties and sales milestones for Vafseo in Japan and certain other Asian countries in the TPC territory under the TPC Agreement, subject to certain caps and other terms and conditions. For more information on our royalty interest acquisition agreement with HCR, see Note 8, Liability Related to Settlement Royalties, Working Capital Fund Liability and Liability Related to Sale of Future Royalties, to our consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Form 10-K.

CSL Vifor Agreements

On February 18, 2022, we entered into a Second Amended and Restated License Agreement, or the Vifor License Agreement, with Vifor (International) Ltd. (now a part of CSL Limited), or CSL Vifor, which amended and restated the License Agreement dated as of May 12, 2017. The Vifor License Agreement granted CSL Vifor an exclusive license to sell Vafseo to Fresenius Medical Care North America and its affiliates, including Fresenius Kidney Care Group LLC, to certain third-party dialysis organizations approved by us, to independent dialysis organizations that are members of certain group purchasing organizations and certain non-retail specialty pharmacies, collectively, the Supply Group, in the U.S.

The Vifor License Agreement was structured as a profit share arrangement between us and CSL Vifor in which we would receive approximately 66% of the profits, net of certain pre-specified costs. CSL Vifor made an upfront payment to us of $25.0 million in February 2022 in connection with the amendment and restatement of the Vifor License Agreement. In addition, we entered into certain investment agreements with CSL Vifor, pursuant to which we sold CSL Vifor an aggregate of 7,571,429 shares of our common stock for a total of $70.0 million. The shares have not been registered pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and were issued and sold in reliance upon the exemption from registration contained in Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Rule 506 promulgated thereunder as the transaction did not involve any public offering within the meaning of Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 17

Table of Contents

On July 10, 2024, we and CSL Vifor entered into the Vifor Termination and Settlement Agreement, or the Vifor Termination Agreement, pursuant to which we and CSL Vifor agreed, among other things, to terminate, effective immediately, the Vifor License Agreement.

Pursuant to the terms of the Vifor Termination Agreement, we will pay CSL Vifor decreasing quarterly tiered royalty payments ranging from a high single-digit percentage of our net sales of Vafseo up to $450.0 million to mid-single digit percentage of our net sales of Vafseo above $450.0 million, in each case, in the U.S. during a calendar year, or the Settlement Royalty Payments. The Settlement Royalty Payments commenced upon the first sale of Vafseo by us to a third party for use in the U.S., and will continue until the later of the (i) expiration of the last-to-expire valid claim listed in the FDA Orange Book that would be infringed by the making, using, selling or importing of Vafseo in the U.S. or (ii) the expiration of marketing or regulatory exclusivity for Vafseo in the U.S., or the Settlement Royalty Term. Beginning on July 1, 2027 and throughout the Settlement Royalty Term, we have the option to make a one-time payment to CSL Vifor, or the Royalty Buy-Down Option, upon which the Settlement Royalty Payments will be adjusted as of the date of exercise of the Royalty Buy-Down Option such that we will then only pay CSL Vifor quarterly royalty payments based on a mid-single digit percentage of our net sales of Vafseo up to $450.0 million in the U.S. during a calendar year in lieu of the above Settlement Royalty Payments. If we exercise the Royalty Buy-Down Option, the WCF Royalty Payments, as described below, will continue.

The WCF Royalty Payments, as described below, the Settlement Royalty Payments and the Royalty Buy-Down Option are in consideration for the termination of the Vifor License Agreement and all obligations thereunder, and the covenants and agreements set forth in the Vifor Termination Agreement, including the settlement and release of all disputes and claims which could arise from the Vifor License Agreement.

Pursuant to the Vifor License Agreement, CSL Vifor contributed $40.0 million to a working capital facility, or Working Capital Fund, established to partially fund our costs of purchasing Vafseo from our contract manufacturers. On May 3, 2024, we and CSL Vifor entered into Amendment #1 to the Vifor License Agreement, or the Vifor Amendment. Pursuant to the Vifor Amendment, and as modified by the Vifor Termination Agreement, we and CSL Vifor agreed to modify the method of repayment of the Working Capital Fund such that the Working Capital Fund will be repaid through quarterly tiered royalty payments ranging from 8% to 14% of our net sales of Vafseo in the U.S., or the WCF Royalty Payments. The WCF Royalty Payments commenced on July 1, 2025, and will continue until the earlier of (i) the cumulative total of the WCF Royalty Payments equals $40.0 million, or (ii) May 31, 2028, or the WCF Royalty Term. The WCF Royalty Payments are subject to minimum true-up milestones of $10.0 million, $20.0 million and $40.0 million, or the WCF Royalty True-Up Payments, on each of May 31, 2026, May 31, 2027 and May 31, 2028, respectively, or the WCF Royalty True-Up Dates. If the cumulative total of the WCF Royalty Payments paid to CSL Vifor on any given WCF Royalty True-Up Date is less than the respective WCF Royalty True-Up Payment, we will pay CSL Vifor a one-time payment equal to the difference between the WCF Royalty True-Up Payment and the cumulative total of the WCF Royalty Payments paid by us through such WCF Royalty True-Up Date.

Auryxia License and Collaboration Agreements

Averoa License Agreement

On December 22, 2022, we and Averoa entered into a license agreement, or Averoa License Agreement, pursuant to which we granted to Averoa an exclusive license to develop and commercialize ferric citrate, or Averoa Licensed Product, in the EEA, Turkey, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and in August 2024, we also granted Averoa an exclusive license to develop and commercialize ferric citrate in the Balkans and certain countries in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, or collectively, the Averoa Territory. We and Averoa have established a joint steering committee to oversee the development, manufacturing and commercialization of the Averoa Licensed Product in the Averoa Territory. In April 2024, Averoa submitted its marketing authorization application for ferric citrate in Europe. In March 2025, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency adopted a positive opinion recommending the European Commission, or EC, approve Averoa’s marketing authorization, which the EC granted in June 2025. In November 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, granted Averoa's UK marketing authorization. However, Averoa has not yet obtained pricing authorization nor commenced sales of ferric citrate in Europe or the UK.

Under the Averoa License Agreement, we are entitled to receive tiered, escalating royalties ranging from a mid-single digit percentage to a low double-digit percentage of Averoa's annual net sales of the Averoa Licensed Product in the Averoa Territory, including certain minimum royalty amounts in certain years, and subject to reduction in certain circumstances. The royalties will expire on a country-by-country basis upon the last to occur of (a) ten years following the date of first commercial sale of the Licensed Product in such country; (b) expiration of the last valid claim of our patent rights and joint patent rights in such country; and (c) the date of expiration of the data, regulatory, or marketing exclusivity period conferred by the applicable regulatory authority in such country with respect to the Licensed Product. As of December 31, 2025, we have not received any royalties under this agreement.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 18

Table of Contents

The Averoa License Agreement expires on the date of expiration of all royalty obligations due thereunder with respect to the Averoa Licensed Product on a country-by-country basis in the Averoa Territory, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the Averoa License Agreement.

The Averoa License Agreement provides that we and Averoa will enter into a supply agreement pursuant to which we will supply the Averoa Licensed Product to Averoa for commercial use in the Averoa Territory. We have not yet entered into a supply agreement with Averoa.

Sublicense Agreement with Japan Tobacco Inc. and Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

In September 2007, we entered into a Sublicense Agreement with JT and Torii, under which JT and Torii obtained the exclusive sublicense rights for the development and commercialization of ferric citrate in Japan. Effective June 8, 2009, we entered into an Amended and Restated Sublicense Agreement, which was amended in June 2013, or the Revised Agreement, with JT and Torii.

In January 2014, JT and Torii received manufacturing and marketing approval of ferric citrate from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Ferric citrate hydrate, which launched in May 2014 and is being marketed in Japan by Torii under the brand name Riona, is indicated as an oral treatment for the improvement of hyperphosphatemia in patients with CKD, including NDD-CKD and DD-CKD. In July 2019, JT and Torii, reported positive top-line results from a pivotal Phase 3 comparative study evaluating Riona for the treatment of IDA in adult patients in Japan, which was approved in March 2021. In May 2020, JT and Torii filed an application for approval of IDA as an additional indication for Riona in Japan. Under the terms of the Revised Agreement with JT and Torii, we are eligible to receive royalty payments based on a tiered low double-digit percentage of net sales of Riona in Japan inclusive of amounts that we must pay to Panion & BF Biotech, Inc., or Panion, on JT and Torii’s net sales of Riona under the Panion Amended License Agreement, subject to certain reductions upon expiration or termination of the Panion Amended License Agreement, and may also receive up to an additional $55.0 million upon the achievement of certain annual net sales milestones. We recorded $5.7 million in license revenue related to royalties earned on net sales of Riona in Japan during the year ended December 31, 2025.

The sublicense under the Revised Agreement terminates upon the expiration of all underlying patent rights. Also, JT and Torii may terminate the Revised Agreement with or without cause upon at least six months prior written notice to us. Additionally, either party may terminate the Revised Agreement for cause upon 60 days’ prior written notice after the breach of any uncured material provision of the Revised Agreement, or after certain insolvency events.

License Agreement with Panion & BF Biotech, Inc.

On April 17, 2019, we and Panion entered into a second amended and restated license agreement, or the Panion Amended License Agreement, which amended and restated in full the license agreement between us and Panion. The Panion Amended License Agreement provides us with an exclusive license under Panion-owned know-how and patents covering the rights to sublicense, develop, make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and export ferric citrate worldwide, excluding certain Asian Pacific countries, or the Licensor Territory. The Panion Amended License Agreement also provides Panion with an exclusive license under our patents covering the rights to sublicense (with our written consent), develop, make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and export ferric citrate in certain countries in the Licensor Territory. Consistent with the Panion License Agreement, under the Panion Amended License Agreement, Panion is eligible to receive from us or any sublicensee royalty payments based on a mid-single digit percentage of net sales of ferric citrate in our licensed territories. We are eligible to receive from Panion or any sublicensee royalty payments based on a mid-single digit percentage of net sales of ferric citrate in Panion’s licensed territories.

The Panion Amended License Agreement terminates upon the expiration of each of our and Panion’s obligations to pay royalties thereunder. In addition, we may terminate the Panion Amended License Agreement (i) in its entirety or (ii) with respect to one or more countries in our licensed territory, in either case upon 90 days’ notice. We and Panion also each have the right to terminate the Panion Amended License Agreement upon the occurrence of a material breach of the Panion Amended License Agreement by the other party, subject to certain cure provisions, or certain insolvency events. The Panion Amended License Agreement also provides that, on a country-by-country basis, during the term and until the second anniversary of the expiration of our or Panion’s obligation, as applicable, to pay royalties in a country in which such party has ferric citrate for sale on the date of such expiration, neither the other party nor its affiliates will, directly or indirectly, sell, distribute or otherwise commercialize or supply or cause to supply ferric citrate to a third party for sale or distribution in such country. In addition, the Panion Amended License Agreement provides that each of us and Panion has the right, but not the obligation, to conduct litigation against any infringer of certain patent rights under the Panion Amended License Agreement in certain territories.

During the year ended December 31, 2025, we recorded $11.3 million in royalties due to Panion relating to the sales of Auryxia in the U.S. and JT and Torii net sales of Riona in Japan.

Cyclerion Therapeutics License Agreement

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 19

Table of Contents

In June 2021, we entered into a license agreement, or the Cyclerion Agreement, with Cyclerion under which Cyclerion granted us an exclusive global license under certain intellectual property rights to research, develop and commercialize praliciguat, an investigational oral sGC stimulator.

Under the terms of the Cyclerion Agreement, we paid $3.0 million in cash upfront to Cyclerion and expensed the amount to research and development, or R&D, expense in June 2021. In December 2024, we amended the terms of the Cyclerion Agreement, or the Cyclerion Amendment, pursuant to which we paid an additional $1.25 million in cash upfront to Cyclerion and we paid an additional $0.5 million to Cyclerion in September 2025. In addition, we and Cyclerion agreed to the reduction of certain development milestones and the increase of certain royalty rates on net sales and sublicense income. We now control all clinical and commercial manufacturing of praliciguat, which will be conducted by a third party manufacturer. As of April 2025, we also control patent prosecution and pay intellectual property costs. In February 2026, pursuant to the terms of the Cyclerion Amendment, upon the first patient dosed in a Phase 2 clinical trial in the U.S. for a product, we paid a $1.0 million regulatory milestone payment to Cyclerion.

In addition, Cyclerion is eligible to receive up to an aggregate of $197.5 million from us in additional specified development and regulatory milestone payments on a product-by-product basis. Cyclerion will also be eligible to receive specified commercial milestones as well as tiered royalties ranging from a mid-single-digit percentage to twenty percent of net sales, on a product-by-product basis, and subject to reduction upon expiration of patent rights or the launch of a generic product in the territory.

Unless earlier terminated, the Cyclerion Agreement will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the last royalty term, which ends upon the longest of (i) the expiration of the patents licensed under the Cyclerion Agreement, (ii) the expiration of regulatory exclusivity for such product and (iii) 10 years from first commercial sale of such product. We may terminate the Cyclerion Agreement in its entirety or only with respect to a particular licensed compound or product upon 180 days' prior written notice to Cyclerion. We and Cyclerion also have customary termination rights, subject to a cure period, in the event of the other party’s material breach of the Cyclerion Agreement or in the event of certain additional circumstances.

Q32 Asset Purchase Agreement

On November 28, 2025, or the APA Closing Date, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement, or the Q32 Purchase Agreement, with Q32, pursuant to which we purchased and assumed from Q32 substantially all assets and liabilities of Q32 and its affiliates related to the research, development, manufacture and commercialization of Q32’s clinical-stage development candidate known as ADX-097, now referred to as AKB-097, worldwide for the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of any disease or condition in humans. AKB-097, which has been evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy volunteers, is a tissue-targeted C3d-Factor H fusion protein complement inhibitor with the potential to treat rare kidney diseases.

Under the terms of the Q32 Purchase Agreement, we (i) made an upfront payment in an amount equal to $7.0 million on the APA Closing Date, (ii) will make an additional upfront payment in an amount equal to $3.0 million on the sixth-month anniversary of the APA Closing Date, (iii) will make certain milestone payments upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestone events related to AKB-097 up to an aggregate amount equal to $94.5 million, including a $2.0 million development milestone payment upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 clinical trial and December 31, 2026, (iv) will make certain milestone payments upon the achievement of specified commercial milestone events with respect to the net sales of AKB-097 up to an aggregate amount equal to $487.5 million, and (v) will make certain royalty payments based on the net sales of AKB-097 with royalty percentage tiers ranging from the low single digits to mid-teen percentages. The royalties will expire on a country-by-country basis on the later to occur of (a) the date of expiration of the last-to-expire valid claim of any transferred patent right that covers such product in such country, and (b) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such product.

Intellectual Property

The proprietary nature of, and protection for, our products, product candidates and our discovery programs, processes and know-how are important to our business. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. Additionally, we may benefit from a variety of statutory frameworks in the U.S., Europe and other countries that provide periods of non-patent-based exclusivity for qualifying molecules.

Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection of our current products as well as current and future product candidates, methods of their use and the methods used to develop and manufacture them, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using,

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 20

Table of Contents

selling, offering to sell or importing our products depends on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents that cover these activities. We cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our product candidates, discovery programs and processes. Even once patents successfully issue, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability, inventorship, or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held not infringed or unenforceable. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property” in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Individual patents extend for varying periods of time depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued from applications filed in the U.S. are effective for 20 years from the earliest filing date of a U.S. non-provisional application or an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period, however, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest international filing date. Patent term recapture for loss of term as a result of the regulatory review period is available in some foreign jurisdictions. In the U.S., a patent’s term may also be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier‑filed patent.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretations of patent laws in the U.S. and other countries can diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth or enforceability of claims that may be granted in our patents or in third-party patents. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary position for our drugs and technology will depend on our success in obtaining effective claims and enforcing those claims once granted. We do not know whether any of the patent applications that we may file or license from third parties will result in the issuance of any patents. The issued patents that we own or license or may receive or acquire in the future may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to independently develop and commercialize similar drugs or duplicate our technology, business model or strategy without infringing our patents. Because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a drug we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our drugs can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent. The patent positions for vadadustat and Auryxia are summarized below.

Vadadustat Patent Portfolio

We hold 19 issued patents covering the composition of matter, polymorph, method of treating anemia, pharmaceutical compositions of vadadustat, and processes for manufacturing vadadustat in the U.S. and additional patents issued or pending in many other major jurisdictions worldwide, including Europe, Japan, China, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Israel and India. The expected expiration dates for these patents are between 2027 and 2039 plus any extensions or adjustments of term available under national law.

We also hold patents and patent applications directed to starting materials and intermediates in the processes for manufacturing vadadustat, dosing regimens, formulations and various other aspects relating to the treatment of anemia using vadadustat that are expected to expire between 2032 and 2042 exclusive of possible patent term extensions or adjustments.

We have an ongoing opposition proceeding relating to vadadustat. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings for further information relating to this matter.

Auryxia Patent Portfolio

Pursuant to the Panion Amended License Agreement, we have the exclusive rights under a series of patents and patent applications to commercialize Auryxia worldwide, excluding certain Asian-Pacific countries. These patents and patent applications include claims directed to compositions of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, methods of treatment, as well as methods for the manufacture of Auryxia.

Our patent rights currently include 3 issued patents that are listed in the Orange Book covering the composition of matter, method of treating hyperphosphatemia, and pharmaceutical compositions of Auryxia. The expected expiration dates for these patents are between 2026 and 2030.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 21

Table of Contents

Pursuant to the sublicense with our Japanese partner, Japan Tobacco Inc., or JT, and its subsidiary, Torii Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., or Torii, we have exclusively sublicensed certain Japanese patent rights to JT and Torii. These sublicensed rights include several Japanese patents and pending patent applications with composition of matter claims, methods of synthesizing claims, and methods of use claims covering Riona, the trade name under which JT and Torii market ferric citrate in Japan. The expected expiration dates for these patents and pending patent applications are between 2026 and 2028. To date, to our knowledge, no contested proceedings or third-party claims have been lodged against any of these Japanese patents.

Pursuant to the sublicense with our European partner, Averoa, we have exclusively sublicensed certain European patent rights to Averoa. These sublicensed rights include several European patents and pending patent applications with composition of matter claims and methods of use claims covering ferric citrate. The expected expiration dates for these patents and pending patent applications are between 2026 and 2042. To date, to our knowledge, no contested proceedings or third-party claims have been lodged against any of these European patents.

We received Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs, submitted to the FDA by third parties requesting approval for generic versions of Auryxia tablets (210 mg ferric iron per tablet). In response we filed certain complaints for patent infringement against six third parties, and have entered into settlement and license agreements with each of the six ANDA filers. Each settlement agreement granted the defendants a license to market a generic version of Auryxia in the U.S. beginning on March 20, 2025 (subject to FDA approval). On January 22, 2026, Teva received tentative approval for its ANDA for Auryxia. Currently, there is only one authorized generic for Auryxia sold by our distributor, but we expect additional generic competition in 2026. If additional generics are approved and enter the market, we expect it will adversely impact our revenue. However, the impact on future Auryxia revenues will depend on many factors, including our ability to maintain contracts with dialysis organizations, the timing and number of additional generics and the pricing of generics and other products on the market that compete with Auryxia.

Other Intellectual Property Rights

We depend upon trademarks, trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological advances to develop and maintain our competitive position. To maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information, we require our employees, scientific advisors, consultants and collaborators, upon commencement of a relationship with us, to execute confidentiality agreements and, in the case of parties other than our research and development collaborators, to agree to assign their inventions to us. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed in connection with their relationship with us. These agreements may not, however, provide protection for our trade secrets in the event of unauthorized disclosure of such information.

In addition to patent protection, we may utilize orphan drug regulations, pediatric exclusivity or other provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, as amended, or FDCA, such as new chemical entity exclusivity or new formulation exclusivity, to provide market exclusivity for a product candidate. In the U.S., the FDA has the authority to grant additional data protection for approved drugs where the sponsor conducts specified testing in pediatric or adolescent populations. If granted, this pediatric exclusivity may provide an additional six months which are added to the term of data protection as well as to the term of a relevant patent, to the extent these protections have not already expired. We may also seek to utilize market exclusivities in other territories. We cannot assure you that our products or any product candidates we may acquire or in-license, will obtain such orphan drug designation, pediatric exclusivity, new chemical entity exclusivity or any other market exclusivity in the U.S., EU, or any other territory, or that we will be the first to receive the respective regulatory approval for such drugs so as to be eligible for any market exclusivity protection.

Know-How

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our collaborators, employees and consultants and invention assignment provisions in the confidentiality agreements with our employees. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment provisions, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed by our employees. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach.

To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

The Hatch-Waxman Act

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the sponsor’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an ANDA. An ANDA

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 22

Table of Contents

provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA sponsors are usually not required to conduct, or submit results of, nonclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

The ANDA sponsor is required to make certain certifications to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the sponsor must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA sponsor may also elect to submit a Section viii statement, certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain or carve out any language regarding the patented method-of-use, rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent.

If the sponsor does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA sponsor has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the sponsor must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months from receiving the Paragraph IV certification, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA sponsor. Also, the ANDA will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired.

Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity, or NCE, which is a drug that contains an active moiety that has not been approved by the FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which time the FDA cannot accept any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug. Certain changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, are associated with a three-year period of exclusivity during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug that includes such changes.

An ANDA may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents or their agents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension for delays caused by FDA regulatory review. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase which is the time between Investigational New Drug application, or IND submission, and NDA submission, and all of the review phase, which is the time between NDA submission and approval, up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the sponsor did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of approval by virtue of the patent term extension.

We have filed patent term extension applications for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,811,595, 8,343,952, 8,323,671, 8,598,210, and 8,940,773 each of which covers Vafseo for delays caused by FDA regulatory review. If granted, we can utilize the patent term extension on one of the Vafseo patents, however, we cannot assure you that we can obtain any extension of the term of these patents. Upon expiration of these patents, competitors who obtain the requisite regulatory approval may potentially offer products with the same composition and/or method of use as our product, so long as the competitors do not infringe any other patents that we may own or license.

For patents that might expire before a determination regarding patent term extension, the patent owner or its agent may request an interim patent term extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the USPTO must determine that approval of the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely.

In addition, certain jurisdictions outside of the U.S., including Japan, have provisions that provide for patent term extension. In October 2014, following the regulatory approval of Riona in Japan, the Japan Patent office granted the patent term extensions filed by our sublicensee, JT, for Japanese Patents Nos. 4964585 and 4173553. As a result of the extension of patent term, Japanese Patent No. 4173553 expired in November 2022 and Japanese Patent No. 4964585 expired in November 2025 for hyperphosphatemia and will expire in December 2028 for iron deficiency anemia. We also sought and obtained patent term

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 23

Table of Contents

extension for Japanese Patent Nos. 5113838, 6290781 and 6612479 following regulatory approval of Vafseo in Japan. As a result of the extension of patent term, Japanese Patent No. 5113838 will expire in June 2032, Japanese Patent No. 6290781 will expire in October 2034, and Japanese Patent No. 6612479 will expire in January 2035.

In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those drugs, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each product candidate and other factors. There can be no assurance that any of our pending patent applications will issue or that we will benefit from any patent term extension or favorable adjustment to the term of any of our patents.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are highly competitive. The growing prevalence of CKD and the increasing demand for better anemia management solutions continue to drive increased competition in this market. A number of large pharmaceutical companies and small to mid-sized and specialty biotechnology companies have marketed and are developing treatments for rare kidney diseases including indications we are pursuing with our mid-stage rare-kidney disease pipeline.

Our competitors include public and private pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, and public and private research institutions. In addition, companies that are active in different but related fields represent substantial competition for us. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in a larger concentration of resources among a smaller number of our competitors. These organizations, as well as others in the broader industries, compete with us to recruit qualified personnel, attract partners for joint ventures or other collaborations and license technologies competitive to ours.

While major pharmaceutical companies are continuously investing in R&D and have significantly greater capital resources, larger R&D teams and facilities and more experience in drug development, regulation, manufacturing and marketing than we do; we believe our novel HIF-PH inhibitors have the potential to revolutionize the treatment landscape in multiple areas, including anemia due to CKD in dialysis patients. To compete successfully in these industries, we must continue to identify novel and differentiated drugs or treatment methods and complete the development of those drugs as treatments before our competitors.

Vafseo Competition

Drugs that compete with Vafseo include Epogen® (epoetin alfa) and Aranesp® (darbepoetin alfa), both commercialized by Amgen, Procrit® (epoetin alfa) and Eprex® (epoetin alfa), commercialized by Johnson & Johnson in the U.S. and Europe, respectively, and Mircera® (methoxy PEG-epoetin beta), commercialized by CSL Vifor in the U.S. and Roche Holding Ltd. outside of the U.S. and Evrenzo® (roxadustat) in Europe commercialized by Astellas Pharma Inc., or Astellas, Eporatio® (epoetin theta) in Europe commercialized by Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Silapo® (epoetin zeta) in Europe commercialized by Stada Arzneimittel AG, Epoetin Alfa Hexal® (epoetin alfa) in Europe commercialized by Hexal AG, Binocrit® (epoetin alfa-biosimilar) in Europe commercialized by Sandoz, and NeoRecormon® (epoetin beta) in Europe commercialized by Roche.

We and our partners may also face competition from potential new anemia therapies. There are several other HIF-PH inhibitor product candidates in various stages of development for anemia indications in territories outside of the U.S. that may be in direct competition with Vafseo. These candidates are being developed by companies such as JT and Bayer HealthCare AG, or Bayer. In Europe, roxadustat is approved for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD.

Furthermore, certain companies are developing new therapies for renal-related diseases that potentially could reduce injectable ESA utilization and thus limit the market potential for Vafseo. Other new therapies are in development for treating conditions, including renal anemia, that may impact the market for anemia-targeted treatment.

In Japan, vadadustat is sold under the name Vafseo, which is approved for patients with CKD, including both DD-CKD and NDD-CKD, and competes with roxadustat, daprodustat and enarodustat. Roxadustat is approved for the treatment of DD-CKD patients and NDD-CKD patients. In addition, daprodustat and enarodustat are approved in Japan for the treatment of anemia due to CKD, and molidustat, Bayer HealthCare AG's product, is approved in Japan for the treatment of renal anemia. In China, roxadustat is commercialized for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in DD-CKD patients and for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in NDD-CKD patients.

A biosimilar is a biologic product that is licensed based on demonstrating that it is highly similar to an existing, FDA-approved branded biologic product (i.e., a reference biologic product). The patents for the existing, branded biologic product must expire in a given market before biosimilars may enter that market without the risk of being sued for patent infringement. In addition, an application for a biosimilar product can only be approved by the FDA 12 years after the existing, branded product was licensed under a Biologics License Application, or BLA. The patents for epoetin alfa, an injectable ESA, expired in 2004 in the EU, and expired between 2012 and 2016 in the U.S. Injectable ESAs are biologic products, and introducing biosimilars into the injectable ESA market in the U.S. will constitute additional competition for Vafseo. In the U.S., Pfizer’s biosimilar version of

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 24

Table of Contents

injectable ESAs, Retacrit® (epoetin alfa-epbx), was approved by the FDA in May 2018 and launched in November 2018 and several biosimilar versions of injectable ESAs are available for sale in the EU.

Furthermore, Vafseo's commercial opportunities may be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and market products that are less expensive, more effective, safer or offer greater patient convenience than Vafseo.

Auryxia Competition

Hyperphosphatemia Competition

Auryxia is competing in the hyperphosphatemia market in the U.S. with other FDA-approved phosphate binders such as Renagel® (sevelamer hydrochloride) and Renvela® (sevelamer carbonate), both marketed by Sanofi, PhosLo® and Phoslyra® (calcium acetate), marketed by Fresenius Medical Care North America, Fosrenol® (lanthanum carbonate), marketed by Shire Pharmaceuticals Group plc, and Velphoro® (sucroferric oxyhydroxide), marketed by Fresenius Medical Care North America, as well as over-the-counter calcium carbonate products such as TUMS® and metal-based options such as aluminum, lanthanum and magnesium. Most of the phosphate binders listed above are now also available in generic forms. In addition, other agents are in development, including OPKO Health Inc.’s Alpharen™ Tablets (fermagate tablets) and Unicycive’s RENAZORB™ (lanthanum dioxycarbonate) or could otherwise enter the market that may impact the market for Auryxia. XPHOZAH® (tenapanor), a phosphate absorption inhibitor that is marketed by Ardelyx, Inc., or Ardelyx, is indicated to reduce serum phosphorus in adults with CKD on dialysis as add-on therapy in patients who have an inadequate response to phosphate binders or who are intolerant of any dose of phosphate binder therapy, which may adversely impact the market for Auryxia.

Iron Deficiency Anemia Competition

Auryxia is competing in the IDA market in the U.S. with over-the-counter oral iron, ferrous sulfate, other prescription oral iron formulations, including ferrous gluconate, ferrous fumerate, and polysaccharide iron complex, and intravenous iron formulations, including Feraheme® (ferumoxytol injection), Venofer® (iron sucrose injection), Ferrlicit® (sodium ferric gluconate complex in sucrose injection), Injectafer® (ferric carboxymaltose injection), and Triferic® (ferric pyrophosphate citrate). In addition, other new therapies for the treatment of IDA may impact the market for Auryxia, such as Shield Therapeutic’ plc's Feraccru® (ferric maltol), which is available in Europe for the treatment of IDA, and Accrufer® (ferric maltol), which was launched in the U.S. for the treatment of IDA in July 2021.

In Japan, our Japanese sublicensees, JT and Torii, commercialize Riona (ferric citrate hydrate). In the hyperphosphatemia market, Riona competes with Fosrenol® (lanthanum carbonate hydrate) marketed by Bayer Yakuhin Ltd., generic lanthanum carbonate hydrate products, and Phozevel® (tenapor hydrochloride) marketed by Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd. In the IDA market in Japan, Riona competes with Ferromia® (sodium ferrous citrate) marketed by Alfresa Pharma Corporation and Fero-Gradumet® (dried ferrous sulfate) marketed by Viatris Inc.

Furthermore, Auryxia’s commercial opportunities may be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and market products that are less expensive, more effective, safer or offer greater patient convenience than Auryxia. Other companies have product candidates in various stages of preclinical or clinical development to treat diseases and complications of the diseases for which we are marketing Auryxia.

We and our licensors entered into settlement agreements with all of the third parties who submitted Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding ANDAs submitted to the FDA, pursuant to which we granted licenses to market a generic version of Auryxia in the U.S. beginning on March 20, 2025 (subject to FDA approval). On February 5, 2025, we entered into an Authorized Generic Distribution and Supply Agreement with Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as amended in September 2025, pursuant to which, they are currently selling an authorized generic version of Auryxia.

Praliciguat Competition

FSGS Competition

Currently, there are no FDA-approved drugs indicated for FSGS, although an endothelin receptor blocker is in development and under review by the FDA. Current treatment includes glucocorticoid steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, other immunosuppressives such as rituximab, and antihypertensives such as angiotensin-converting enzymes, such as enalapril, and angiotensin II receptor blockers, such as losartan. In some patients, these treatments may slow kidney failure progression caused by FSGS.

There are a number of treatments to address FSGS in development. Travere® Therapeutics developed FILSPARI® (sparsentan), a dual endothelin and angiotensin II receptor antagonist, which is under review by the FDA with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of April 13, 2026. There are additional therapies to address FSGS in development including DMX-200 (repagermanium), in Phase 3 development by Dimerix Limited, and other investigational treatments in Phase 3 or Phase 2 development by companies including Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Apellis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Vera Therapeutics, or Vera, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals, or Vertex.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 25

Table of Contents

Since FSGS is heterogenous in nature, we expect a number of therapies will be needed to fully address the needs of the FSGS patient population. Additionally, a combination of therapies may also provide a beneficial impact for some patients.

AKB-097 Competition

We are developing AKB-097 for potential treatment of IgAN, LN and C3G. There are other complement inhibitors and medications in development or approved for treatment of these rare kidney diseases.

IgAN Competition

FABHALTA® (iptacopan) is FDA-approved and marketed by Novartis for reduction of proteinuria in adults with primary IgAN. FILSPARI® (sparsentan) is FDA-approved, indicated to slow kidney function decline in adults with primary IgAN. Both FABHALTA and FILSPARI labeling includes a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS. TARPEYO® (budesonide), an FDA-approved medicine used to reduce the loss of kidney function in adults with primary IgAN, is marketed in the U.S. by Calliditas Therapeutics AB, or Calliditas (acquired by Asahi Kasei Corporation). VANRAFIA™ (atrasentan), marketed by Novartis, is an endothelin receptor antagonist indicated to reduce proteinuria in adults with primary IgAN. In November 2025, the FDA approved VOYXACT® (sibeprenlimab-szsi) to reduce proteinuria in adults with primary IgAN. VOYXACT is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to and blocks A PRoliferation-Inducing Ligand, or APRIL.

In November 2025, Vera was granted FDA Priority Review for their BLA for atacicept for the treatment of IgAN. Atacicept is an investigational recombinant fusion protein that binds to B-cell Activating Factor, BAFF, and APRIL cytokines. Vertex is investigating povetacicept, a dual antagonist of the BAFF and APRIL cytokines, for the treatment of IgAN, and initiated a rolling BLA filing for U.S. accelerated approval.

A number of complement inhibitors are in development for the treatment of IgAN by companies including Alexion Pharmaceuticals, (ULTOMIRIS, ravulizumab, C5 inhibitor, Phase 3), Apellis (EMPAVELI, pegcetacoplan, C3 inhibitor, Phase 2), and Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, or Arrowhead (ARO-C3, C3 inhibitor, in Phase 1/2)

C3G Competition

There are two FDA-approved complement-inhibitor therapies to reduce proteinuria in C3G patients: FABHALTA® (Novartis, iptacopan, Factor B inhibitor) and EMPAVELI® (Apellis, pegcetacoplan, C3 inhibitor). Both FABHALTA and EMPAVELI labeling includes a REMS. Other complement inhibitors are in development by Kira Pharmaceuticals, with KP104 (dual C5 and Factor H inhibitor) in Phase 2 and Arrowhead with ARO-C3 (C3 inhibitor) in Phase 1/2.

LN Competition

There are three FDA-approved therapies for LN: BENLYSTA (belimumab, GSK), LUPKYNIS® (voclosporin, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals) and GAZYVA (obinutuzumab, Genentech/Biogen). Novartis is developing ianalumab in Phase 3 and complement inhibitor FABHALTA (iptacopan, Factor B inhibitor) in Phase 2.

Government Regulation and Product Approvals

Government authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the EU, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, sales, pricing, reimbursement, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the U.S. and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory requirements, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Review and Approval of Drug Products in the U.S.

In the U.S., the FDA approves and regulates drugs under the FDCA and applicable implementing regulations and guidance.

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA for therapeutic indications before we or our partners are able to market them in the U.S. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products is referred to as a sponsor. A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug product in the U.S. must typically undertake the following:

•completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice, or GLP, regulations and consistent with International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, or ICH, requirements;

•design of a clinical protocol and submission to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must be reviewed and allowed by the FDA before human clinical trials may begin;

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 26

Table of Contents

•approval by an independent local or central institutional review board, or IRB, representing each clinical site before each clinical trial may be initiated;

•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCP, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed product candidate for each indication;

•preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA requesting marketing for one or more proposed indications;

•review of the product candidate by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable;

•satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product candidate, or components thereof, are produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product candidate’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•satisfactory completion of FDA audits of clinical trial sites and records to assure compliance with GCPs and good practices, or GxPs, the integrity of the clinical data and that adequate controls and oversight are in place regarding manufacturing, clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, safety, data management, vendor oversight, collection and reporting of serious adverse events and other activities;

•payment of user fees pursuant to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA;

•approval of an NDA for the new drug product authorizing marketing for particular indications in the U.S.; and

•compliance with any post-approval requirements and/or commitments, including the potential requirement to implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, and potentially post-market requirement, or PMR, and post-market commitment, or PMC, studies.

Preclinical Tests

Before a sponsor begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as other studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act, if applicable. With the passage of the FDA’s Modernization Act 2.0 in December 2022, Congress eliminated provisions in the FDCA that required animal testing in support of an NDA. In April 2025, the FDA released a roadmap to replace animal testing in preclinical safety studies with scientifically validated new approach methodologies, such as organ-on-a-chip systems, computational modeling, and advanced in vitro assays. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND and are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and long-term toxicity studies, may continue after the IND is submitted.

The IND and IRB Processes

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human patients under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research patients provide their voluntary informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. In support of a request for an IND, sponsors must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved drug to be shipped through interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer an investigational drug to humans. Such authorization must be obtained prior to interstate shipment and administration of any new drug that is not the subject of an approved NDA. In addition to reviewing an IND to assure the safety and rights of patients, the FDA also focuses on the quality of the investigation and whether it will be adequate to permit an evaluation of the drug’s safety and efficacy. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND.

The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research patients will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period, or thereafter, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold or require that the

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 27

Table of Contents

sponsor amend the clinical protocol to include additional safety measurements. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin.

Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical trial or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a partial clinical hold might state that a specific protocol or part of a protocol may not proceed, while other parts of a protocol or other protocols may do so. No more than 30 days after the imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor with a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following the issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, a clinical trial may only resume once the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed or recommence. Occasionally, clinical holds are imposed due to manufacturing issues that may present safety issues for the clinical trial subjects.

In addition to the foregoing requirements related to the IND submission and ongoing review, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct a continuing review and reapprove the trial at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the trial protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study patients. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Additionally, some trials are overseen by a Data Monitoring Committee, which is an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the trial. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by a sponsor based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived by the FDA. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the studies must be conducted in accordance with GCP, including undergoing review and receiving approval by an independent ethics committee and seeking and receiving informed consent from subjects. GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical trials. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign studies are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND studies.

Reporting Clinical Trial Results

Under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, sponsors of certain clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs and biologics, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Although sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion, disclosure of the results can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial.

The PHSA grants the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the authority to issue a notice of noncompliance to a responsible party for failure to submit clinical trial information as required. The responsible party, however, is allowed 30 days to correct the noncompliance and submit the required information. As of December 31, 2025, the FDA has issued eight notices of non-compliance, thereby signaling the government’s willingness to begin enforcing these requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinical trials.gov is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Violations may also result in injunctions and/or criminal prosecution or disqualification from federal grants.

Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new drug products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational drugs for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 28

Table of Contents

investigational drugs under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the drug under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application.

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its investigational products available for expanded access; however, as required by amendments to the FDCA included in the 21st Century Cures Act passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it responds to expanded access requests with respect to product candidates in development to treat serious diseases or conditions, it must make that policy publicly available. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial for a covered investigational product; or 15 days after the investigational product receives designation from the FDA as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy. In October 2025, the FDA issued final guidance further clarifying the statutory and regulatory requirements governing expanded access.

On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its product candidates available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human patients under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research patients provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.

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

•Phase 1. The product candidate is initially introduced into a small number of healthy human patients or, in certain indications such as cancer, patients with the target disease or condition (e.g., cancer) and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness and to determine optimal dosage.

•Phase 2. The product candidate is administered to a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.

•Phase 3. These clinical trials are commonly referred to as “pivotal” studies, which denote a study that presents the data that the FDA or other relevant regulatory agency will use to determine whether or not to approve a product candidate. The product candidate is administered to an expanded patient population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product candidate for approval, identify adverse effects, establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product candidate and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product candidate.

•Phase 4. Post-approval studies may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication.

A clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. Moreover, as noted above, a pivotal trial is a clinical trial that is believed to satisfy FDA requirements for the evaluation of a product candidate’s safety and efficacy such that it can be used, alone or with other pivotal or non-pivotal trials, to support regulatory approval. Generally, pivotal trials are Phase 3 trials, but they may be Phase 2 trials if the design provides a well-controlled and reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in an area of unmet medical need. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA.

In December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan, or DAP, for each phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In June 2024, as mandated

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 29

Table of Contents

by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for DAPs. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the DAP guidance when finalized will have the force of law because FDORA specifically dictates that the form and manner for submission of DAPs are specified in FDA guidance.

On January 27, 2025, in response to an Executive Order issued by President Trump on January 21, 2025, relating to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, the FDA removed the draft DAP guidance from its website. That action, along with similar actions by the Trump Administration to remove many other healthcare webpages, is currently the subject of ongoing litigation. On July 3, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump Administration’s actions to remove these webpages, including the draft DAP guidance, is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court ordered the restoration of many of these webpages. In late July 2025, the FDA restored the draft DAP guidance to its website with a statement that “information on this page may be modified and/or removed in the future subject to the terms of the court’s order and implemented consistent with applicable law.” Accordingly, in light of these ongoing actions, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the draft DAP guidance and how the FDA will consider diversity action plans in connection with its review of NDAs.

In September 2025, the FDA issued final guidance with updated recommendations for GCPs aimed at modernizing the design and conduct of clinical trials. The updates are intended to help pave the way for more efficient clinical trials to facilitate the development of medical products. The final guidance is adopted from the ICH’s updated E6(R3) draft guideline that was developed to enable the incorporation of rapidly developing technological and methodological innovations into the clinical trial enterprise.

In October 2025, the FDA issued final guidance that focuses on patient-focused drug development. The guidance outlines how stakeholders, such as patients, caregivers, researchers and medical product developers, can submit patient experience data in support of the development and approval of drug products. To that end, the guidance provides an overview of clinical outcome assessments, or COAs, in clinical trials, and the role that COAs may play in evaluating the clinical benefit of a medical product.

Interactions with the FDA During the Clinical Development Program

Following the clearance of an IND and the commencement of clinical trials, the sponsor will continue to have interactions with the FDA. Progress reports detailing the results of clinical trials must be submitted annually within 60 days of the anniversary dates that the IND went into effect and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. These reports must include a development safety update report. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product; and any clinically important increase in the occurrence of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted. In December 2025, the FDA released final guidance outlining its processes and practices applicable to bioresearch monitoring inspections.

In addition, a sponsor will continue to have interactions with the FDA and the sponsor may meet with the FDA at certain points in the clinical development program. Specifically, sponsors may meet with the FDA prior to the submission of an IND, or a pre-IND meeting, at the end of Phase 2 clinical trials and before an NDA is submitted, or a pre-NDA meeting. Meetings at other times may also be requested. These meetings provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date with the FDA and for the FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development.

There are five types of meetings that occur between sponsors and the FDA. Type A meetings are those that are necessary for an otherwise stalled product development program to proceed or to address an important safety issue. Type B meetings include pre-IND and pre-NDA meetings as well as end of phase meetings such as end-of-phase 2 meetings. A Type C meeting is any meeting other than a Type A or Type B meeting regarding the development and review of a product, including for example meetings to facilitate early consultations on the use of a biomarker as a new surrogate endpoint that has never been previously used as the primary basis for product approval in the proposed context of use. A Type D meeting is focused on a narrow set of issues (typically limited to no more than two focused topics) and should not require input from more than three disciplines or divisions. Finally, INTERACT meetings are intended for novel products and development programs that present unique challenges in the early development of an investigational product.

Such meetings may be conducted in person, via teleconference/videoconference, or written response only with minutes reflecting the questions that the sponsor posed to the FDA and the agency’s responses. The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. Nonetheless, from a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure. In September 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the terms of such meetings in more detail.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 30

Table of Contents

Pediatric Studies

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, applications and certain types of supplements to applications must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The sponsor and the FDA must reach agreement on a final plan. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from nonclinical trials, early phase clinical trials, and/or other clinical development programs.

For investigational products intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, the FDA must, upon the request of a sponsor, meet to discuss preparation of the initial pediatric study plan or to discuss deferral or waiver of pediatric assessments. In addition, the FDA will meet early in the development process to discuss pediatric study plans with sponsors, and the FDA must meet with sponsors by no later than the end-of-phase 1 meeting for serious or life-threatening diseases and by no later than ninety days after the FDA’s receipt of the study plan.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. Pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, or FDASIA, the FDA must send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. FDASIA further requires the FDA to publicly post the PREA Non-Compliance letter and sponsor’s response. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation, although FDA has recently taken steps to limit what it considers abuse of this statutory exemption in PREA by announcing that it does not intend to grant any additional orphan drug designations for rare pediatric subpopulations of what is otherwise a common disease. The FDA also maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population. In May 2023, the FDA issued new draft guidance that further describes the pediatric study requirements under PREA.

Acceptance and Review of an NDA

Assuming successful completion of required clinical testing and other requirements, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product candidate for one or more indications. The fee required for the submission and review of an application under the PDUFA is substantial (for example, for fiscal year 2026 this application fee is approximately $4.7 million), and the sponsor of an approved application is also subject to an annual program fee, currently set at $442,213 per eligible prescription product. These fees are typically adjusted annually, and exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances, such as where a waiver is necessary to protect the public health, where the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation, or where the sponsor is a small business submitting its first human therapeutic application for review.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor at that time or before whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. This is known as the filing decision. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. In October 2025, the FDA issued internal guidance clarifying that “materially incomplete or inadequately organized” applications that would not permit timely, efficient and complete review will be the subject of an RTF. The internal guidance also provides that the agency will issue an RTF for an application that relies on a single adequate and well-controlled investigation to support approval if prior communications with the FDA determined the need for more than one clinical study and any justification for a single investigation is inadequate.

The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Most such applications are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date of filing, and most applications for “priority review” products are meant to be reviewed within six months of filing. A product that has been designated as a breakthrough therapy may also be eligible for

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 31

Table of Contents

review within six months if supported by clinical data at the time of submission of the NDA. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the sponsor to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including drug component manufacturing such as active pharmaceutical ingredients, finished drug product manufacturing, control testing laboratories, as well as packaging and labeling facilities. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the U.S. prior to being imported or offered for import into the U.S.

Moreover, the FDA will review a sponsor’s financial relationship with the principal investigators who conducted the clinical trials in support of the NDA. That is because, under certain circumstances, principal investigators at a clinical trial site may also serve as scientific advisors or consultants to a sponsor and receive compensation in connection with such services. Depending on the level of that compensation and any other financial interest a principal investigator may have in a sponsor, the sponsor may be required to report these relationships to the FDA. The FDA will then evaluate that financial relationship and determine whether it creates a conflict of interest or otherwise affects the interpretation of the trial or the integrity of the data generated at the principal investigator’s clinical trial site. If so, the FDA may exclude data from the clinical trial site in connection with its determination of safety and efficacy of the investigational product.

Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. The sponsor of the NDA may also have their records, processes, procedures, training, and other aspects reviewed during an inspection. The FDA must implement a protocol to expedite review of responses to inspection reports pertaining to certain drug applications, including applications for drugs in a shortage or drugs for which approval is dependent on remediation of conditions identified in the inspection report.

In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor to develop a REMS. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks.

Finally, the FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Expedited Programs

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. None of these expedited programs changes the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for fast track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. The fast track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

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

Third, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s review clock goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 32

Table of Contents

Further, on June 17, 2025, the FDA announced the creation of a new voucher program to expedite the development and approval of new drug products. Vouchers issued under the new program, which is known as the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher, or CNPV, may reportedly be redeemed by sponsors to shorten the review time of an NDA from approximately ten to twelve months to one to two months. The FDA has indicated that the new CNPV process will convene experts from the FDA’s offices for a team-based review rather than using the standard review system of a drug application being sent to numerous FDA offices. Clinical information will be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians and scientists who will pre-review the submitted information and convene for a one-day meeting. Vouchers under this program will reportedly be given to companies aligned with U.S. national priorities. As with the FDA’s other programs for expediting review and approval of new drug products, there is no guarantee it would result in approval of the marketing applications or that such approval, if granted, would be on an expedited basis.

In addition, in September 2025, the FDA introduced a framework intended to streamline the approval of new therapies for ultrarare diseases. The Rare Disease Evidence Principles is intended to allow sponsors to rely on a single-arm trial in support of approval of drugs and biologics that treat rare diseases with very small patient populations and where the disease is linked to a known genetic defect and characterized by progressive functional deterioration leading to disability or death in a short period of time. The targeted diseases should also lack adequate alternative therapies.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

Drug or biologic products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials.

In December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded and to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to the FDA every six months until the study is completed. Moreover, FDORA established expedited procedures authorizing the FDA to withdraw an accelerated approval if certain conditions are met, including where a required confirmatory study fails to verify and describe the predicted clinical benefit or where evidence demonstrates the product is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use. The FDA may also use such procedures to withdraw an accelerated approval if a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval trial of the product with due diligence, including with respect to “conditions specified by the Secretary.” The new procedures include the provision of due notice and an explanation for a proposed withdrawal, and opportunities for a meeting with the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s designee and a written appeal, among other things.

In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The agency indicated that although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. Subsequently, in December 2024 and January 2025, the FDA issued additional draft guidances relating to accelerated approval. These guidances describe the FDA’s latest thinking on what it means to conduct a confirmatory trial with due diligence and how the agency plans to interpret whether such a study needs to be underway at the time of approval. While these guidances are currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, sponsors typically observe the FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that their investigational products qualify for accelerated approval.

The FDA’s Decision on an NDA

The FDA reviews an application to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and whether it is effective for its intended use(s), with the latter determination being made on the basis of substantial evidence. The term “substantial evidence” is defined under the FDCA as “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the product involved, on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded by such experts that the product will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling or proposed labeling thereof.”

The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional information may satisfy this standard. This approach was subsequently endorsed by

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 33

Table of Contents

Congress in 1998 with legislation providing, in pertinent part, that “If [FDA] determines, based on relevant science, that data from one adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation and confirmatory evidence (obtained prior to or after such investigation) are sufficient to establish effectiveness, FDA may consider such data and evidence to constitute substantial evidence.” This modification to the law recognized the potential for FDA to find that one adequate and well controlled clinical investigation with confirmatory evidence, including supportive data outside of a controlled trial, is sufficient to establish effectiveness. In December 2019, FDA issued draft guidance further explaining the studies that are needed to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness. Although the FDA has not yet finalized that guidance, it did issue additional draft guidance in September 2023 that outlines considerations for relying on confirmatory evidence in lieu of a second clinical study. The FDA has not yet finalized these guidances but, in December 2025, the agency signaled that it is considering only requiring one clinical study for approval of most drug products.

After evaluating the application and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendations, if any, and inspection reports of manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA will issue either a CRL or an approval letter. To reach this determination, the FDA must determine that the drug is effective and that its expected benefits outweigh its potential risks to patients. This “benefit-risk” assessment is informed by the extensive body of evidence about the product’s safety and efficacy in the NDA or BLA. This assessment is also informed by other factors, including: the severity of the underlying condition and how well patients’ medical needs are addressed by currently available therapies; uncertainty about how the premarket clinical trial evidence will extrapolate to real-world use of the product in the post-market setting; and whether risk management tools are necessary to manage specific risks. In connection with this assessment, the FDA review team will assemble all individual reviews and other documents into an “action package,” which becomes the record for FDA review. The review team then issues a recommendation, and a senior FDA official makes a decision.

A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the sponsor an additional six month extension to respond. The FDA has committed to reviewing resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. The FDA has taken the position that a CRL is not final agency action making the determination subject to judicial review. Rather, for those seeking to challenge FDA’s CRL decision, the agency has indicated that sponsors may request a formal hearing on the CRL or they may file a request for reconsideration or a request for a formal dispute resolution.

An approval letter, on the other hand, authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. That is, the approval will be limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the FDA-approved labeling. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Under the Ensuring Innovation Act, which was signed into law in April 2021, the FDA must publish action packages summarizing its decisions to approve new drugs and biologics within 30 days of approval of such products. While CRLs were previously treated by the FDA as confidential and were only disclosed in action packages for approved products, the agency announced in September 2025 that it will now release CRLs promptly after they are issued to sponsors. Since that announcement, the FDA has posted a number of CRLs on its website.

Post-Approval Requirements and Commitments

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, conditions of NDA approval may include sponsor agreement to PMR or PMC studies, which are designed to further assess drug safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. These may include additional studies, registries, data collection, analyses, and/or information.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 34

Table of Contents

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

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

In May 2025, the FDA disclosed plans to expand its use of unannounced inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities that produce drugs and biologics distributed in the U.S. Subsequently, in August 2025, the FDA introduced a “PreCheck” program with the intention of supporting companies as they build new facilities in the U.S. The PreCheck program provides manufacturers with more frequent FDA communication at critical development stages, including facility design, construction, and pre-production. These FDA initiatives flow from an Executive Order issued by President Trump on May 5, 2025, calling for actions to reduce regulatory barriers to pharmaceutical manufacturing in the U.S.

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

•restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, suspension of the approval, or complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

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

•refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;

•product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or

•injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a product candidate’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the product candidate is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or in a manner that is inconsistent with the product’s prescribing information. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product.

On September 9, 2025, the President issued a Memorandum directing HHS to “ensure transparency and accuracy in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising, including by increasing the amount of information regarding any risks associated with the use of any such prescription drug required to be provided in prescription drug advertisements.” To that end, the FDA announced that it is initiating a rulemaking process “to eliminate the ‘adequate provision’ loophole that allows pharmaceutical advertisements to hide safety information by placing it in another format or location.” In this context, the FDA declared that it will no longer tolerate what it characterized as “deceptive practices” in prescription drug advertising and that the agency would “aggressively deploy” its available enforcement tools, with “heightened scrutiny” of fair balance and disclosures in social media promotions. The FDA also issued a generic “notice letter” directing companies to “remove any noncompliant advertising and bring all promotional communications into compliance.”

In the U.S., healthcare professionals are generally permitted to prescribe drugs for such uses not described in the drug’s labeling, known as off-label uses, because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose rigorous restrictions on manufacturers’ communications, prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. It may be permissible, under very specific conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in non-promotional, truthful and non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. In addition,

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 35

Table of Contents

companies may also promote information that it consistent with the prescribing information and have the ability to proactively speak to formulary committee members of payors regarding data for an unapproved drug or unapproved uses of an approved drug under some relatively recent guidance from the FDA. Moreover, with the passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products.

In addition, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses of approved products to healthcare providers. This final guidance calls for such communications to be non-promotional in nature, truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use. If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to a variety of federal and state laws, the most recent of which is still in the process of being phased into the U.S. supply chain and regulatory framework. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, was the first federal law to set minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states and to regulate the distribution of drug samples. Today, both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Congress more recently enacted the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, which made significant amendments to the FDCA, including by replacing certain provisions from the PDMA pertaining to wholesale distribution of prescription drugs with a more comprehensive statutory scheme. The DSCSA now requires uniform national standards for wholesale distribution and, for the first time, for third-party logistics providers; it also provides for preemption of certain state laws in the areas of licensure and prescription drug traceability. So as not to disrupt supply chains, the FDA has granted certain exemptions from enhanced drug distribution security requirements for eligible trading partners for particular periods of time. For wholesale drug distributors, the final DSCSA deadline was August 27, 2025, marking the date for mandatory transition to a fully electronic, interoperable system for tracking prescription drugs at the package level throughout the United States.

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

NDAs for most new drug products are based on two full clinical trials which must contain substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of the proposed new product for the proposed use. These applications are submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. The FDA is, however, authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. This type of application allows the sponsor to rely, in part, on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy for a similar product, or published literature. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) applies to NDAs for a drug for which the investigations made to show whether or not the drug is safe for use and effective in use and relied upon by the sponsor for approval of the application “were not conducted by or for the sponsor and for which the sponsor has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted.”

Section 505(b)(2) authorizes the FDA to approve an NDA based on safety and effectiveness data that were not developed by the sponsor. NDAs filed under Section 505(b)(2) may provide an alternate and potentially more expeditious pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. If the 505(b)(2) sponsor can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous approval is scientifically appropriate, the sponsor may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical studies or clinical trials of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all or some of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) sponsor. Products approved under Section 505(b)(2) are often referred to as follow-on products.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with the passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, a sponsor

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 36

Table of Contents

must submit an ANDA to the agency. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference-listed drug, or RLD.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA may not approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until any applicable period of regulatory exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of regulatory data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity, or NCE. For the purposes of this provision, the FDA has consistently taken the position that an NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. This interpretation was confirmed with enactment of the Ensuring Innovation Act in April 2021. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, a generic or follow-on drug application may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the sponsor may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of regulatory exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the sponsor and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs or 505(b)(2) applications seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product. The FDA typically makes decisions about awards of data exclusivity shortly before a product is approved.

The FDA must establish a priority review track for certain generic drugs, requiring the FDA to review a drug application within eight months for a drug that has three or fewer approved drugs listed in the Orange Book and is no longer protected by any patent or regulatory exclusivities, or is on the FDA’s drug shortage list. The new legislation also authorizes FDA to expedite review of ‘‘competitor generic therapies’’ or drugs with inadequate generic competition, including holding meetings with or providing advice to the drug sponsor prior to submission of the application.

In October 2025, the FDA introduced a new program to expedite review of ANDAs and approval of generic drug products. Under this new initiative, a sponsor of an ANDA would qualify for faster review and approval if it conducts bioequivalence studies in the U.S., exclusively sources the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the U.S. and manufactures the finished drug product within the country, as well.

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

As part of the submission of an NDA or certain supplemental applications, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the sponsor’s product or an approved method of using the product. Upon approval of a new drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. The FDA’s regulations governing patent listings were largely codified into law with enactment of the Orange Book Modernization Act in January 2021. When an ANDA sponsor files its application with the FDA, the sponsor is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book. Specifically, the ANDA sponsor must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. Moreover, to the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) NDA sponsor is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the sponsor also is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the NDA-approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA sponsor would.

If the generic drug or follow-on drug sponsor does not challenge the innovator’s listed patents, FDA will not approve the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new generic product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA sponsor has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the sponsor must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA owner and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA owner and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 37

Table of Contents

earliest of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application.

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the U.S. and, if granted, for drug products, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing patent or regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product is effective in the pediatric population studied, rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. With regard to patents, the six-month pediatric exclusivity period will not attach to any patents for which an ANDA or 505(b)(2) sponsor submitted a Paragraph IV patent certification, unless the NDA sponsor or patent owner first obtains a court determination that the patent is valid and infringed by the proposed product.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple drugs for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Federal and State Data Privacy Laws

There are multiple privacy and data security laws that may impact our business activities, in the U.S. and in other countries where we conduct trials or where we may do business in the future. These laws are evolving and may increase both our obligations and our regulatory risks in the future. In the health care industry generally, under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, the HHS has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information, or PHI, used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. While we are not a covered entity, as a business associate, we could be subject to penalties, including criminal penalties, and contractual damages if we knowingly obtain or further disclose PHI from a covered entity, such as a health care provider or clinical research site, and therefore we must ensure the proper authorizations are in place before we, or our vendors or business partners, obtain access to any PHI. Our clinical trials are regulated by the Common Rule, which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that may be applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.

At the state level, California has enacted legislation that has been dubbed the first “GDPR-like” law in the U.S. Known as the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, it creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020 and requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers, provide such consumers rights as it relates to their personal information and new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information, and allow for a new cause of action for data breaches. In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. The CPRA also created a new enforcement agency – the

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 38

Table of Contents

California Privacy Protection Agency – whose sole responsibility is to enforce the CPRA, which will further increase compliance risk. The provisions in the CPRA and CCPA may apply to some of our business activities.

In addition to California, at least eighteen other states have passed comprehensive privacy laws similar to the CCPA and CPRA. These laws are either in effect or will go into effect sometime before the end of 2026. Like the CCPA and CPRA, these laws create obligations related to the processing of personal information, as well as special obligations for the processing of “sensitive” data, which includes health data in some cases. Some of the provisions of these laws may apply to our business activities. There are also states that are strongly considering additional laws that could go into effect in 2026 and beyond. Congress has also been debating passing a federal privacy law. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information that may affect our business. For example, the State of Washington passed the My Health My Data Act in 2023 which specifically regulated health information that is not otherwise regulated by the HIPAA rules, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data, and more states are considering such legislation. These laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are also increasingly using privacy-related statutes at both the state and federal level to bring lawsuits against companies for their data-related practices. In particular, there have been a significant number of cases filed against companies for their use of pixels and other web trackers. These cases often allege violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and other state laws regulating wiretapping, as well as the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that some of our current or future business activities, including certain clinical research, sales and marketing practices and the provision of certain items and services to our customers, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such privacy and data security laws. The heightening compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and secure systems to comply with different privacy compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions could increase the possibility that a healthcare company may fail to comply fully with one or more of these requirements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the privacy or data security laws or regulations described above that are applicable to us, or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a consent decree or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any product candidates we may develop, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

Review and Approval of Drug Products Outside the U.S.

In order to market any product outside of the U.S., a sponsor must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of drug products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, the company would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the 27-member EU, before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

The EU/European Economic Area, or the EEA, applies harmonized regulatory rules for medicinal products, for the approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, and for the regulatory approval of medicinal products. However, pricing and reimbursement for medicinal products varies greatly between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional testing for health technology assessments.

Non-clinical Studies

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of GLP as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products such as, for example, radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labeling purposes). In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 39

Table of Contents

of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical Trial Approval in the EU

On January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or CTR, became effective in the EU and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The CTR aims to simplify and streamline the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the EU. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one Member State of the EU, or an EU Member State, will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public.

The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point, the “EU Portal and Database”; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the appointed reporting EU Member State, whose assessment report is submitted for review by the sponsor and all other competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted, or concerned member states. Part II is assessed separately by each concerned member state. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned member state. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

The CTR did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific clinical site after the applicable ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. The CTR will apply to any future clinical trials that we conduct in the EU.

Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the U.S., post clinical trial information in the EU at the EudraCT website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu.

PRIME Designation in the European Union

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative, the PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, scheme, to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIME scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application, or MAA, assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated agency contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in the PRIME scheme, facilitating increased understanding of the product at the EMA’s committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.

Pediatric Studies

Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the EU, sponsors have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective requirements for all marketing authorization procedures are set forth in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, which is referred to as the Pediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Pediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine in children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine in children is not needed or is not appropriate because (a) the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in part or all of the pediatric population; (b) the disease or condition occurs only in adult population; or (c) the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric population. Before a marketing authorization application can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 40

Table of Contents

Marketing Authorization

To obtain marketing approval of a product under EU regulatory systems, a sponsor must submit an MAA either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the EC that is valid for all EU member states. The centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP established at the EMA is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a product. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization. Under the centralized procedure in the EU, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the sponsor in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. In this circumstance, the EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days.

The decentralized procedure is available to sponsors who wish to market a product in various EU Member States where such product has not received marketing approval in any EU Member State before. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more other, or concerned, member states of an assessment of an application performed by one member state designated by the sponsor, known as the reference member state. Under this procedure, a sponsor submits an application based on identical dossiers and related materials, including a draft summary of product characteristics, and draft labeling and package leaflet, to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment report and drafts of the related materials within 210 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report and related materials, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials.

If a member state cannot approve the assessment report and related materials on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are subject to a dispute resolution mechanism and may eventually be referred to the EC, whose decision is binding on all member states.

A marketing authorization may be granted only to a sponsor established in the EU. Once the marketing authorization is obtained in all member states of the EU and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension. For orphan-designated medicinal products, the 10-year period of market exclusivity is extended to 12 years.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals in the EU

A marketing authorization is valid for five years, in principle, and it may be renewed after five years on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the relevant EU Member State. To that end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the relevant competent authority of the EU Member State with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the EC or the relevant competent authority of the EU Member State decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal period. Any marketing authorization that is not followed by the marketing of the medicinal product on the EU market (in the case of the centralized procedure) or on the market of the EU Member State which delivered the marketing authorization within three years after authorization ceases to be valid.

Post-Approval Requirements

As in the U.S., both marketing authorization, or MA, holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the EC, and the competent authorities of EU Member States. The MA holder must, for example, comply with EU pharmacovigilance legislation and its related regulations and guidelines which entail many requirements for conducting pharmacovigilance, or the assessment and monitoring of the safety of medicinal products. In particular, the MA holder must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of that system, and oversees the safety profiles of medicinal products and any emerging safety concerns. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs.

All new MAAs must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 41

Table of Contents

authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

The manufacturing process for medicinal products in the EU is also highly regulated and regulators may shut down manufacturing facilities that they believe do not comply with regulations. Manufacturing requires a manufacturing authorization, and the manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, including compliance with EU GMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and active pharmaceutical ingredient.

In the EU, the advertising and promotion of approved products are subject to laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising, and unfair commercial practices. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, as approved by the competent authorities. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion, which is prohibited in the EU. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each EU Member State and can differ from one country to another.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA.

Failure to comply with EU and EU Member State laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

Regulatory Data Exclusivity in the EU

In the EU, innovative medicinal products authorized in the EU on the basis of a full marketing authorization application (as opposed to an application for marketing authorization that relies on data available in the marketing authorization dossier for another, previously approved, medicinal product) are entitled to eight years of data exclusivity. During this period, sponsors for authorization of generics of these innovative products cannot rely on data contained in the marketing authorization dossier submitted for the innovative medicinal product. Innovative medicinal products are also entitled to a total of ten years’ market exclusivity. During this ten-year period no generic of this medicinal product can be placed on the EU market. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a NCE so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

In this context, it should be noted that the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the EC in November 2020. The EC’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products was published in April 2023 and includes, among other things, provisions that would potentially reduce the duration of regulatory data protection. The European Parliament requested several amendments in April 2024. On December 11, 2025, the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional political agreement on the legislation which is expected to be adopted by mid-2026. Key changes include updating regulatory data exclusivity to a new system with 8 years data exclusivity and reduced market exclusivity period to 1 year which can be extended if specific conditions are fulfilled, adding launch/supply obligations, incentivizing antibiotic innovation with transferable vouchers, and streamlining approval procedures in the EU. If the legislation is finalized in line with the provisional political agreement it will have a profound impact on the pharmaceutical industry.

Pediatric Exclusivity

If a sponsor obtains a marketing authorization in all EU Member States, or a marketing authorization granted in the centralized procedure by the EC, and the study results for the pediatric population are included in the product information, even when negative, the medicine is then eligible for an additional six-month period of qualifying patent protection through extension of the term of the Supplementary Protection Certificate, or SPC, or alternatively a one year extension of the regulatory market exclusivity from ten to eleven years, as selected by the marketing authorization holder.

Access Consortium

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 42

Table of Contents

In October 2020, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, joined the Access Consortium along with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia, Health Canada, Health Sciences Authority of Singapore and Swissmedic. The consortium is a coalition of these regulatory authorities that work together to promote greater regulatory collaboration and alignment of regulatory requirements. The consortium’s goal is to maximize international co-operation between partners in the consortium, reduce duplication, and increase each agency’s capacity to ensure patients have timely access to high quality, safe and effective therapeutic products. The MHRA commenced work-sharing applications with Access partners on January 1, 2021. Access Consortium working group members have regular meetings to exchange information on regulatory issues and challenges faced by the participating regulatory agencies, including issues on clinical trials, marketing authorizations, product manufacturing site inspections, post-marketing surveillance, joint development of technical guidelines or regulatory standards, and collaboration on information platforms. The Access consortium has developed three authorization procedures: the New Active Substance and Biosimilar Work Sharing Initiatives and the Generic Medicine Work Sharing Initiative.

General Data Protection Regulation

There are significant privacy and data security laws that apply in Europe and other countries. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals who are located in the EEA, and the processing of personal data that takes place in the EEA, is subject to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, and it imposes heightened requirements on companies that process health and other sensitive data, such as requiring in many situations that a company obtain the consent of the individuals to whom the sensitive personal data relate before processing such data. Examples of obligations imposed by the GDPR on companies processing personal data that fall within the scope of the GDPR include providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, appointing a data protection officer, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors.

The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the U.S., and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.

Following the July 2020 Court of Justice of the European Union judgement invalidating the so-called EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, the EC adopted an adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in July 2023. This adequacy decision permits U.S. companies who self-certify under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework to rely on it as a valid data transfer mechanism for data transfers from the European Union to the United States. However, some privacy advocacy groups have already suggested that they will be challenging the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, and there is currently one pending litigation against the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework before the Court of Justice of the European Union, C-703/25 P – Latombe v. Commission. If these challenges are successful, they may not only impact the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, but also further limit the viability of the so-called standard contractual clauses and other data transfer mechanisms. The uncertainty around this issue has the potential to impact our business.

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the UK voted in favor of leaving the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the UK Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the UK and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR. While the Data Protection Act 2018 in the UK that “implements” and complements the GDPR has achieved Royal Assent on May 23, 2018 and is now effective in the UK, it is still unclear whether transfer of data from the EEA to the UK will remain lawful under GDPR.The UK government has already determined that it considers all EU and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the UK to the EU/EEA remain unaffected. The EC decided in June 2021 that the level of data protection in the UK is “essentially adequate” for purposes of data transfer from the EU to the UK. On December 19, 2025, the EC renewed this decision until December 27, 2031. The UK and the U.S. have also agreed to a U.S.- UK “Data Bridge,” which functions similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and provides an additional legal mechanism for companies to transfer personal data from the UK to the U.S. Switzerland has also taken an adequacy decision in relation to the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (which functions similarly to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the U.S.-UK Data Bridge in relation to data transfers from Switzerland to the U.S.). Any changes or updates to these developments have the potential to impact our business.

Beyond the GDPR, there are privacy and data security laws in a growing number of countries around the world. While many loosely follow the GDPR as a model, other laws contain different or conflicting provisions. These laws will impact our ability to conduct our business activities, including both our clinical trials and any eventual sale and distribution of commercial products.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 43

Table of Contents

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

As of January 1, 2025, the MHRA is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. The MHRA relies on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or the HMR, as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. On April 28, 2025, the UK Parliament adopted amendments to improve and strengthen the UK’s clinical trials regulatory regime; they will take effect on April 28, 2026. These changes were needed since the current UK requirements are based upon the now-repealed EU Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC), which has been replaced by the European Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation EU No 536/2014). Since the UK left the EU prior to the date on which the EU CTR took effect, the UK legal framework did not benefit from the same revisions as occurred at EU level.

As of January 1, 2024, a new international recognition procedure, or the IRP, applies which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EEA member states for approvals in the European Union centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the United States). The RR assessment must have undergone a full and standalone review. RR assessments based on reliance or recognition cannot be used to support an IRP application. A CHMP positive opinion or a mutual recognition and decentralized procedure positive end of procedure outcome is an RR authorization for the purposes of IRP.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the U.S. and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the U.S. such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. In addition, third-party payors may impose prior authorization or step edit requirements requiring patients to have tried other therapies prior to our products for coverage. Payors may also decline to include our products or product candidates on their formulary, which means that unless healthcare providers seek a medical exception for coverage, the payors will not pay for the product.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product candidate could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

Dialysis-related drugs are included in the ESRD PPS bundled payment and are grouped into functional categories such as anemia management and bone and mineral metabolism. In a final ESRD PPS rule published in October 2019, CMS confirmed that TDAPA would be expanded to most new dialysis drugs approved by the FDA after January 1, 2020. The TDAPA provides separate payment for eligible new drugs for two years based on the drug’s Average Sales Price, or ASP, that will be in addition to the base rate in order to facilitate the adoption of innovative therapies.

As an oral drug, Auryxia was covered by Medicare under Part D until January 1, 2025, for the treatment of patients with hyperphosphatemia. In January 2011, CMS implemented the ESRD PPS, a prospective payment system for dialysis treatment. Under the ESRD PPS, CMS generally makes a single bundled payment to the dialysis facility for each dialysis treatment that covers all items and services routinely required for dialysis treatments furnished to Medicare beneficiaries in Medicare-certified ESRD facilities or at their home. As of January 2025, oral ESRD-related drugs without injectable or intravenous equivalents, including Auryxia and all other phosphate lowering medications, are included in the ESRD bundle and separate

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 44

Table of Contents

Part D Medicare payment for these drugs is no longer available. However, dialysis organizations will receive a TDAPA for claims that include phosphate binders through the end of 2026, or the TDAPA period. Vafseo, which we began selling in January 2025, is also included in the ESRD bundle and ESRD facilities will receive a TDAPA for Vafseo as a new renal dialysis drug meeting certain criteria for a period of two years starting on January 1, 2025. TDAPA provides separate payment based on the drug’s ASP that will be in addition to the base rate in order to facilitate the adoption of innovative therapies. If the TDAPA reimbursement amount for Auryxia or Vafseo is lower than anticipated, or if the TDAPA is eliminated, it would have an adverse impact on our revenue. Additionally, after the TDAPA period, CMS currently expects to increase the single bundled payment base rate paid to the dialysis facility for each dialysis treatment to reflect the cost of phosphate lowering medications, including Auryxia and for Vafseo. However, the increase related to Vafseo will only last three years and neither Auryxia nor Vafseo will receive a direct additional payment outside the bundled rate after the TDAPA period. There can be no assurances that any increase in the single bundled payment base rate will be sufficient to adequately reimburse the dialysis facilities for Auryxia or Vafseo at a price that allows us to continue to sell Auryxia or Vafseo at a profit.

In late 2025, legislation was introduced in the U.S. Congress, the Kidney Care Access Protection Act, which seeks to maintain patient access to innovative kidney care treatments, including Vafseo, by addressing reimbursement challenges following TDAPA expiration. There is no guarantee that this legislation will be adopted and, without such legislation, there is a risk that, in the post-TDAPA period, reduced reimbursement could limit provider adoption of Vafseo, restrict patient access and adversely impact our revenue.

In July 2024, Ardelyx filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against HHS, CMS and other parties, which alleged that CMS’s plan to include oral-only phosphate lowering therapies in the ESRD PPS violated its statutory and regulatory authority under the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, which established the ESRD PPS bundled payment system for dialysis services. In October 2024, Ardelyx filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin CMS from including oral-only phosphate lowering therapies in the ESRD PPS. CMS had earlier filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. On November 8, 2024, the district court denied Ardelyx’ motion for a preliminary injunction and it granted the government’s motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Ardelyx moved for reconsideration, but the district court also denied that request. On December 26, 2024, Ardelyx filed a notice of appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Briefing of the case has been completed and oral argument was held on September 25, 2025.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Outside the U.S., ensuring adequate coverage and payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

In the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the EU provides options for its EU Member States to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions.

Recently, many countries in the EU have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced EU Member States, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 45

Table of Contents

any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.

Dialysis Organizations Protocols

Dialysis organizations have their own formularies that list primary or preferred therapeutic options in part based on contracting status with drug manufacturers. While a prescriber may make their own independent decision to prescribe what they determine most appropriate for a given patient, any non-formulary therapeutic options are only available through an exception process based on clinical need. Similar to how payor coverage may affect the sales of a product, formulary status within dialysis organizations may affect what products are prescribed within that specific organization. Therefore, if a product is not on a formulary, the prescribers within that organization may be less likely to prescribe that product or may have a difficult time prescribing that product, resulting in less sales. Further, one dialysis organization’s determination to add a product to their formulary does not assure that other dialysis organizations will also add the product to theirs. There is always a risk a dialysis organization will not contract with a drug manufacturer for a specific product, resulting in that product not being on that organization’s formulary. Additionally, dialysis organizations typically assess a product’s efficacy before adding it to their formulary. Their process for assessing a product may differ among organizations and the timing of such assessment could delay adding such treatment to formulary, further affecting product sales.

Healthcare Law and Regulation

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, reporting of payments to physicians, teaching hospitals and other healthcare providers, patient privacy laws and regulations, and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

•the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, paying, 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, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid;

•the federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalties laws, which prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false, fictitious or fraudulent or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government

•HIPAA, which created additional federal criminal laws that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters;

•HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, which impose obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information;

•the federal false statements statute, which prohibits 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;

•the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, which prohibits companies and their intermediaries from making, or offering or promising to make improper payments to non-U.S. officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or otherwise seeking favorable treatment;

•the federal transparency requirements, known as the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (renamed the Open Payments Act), under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act, or ACA, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies to report annually to the CMS within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, information related to payments and other transfers of value made by that entity to physicians, other healthcare providers and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members;

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 46

Table of Contents

•the PDMA and its implementation regulations, as well as the DSCSA, which regulate the distribution and tracing of prescription drugs and prescription drug samples at the federal level, and set minimum standards for the regulation of drug distributors by the states; and

•analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to healthcare items or services that are reimbursed by third-party payors, including private insurers, and state gift ban and disclosure law requirements that differ from the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act in terms of the nature and type of transfers of value that are reportable and the types of covered recipients.

Violations of these laws are punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Ensuring compliance is time consuming and costly. Similar healthcare laws and regulations exist in the EU and other jurisdictions, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers and laws governing the privacy and security of personal information.

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines, such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals, known as the PhRMA Code. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Healthcare Reform in the U.S.

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the U.S.

By way of example, the U.S. and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare.

In March 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, 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. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which will remain in effect through 2031 pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Act, which was signed by the prior administration on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. In June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA after finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Pharmaceutical Prices in the U.S.

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the U.S. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid.

In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the U.S. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Several states have passed laws allowing for the importation of products from Canada. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian product importation. That state now has authority to import certain products from Canada for a period of two years once certain conditions are met. Florida will first need to submit a pre-import request for each product selected for importation, which must be approved by the FDA. The state will also need to relabel the products and perform quality testing

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 47

Table of Contents

of the products to meet FDA standards. On May 21, 2025, the FDA announced that it would offer individual states the opportunity to submit a draft proposal for pre-review and meet with the agency to obtain initial feedback from FDA prior to formally submitting their SIP proposal. The intent of these meetings is to assist states in developing their proposals by further clarifying requirements, enhancing the quality of proposals submitted to the agency and ultimately shortening the review timeline.

Further, the HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would also eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032.

The IRA has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years. Drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition were originally categorically excluded from price negotiation. With passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 3, 2025, which was signed into law on July 4, 2025, Congress extended this exemption to drugs and biologics with multiple orphan drug designations.

Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $2,000 a year.

On August 15, 2024, HHS published the results of the first Medicare drug price negotiations for ten selected drugs that treat a range of conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. The prices of these ten drugs will become effective January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, HHS announced the selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations. This second cycle of negotiations with participating drug companies occurred during 2025, and any negotiated prices for this second set of drugs will be effective starting January 1, 2027. CMS issued a public statement on January 29, 2025, declaring that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority of the new administration, and CMS is committed to considering opportunities to bring greater transparency in the negotiation program.

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co., Inc. filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas Pharma US, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, AstraZeneca L.P. and Boehringer Ingelheim, Pharmaceuticals, Inc. also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against HHS and CMS. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, or succeeded in getting claims dismissed for lack of standing. Most of these cases are now on appeal. On October 30, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in three of these cases. In April 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard arguments in an additional three cases. On May 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected AstraZeneca L.P.’s challenge to the Medicare price negotiation program, finding that the program did not violate the company’s due process rights under the Constitution since there is no protected property interest in selling goods to Medicare beneficiaries at a price higher than what the government is willing to pay in reimbursement. Litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue with unpredictable and uncertain results.

On April 15, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order which directs HHS to take steps to reduce the prices of pharmaceutical products. The new Executive Order repeats many of the proposals advanced during the first Trump Administration, including directing the FDA to streamline and improve its existing drug importation program so as to make it easier for states to obtain approval without sacrificing the safety or quality of drug products. Other provisions of the Executive Order relate to the 340B program. Specifically, one provision calls on the Secretary of HHS to determine the hospital

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 48

Table of Contents

acquisition cost for covered outpatient drugs at hospital outpatient departments and to consider and propose any appropriate adjustments for Medicare payment. The other provision directs HHS to condition grant funding to certain health centers on those centers passing through the 340B discounts they receive on insulin and injectable epinephrine products to patients who meet certain requirements. With respect to the IRA’s Medicare drug pricing program, the Executive Order, among other things, calls for alignment in “the treatment of small molecule prescription drugs with that of biological products, ending the distortion that undermines relative investment in small molecule prescription drugs, coupled with other reforms to prevent any increase in overall costs to Medicare and its beneficiaries.”

Further, on May 12, 2025, President Trump issued an additional Executive Order calling on pharmaceutical manufacturers to voluntarily reduce the prices of medicines in the U.S. The Executive Order directs the Secretary of HHS to communicate most-favored-nation, or MFN, price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices in line with comparably developed nations. The Executive Order further provides that if such actions do not lower the costs of pharmaceuticals, the Secretary of HHS would pursue other actions, including proposing a rulemaking that imposes MFN pricing in the U.S. Subsequently, on May 20, 2025, HHS indicated that the proposed MFN pricing will apply only to brand products without generic or biosimilar competition and the reference foreign countries will include only those in which the branded product similarly does not have generic or biosimilar competition. Second, HHS indicated that the MFN target price will be the lowest price in a country that is a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, with a gross domestic product, or GDP, per capita of at least 60% of the U.S. GDP per capita. Based on previous estimates, there are likely at least 22 OECD countries that would satisfy this criterion. The implications of these actions remain unclear and are likely to result in litigation if the administration pursues an MFN regulatory pricing requirement.

More recently, on July 31, 2025, the President issued letters to 17 pharmaceutical companies reiterating the requirements of the May 12, 2025, Executive Order and demanding that such companies extend MFN pricing to Medicaid patients, guarantee MFN pricing for newly-launched drug products, return increased revenues abroad to American patients and provide for direct purchasing at MFN pricing. The letters also urged these companies to stipulate that they will not offer other developed nations better prices for new drugs than the prices offered for such products in the U.S. The letters called for engagement with the FDA and CMS within 60 days to implement these changes and threatened to use “every tool in our arsenal” to address what the letter characterized as “abusive drug pricing practices.” Subsequently, the administration has announced deals with various pharmaceutical companies to reduce the costs of drugs.

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological 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. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription pharmaceutical and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures. This may be especially true with respect to products approved pursuant to the accelerated approval pathway. State Medicaid programs and other payers are developing strategies and implementing significant coverage barriers, or refusing to cover these products outright, arguing that accelerated approval drugs have insufficient or limited evidence despite meeting the FDA’s standards for accelerated approval.

Healthcare Reform and Pharmaceutical Prices in the EU

In the EU, similar political, economic, and regulatory developments to those in the U.S. may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In many countries, including those of the EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of an MA. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, pharmaceutical firms may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of the product to other available therapies. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the EU or EU Member State level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles. The delivery of healthcare in the EU, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU Member States have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could restrict or

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 49

Table of Contents

regulate post-approval activities and affect the ability of pharmaceutical companies to commercialize their products. In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies.

In the EU, potential reductions in prices and changes in reimbursement levels could be the result of different factors, including reference pricing used by various EU Member States, parallel distribution and parallel trade can further reduce prices. It could also result from the application of external reference pricing mechanisms, which consist of arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced EU Member States. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any product candidates, if approved in those countries.

Health technology assessment, or HTA, of medicinal products in the EU is an essential element of the pricing and reimbursement decision-making process in a number of EU Member States. The outcome of HTA has a direct impact on the pricing and reimbursement status granted to the medicinal product. A negative HTA by a leading and recognized HTA body concerning a medicinal product could undermine the prospects to obtain reimbursement for such product not only in the EU Member State in which the negative assessment was issued, but also in other EU Member States.

In 2011, Directive 2011/24/EU was adopted at the EU level. This directive establishes a voluntary network of national authorities or bodies responsible for HTA in the individual EU Member States. The network facilitates and supports the exchange of scientific information concerning HTAs. Further to this, on December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. While the regulation entered into force in January 2022, it will only begin to apply from January 2025 onwards, with preparatory and implementation-related steps to take place in the interim. Once applicable, it will have a phased implementation depending on the concerned products. The regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products as well as certain high-risk medical devices, and provide the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It will permit EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the highest potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement.

Laws Relating to Foreign Trade

We are subject to various federal and foreign laws that govern our international business practices. These laws include the FCPA, which prohibits U.S. companies and their representatives from paying, offering to pay, promising, or authorizing the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party, or political candidate for the purposes of obtaining or retaining business, or to otherwise obtain favorable treatment or influence a person working in an official capacity. In many countries, the health care professionals we regularly interact with may meet the FCPA’s definition of a foreign government official. Additionally, interactions with or on the part of our partners, collaborators, contract research organizations, vendors or other agents may also implicate the FCPA. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect their transactions and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents unique challenges in the pharmaceutical industry because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments made by pharmaceutical companies to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.

On February 10, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Attorney General to review the guidelines and policies governing the FCPA investigations and enforcement actions. Per the Executive Order, this review will result in new Department of Justice FCPA guidelines intended to enhance American economic competitiveness and to safeguard national security interests. During the 180-day review period, any new FCPA investigations and enforcement actions are to be suspended absent authorization from the Attorney General, and all existing FCPA investigations and enforcement actions will be reviewed. Additionally, after the Attorney General issues revised guidelines, the Executive Order directs her to assess whether “remedial measures” related to past FCPA actions are warranted.

Our international operations could also be subject to compliance with national laws of other countries, such as the United Kingdom Bribery Act. of 2010, or UK Bribery Act. The UK Bribery Act applies to any company “carrying on business” in the UK, irrespective of where the offending conduct occurs. The UK Bribery Act applies to bribery activities both in the public and private sector and prohibits the provision of an “advantage” intended to induce or reward “improper performance” of the recipient’s function. The failure by a company to prevent third parties from providing a bribe on its behalf could also

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 50

Table of Contents

constitute an offense. Penalties under the UK Bribery Act include potentially unlimited fines for companies and criminal sanctions for corporate officers under certain circumstances.

There are local antibribery and anticorruption laws in countries where we are conducting clinical trials, such as Brazil and Russia, and many of these also carry the risk of significant financial or criminal penalties. Our clinical trial operations could also result in enforcement actions by U.S., UK, or other governmental authorities. There are also trade laws within the U.S. and in other regions that regulate the sale, purchase, import, export, reexport, transfer and shipment of goods, currency, products, materials, services and technology. Violations of these laws can lead to serious consequences, including substantial fines.

Other Regulations

We are also subject to numerous federal, state and local laws relating to such matters as safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control, and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now or in the future.

Buying Patterns

We believe the dynamics of Auryxia reimbursement being included in the ESRD bundle under Medicare Part B and Auryxia LoE on March 20, 2025 could result in the buying pattern of certain customers in 2026 and future years being different than historical practices. On January 22, 2026, Teva received tentative approval for its ANDA for Auryxia. Currently, there is only one authorized generic for Auryxia sold by our distributor, but we expect additional generic competition in 2026. If additional generics are approved and enter the market, we expect it will adversely impact our revenue. However, the impact on future Auryxia revenues will depend on many factors, including our ability to maintain contracts with dialysis organizations, the timing and number of additional generics and the pricing of generics and other products on the market that compete with Auryxia.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2025, we had 194 employees. None of our employees are represented by any collective bargaining unit. We believe that we maintain good relations with our employees.

We face competition for our personnel from our competitors and other companies throughout our industry. Over the last several years, the challenges in recruiting and retaining employees across the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have increased substantially due to current industry job market dynamics.

Retention, growth, training and development of our employees are integral to our success. We offer competitive compensation, including base salary and incentive bonuses. We conduct bi-annual internal and external pay reviews to ensure fair and competitive pay for our employees, which includes an internal pay equity analysis, as well as a review of our employees' pay against external market data. Our company-wide practice around pay transparency includes sharing salary ranges and total rewards information on all job postings and at least annually with employees, which we believe helps to improve recruitment, strengthen employer brand and foster trust and engagement. To foster a stronger sense of ownership and align the interests of employees with shareholders, we grant restricted stock units and common stock options to eligible employees under our broad-based stock incentive program, and employees may purchase stock pursuant to our employee stock purchase plan. In addition, many of our executives participate in our employee stock purchase plan. Further, our benefits packages are designed to attract, motivate and reward talented individuals who possess the skills necessary to support our business objectives, assist in the achievement of our strategic goals and create value for our stockholders. Our compensation program is designed to differentiate us from our competition, incentivize achievement of corporate goals and individual performance and demonstrate our corporate values. In addition, we are committed to developing our team members and provide development and leadership opportunities to our employees to cultivate talent throughout the Company.

We are committed to our employees’ health, safety and well-being. Our work paradigm is flexible and designed to accommodate a range of work profiles. Our workforce is primarily hybrid and fully remote, including field-based, with certain employees being office-based. We offer a wide variety of competitive benefits to support our employees' physical, mental and financial well-being. Our benefits package is comprehensive in coverage and offers options to support all employees in staying healthy, planning for their future and developing their careers. Our management continues to assess and respond to the evolving needs of our workforce.

Environmental, Social and Governance

Our commitment is to ensure that every employee is included, supported and treated fairly. In furtherance of this goal, we conducted an employee engagement survey to identify the strengths and opportunities around our culture and employee experience. The feedback was shared with our Culture Steering Committee, a team whose remit includes supporting and guiding Akebia as an inclusive and culturally intelligent workplace. Over the past four years this team has worked with executive leadership to move forward several initiatives that will enable us to continue to build an inclusive workplace and to work toward our aspiration to have a workforce comprised of talented individuals with different experiences, perspectives

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 51

Table of Contents

and backgrounds. In 2025, the team developed and implemented a mentorship program to broaden perspectives and development opportunities for employees across the organization. In 2024, this team launched training focused on promoting equal opportunity and mitigating potential bias for all employees.

Our Cambridge office has a Fitwel Certification, a healthy building certification system, and is level two certified. Additionally, we consolidated our office footprint to reduce our use of energy and other resources and have initiated recycling programs, including single stream recycling and recycling cans at every desk. Furthermore, we offer a commuter benefit to all of our hybrid and office-based employees to encourage employees to use public transportation and offer bicycle parking free of charge in the onsite garage.

In addition, we support kidney patient communities where we live and work. We have a copay assistance program that helps to reduce the costs of Auryxia for eligible patients. In 2025, we offered copay assistance to approximately 1,600 patients.

We also have a cross-functional Sponsorship Review Committee that reviews and approves sponsorships and donations based on the relevance of each projects to our purpose, business objectives and the communities we serve. We support and work closely with multiple kidney patient advocacy organizations. We believe our involvement with and support of patient advocacy programs demonstrates our commitment to our purpose of bettering the life of each person impacted by kidney disease.

Available Information

Our website address is www.akebia.com. The information on our website or that may be accessed by links on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K. We make available, free of charge and through our website, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to any such reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.

Corporate Information

Akebia was incorporated in Delaware in 2007 and became a public company in 2014. Our mailing address and principal executive offices and our laboratory are located at 245 First Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142. Our telephone number is (617) 871-2098.

We are required to file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. The SEC maintains a website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements, and other information, including amendments and exhibits to such reports, filed or furnished pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are also available free of charge in the “SEC Filings” section of our website located at http://www.akebia.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after the reports are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. The information on our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. | Form 10-K | Page 52