CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC (CORT) Business

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

We are a commercial-stage company engaged in the discovery and development of medications to treat severe endocrinologic, oncologic, metabolic and neurologic disorders by modulating the effects of the hormone cortisol.

Cortisol plays a significant role in the body’s response to stress and is essential for survival. Cortisol influences metabolism and the immune system and contributes to emotional stability. Cortisol levels follow a diurnal rhythm that is essential to health, peaking upon awakening and decreasing during the day. Insufficient cortisol activity may lead to dehydration, hypotension, shock, fatigue and hypoglycemia. Excessive cortisol activity, known as hypercortisolism, may lead to hypertension, diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, obesity, fatty liver disease, depressed mood, psychosis, wasting of the arms and legs, edema, fatigue, insomnia and other problems.

Cortisol reduces a patient’s immune response to oncogenesis, shields certain cancer cells from the apoptotic effects of chemotherapy and facilitates the growth of others. Pre-clinical and clinical data indicate that modulating cortisol activity may improve outcomes in patients with fatty liver disease and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (“MASH”), which are precursors of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. Pre-clinical and clinical data also suggest that modulating cortisol activity may lead to treatments for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (“ALS”).

1

Since 2012, we have marketed Korlym in the United States for the treatment of patients suffering from hypercortisolism (also known as “Cushing’s syndrome”). In June 2024, we made an authorized generic version of Korlym available for the same indication. The challenge in treating a patient with hypercortisolism is modulating cortisol’s effects without either inappropriately suppressing them or disrupting cortisol’s normal diurnal rhythm. Simply reducing or destroying the ability of the body to make cortisol can cause serious harm. Cortisol activity can be modulated effectively by a drug that competes with cortisol’s binding to the glucocorticoid receptor (“GR”).

Because Korlym’s active ingredient, mifepristone, reduces the binding of excess cortisol to the GR, it can modulate the effects of abnormal levels and release patterns of cortisol without compromising cortisol’s healthy functions and rhythms. However, mifepristone also binds to the progesterone receptor (“PR”), thereby terminating pregnancy and causing other adverse effects, including endometrial thickening and vaginal bleeding, a debilitating condition suffered by a significant portion of women who take Korlym.

We have discovered more than 1,000 proprietary cortisol modulators that bind to the GR but have no affinity for the PR and therefore do not cause effects arising from antagonism of progesterone activity, such as termination of pregnancy, endometrial thickening and vaginal bleeding. The composition of these “selective” cortisol modulators and their methods of use in a wide range of indications are covered by U.S. and foreign patents.

Our lead compounds are being evaluated in clinical trials as potential treatments for a variety of serious disorders – hypercortisolism, solid tumors (including ovarian, endometrial, cervical, pancreatic and prostate cancers), ALS and MASH.

Hypercortisolism (Cushing’s syndrome)

Background. Hypercortisolism is the result of a tumor that produces either cortisol or adrenal corticotropic hormone, a hormone that causes the adrenal glands to produce cortisol. Abnormally high levels of cortisol lead to overstimulation of the GR, which gives rise to a wide range of serious adverse effects. Most people with hypercortisolism have one or more of the following symptoms: hypertension, diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, obesity, fatty liver disease, wasting of the arms and legs, edema, fatigue and insomnia. Irritability, anxiety, cognitive disturbances and depression are also common. Hypercortisolism can affect every organ system in the body and can be lethal if not treated. If the tumor can be found, the preferred treatment is surgery, which, if successful, can cure the disease. In approximately half of patients who receive surgery, the procedure is not successful. Depending on the type of tumor, surgery can also result in a range of complications and recurrence of the disease is common.

Our Products. We sell Korlym and a generic version of Korlym in the United States (our “Products”) using sales representatives to call on physicians caring for patients with hypercortisolism. We also have a field-based force of medical science liaisons. From 2017 until 2025, we used an exclusive specialty pharmacy vendor, Optime Care, Inc. (“Optime”) and a specialty distributor to distribute our Products and provide logistical support to physicians and patients. In June 2025, we notified Optime that it would cease to be our exclusive specialty pharmacy and in October 2025, we delivered a notice of termination of our agreement with them, effective January 8, 2026. In the fourth quarter of 2025, substantially all of our specialty pharmacy services were transferred from Optime to Curant Health Georgia, LLC (“Curant”). After the first quarter of 2026, Optime will no longer provide specialty pharmacy services related to our Products. Our policy is that no patient with hypercortisolism will be denied access to our Products for financial reasons. To help us achieve that goal, we have patient support programs and donate money to independent charitable foundations that help patients pay for all aspects of their hypercortisolism care, whether or not that care includes taking our Products.

Because most people who suffer from hypercortisolism are undiagnosed or inadequately treated, we have developed and continue to refine and expand programs to educate physicians and patients about screening for hypercortisolism and the role our Products can play in treating patients with the disorder. In 2023 and 2024, we conducted the “CATALYST” study to determine the prevalence of hypercortisolism in patients with difficult-to-control diabetes (defined as HbA1c of 7.5 percent or higher) despite receiving optimum treatment. Of the 1,057 patients enrolled in the first phase of CATALYST, 23.8 percent were found to have hypercortisolism. These patients were offered the chance to enter CATALYST’s second phase, in which 136 eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either Korlym or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint of CATALYST’s second phase was a reduction in hemoglobin A1c (“HbA1c”) in patients who received Korlym compared to patients who received placebo. CATALYST met this primary endpoint. Patients who received Korlym exhibited a clinically meaningful and statistically significant decrease in HbA1c of 1.47 percent, compared to a decrease of 0.15 percent in patients who received placebo (p-value: 0.0001). This phase of the trial also met its secondary endpoints. Patients who received Korlym exhibited significantly greater reductions in body weight (5.1 kg; p-value: 0.001) and waist circumference (5.1 cm; p-value: 0.002) than patients who received placebo. The safety profile of Korlym in CATALYST was manageable and consistent with the medication’s label: No new side effects or adverse events were identified.

2

CATALYST’s results were published in Diabetes Care (Buse et al., April 2025 (first phase) and DeFronzo et al., June 2025 (second phase)), the peer-reviewed journal of the American Diabetes Association.

To determine the prevalence of hypercortisolism in patients with resistant hypertension, we initiated the MOMENTUM trial in March 2025. Resistant hypertension is defined by the American Heart Association as systolic blood pressure greater than 130mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure greater than 80mm Hg despite the use of three or more antihypertensive medications of different classes, including a diuretic. MOMENTUM completed enrollment of over 1,000 patients in December 2025. Enrollment is closed.

The results of CATALYST and MOMENTUM will help physicians better identify patients with hypercortisolism and determine their optimal treatment.

Relacorilant. We are developing our proprietary, selective cortisol modulator, relacorilant, as a treatment for patients with hypercortisolism. Relacorilant shares Korlym’s affinity for the GR but, unlike Korlym, has no affinity for the PR and so is not the “abortion pill” and does not cause other effects associated with PR affinity, including endometrial thickening and vaginal bleeding. Because relacorilant does not meaningfully increase cortisol levels, it does not cause hypokalemia (low potassium), a potentially serious condition that is a leading cause of patients stopping treatment with Korlym. Forty-four percent of patients in Korlym’s pivotal trial experienced hypokalemia. Unlike all other medications used to treat hypercortisolism, relacorilant does not prolong the heart’s QT interval, a potentially deadly off-target effect.

In December 2024, we submitted a New Drug Application (“NDA”) to the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to market relacorilant as a treatment for patients with endogenous hypercortisolism. The NDA was based on positive results from our pivotal GRACE trial, with confirmatory evidence from our Phase 3 GRADIENT trial, our Phase 3 long-term extension study and our Phase 2 study. Patients in these trials exhibited clinically meaningful improvements in a wide range of hypercortisolism signs and symptoms, including hypertension, glucose control, weight and body composition. Relacorilant has been well-tolerated in all of its clinical trials. Notably, patients did not experience some of the serious adverse events that can arise in patients taking Korlym or other currently approved treatments.

On December 30, 2025, the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) declining to approve relacorilant. While the letter acknowledged that our GRACE trial had met its primary endpoint and that our GRADIENT trial had provided confirmatory evidence, the FDA stated that additional evidence of efficacy would be required for approval. We are working with the FDA to determine relacorilant’s optimal path to approval.

The GRACE trial had two parts. The first, open-label phase enrolled 152 patients with any etiology of hypercortisolism. Each patient received relacorilant for 22 weeks. Patients who exhibited pre-specified improvements in either hypertension, hyperglycemia or both symptoms were eligible to proceed to GRACE’s second, double-blind, randomized withdrawal phase, in which half of the patients continued to receive relacorilant and half received placebo for 12 weeks. GRACE’s primary endpoint was the number of patients in the relacorilant group who lost blood pressure control compared to the number who lost blood pressure control in the placebo group.

In the open-label phase, patients experienced clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in a wide-array of hypercortisolism signs and symptoms, including hypertension, hyperglycemia, weight, waist circumference, fat and lean body mass, cognition and Cushing’s Quality of Life score. Rapid and sustained improvements in systolic blood pressure (“SBP”) and diastolic blood pressure (“DBP”) were observed in all patients with hypertension, with an improvement in mean SBP of 7.9 mm Hg and mean DBP of 5.4 mm Hg at 22 weeks (p-values: 0.0001). During the open-label phase, 63 percent of patients with hypertension met the study’s response criteria. The improvements were even greater in the patients with hypertension who entered the randomized withdrawal phase, with reductions in SBP of 12.6 mm Hg and DBP of 8.3 mm Hg (p-values: 0.0001). To ensure accuracy, hypertension was measured by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (“ABPM”).

Glucose metabolism was measured by several diagnostic tests, including the oral glucose tolerance test (glucose area under the curve or AUCglucose), HbA1c and fasting glucose. In the open-label phase, clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in glucose metabolism were observed in patients with diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance (i.e., pre-diabetes), with reductions in AUCglucose of 3.3 h*mmol/L, HbA1c of 0.3 percent and fasting glucose of 12.4 mg/dL at 22 weeks (p-values: 0.0001, 0.03, 0.03, respectively). During the open-label phase, 50 percent of patients with hyperglycemia met the study’s response criteria. Patients with hyperglycemia who entered the randomized withdrawal phase exhibited more pronounced improvements, with reductions in AUCglucose of 6.2 h*mmol/L, HbA1c of 0.7 percent and fasting glucose of 25.2 mg/dL at 22 weeks (p-values: 0.0001, 0.0001, 0.006, respectively).

GRACE met its primary endpoint. Patients with hypertension who were switched to placebo in the randomized withdrawal phase were significantly more likely to lose blood pressure control than were patients who continued to receive

3

relacorilant (odds ratio: 0.17; p-value: 0.02). Patients who continued to receive relacorilant also maintained their improvements in hyperglycemia, waist circumference, fat and lean tissue mass, while patients who received placebo experienced a significant worsening of hypercortisolism signs and symptoms.

Our Phase 3 GRADIENT study enrolled patients with hypercortisolism caused by adrenal adenomas or adrenal hyperplasia. These patients have a more gradual decline than patients with other etiologies of hypercortisolism, although their health outcomes are ultimately poor. GRADIENT enrolled 137 patients with hypercortisolism and either hypertension, hyperglycemia or both. Patients were randomized on a double-blind basis 1:1 to receive either relacorilant or placebo for 22 weeks. The trial’s primary endpoint was the improvement compared to placebo in systolic blood pressure with glycemic control, weight and body composition as secondary endpoints.

Patients in GRADIENT who received relacorilant exhibited clinically meaningful improvements in a wide array of hypercortisolism’s signs and symptoms, including hypertension, hyperglycemia, weight and body composition, while patients who received placebo did not.

GRADIENT patients with hypertension who received relacorilant experienced a reduction in systolic blood pressure of 6.6 mm Hg (p-value 0.012) compared to baseline. The reduction in patients who received placebo was 2.1 mm Hg (p-value: ns) compared to baseline. The comparison between those who received relacorilant and placebo was not statistically significant. During the study, five patients who received placebo required rescue therapy with anti-hypertension medications, compared to one patient who received relacorilant. To ensure accuracy, hypertension was measured by 24-hour ABPM.

GRADIENT patients with hyperglycemia who received relacorilant experienced clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in glucose metabolism, including fasting glucose (placebo-adjusted reduction of 22.2 mg/dL; p-value 0.002), area under the curve of the oral glucose tolerance test (placebo-adjusted reduction of 2.6 h*mmol/L; p-value 0.046) and HbA1c (placebo-adjusted reduction of 0.3 percent; p-value 0.019), compared to those who received placebo. These patients also experienced clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in body weight (placebo-adjusted reduction of 3.9 kg; p-value: 0.0001) and visceral adipose fat mass and volume (p-values: 0.018 and 0.016, respectively), compared to patients who received placebo.

Relacorilant was well-tolerated in GRADIENT, with side effects consistent with its other clinical trials. The most common adverse events were mild-to-moderate nausea, edema, pain in the extremities and back, and fatigue – all symptoms associated with the “cortisol withdrawal” many patients experience when cortisol activity reverts to a more normal level, following surgery or the start of medical therapy for hypercortisolism. Importantly, there were no relacorilant-induced instances of hypokalemia, endometrial hypertrophy or drug-induced vaginal bleeding, adrenal insufficiency or QT prolongation.

Patients who completed our GRACE, GRADIENT and Phase 2 trials were eligible to enter our open-label, long-term extension study. Of the 116 patients who chose to do so, the duration of the treatment has been up to seven years. In December 2024, we announced that patients who remained in the study for 24 months exhibited, at that time, further clinically meaningful and statistically significant reductions in systolic (10.0 mm Hg; p-value: 0.012) and diastolic blood pressure (7.3 mm Hg; p-value: 0.016), compared to their blood pressure at entry into the long-term extension study. These patients had also maintained response in other cardiometabolic measures, such as glycemic control and body weight. Consistent with its known safety profile, relacorilant was well-tolerated.

The FDA and the European Commission (“EC”) have designated relacorilant as an orphan drug for the treatment of hypercortisolism. In the United States, relacorilant’s orphan designation confers tax credits, reduced regulatory fees and, provided we obtain approval for the treatment of patients with hypercortisolism, seven years of exclusive marketing rights. Benefits of orphan drug designation by the EC are similar but include protocol assistance from the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure in the European Union (“EU”) and, if we obtain approval, ten years of exclusive marketing rights in the EU for the treatment of patients with hypercortisolism.

Oncology

There is substantial evidence that cortisol activity at the GR reduces the efficacy of certain anti-cancer therapies and that modulating cortisol’s activity may help anti-cancer treatments achieve their intended effect. In some cancers, cortisol retards cellular apoptosis – the tumor-killing effect many treatments are meant to stimulate. In other cancers, cortisol activity promotes tumor growth. Cortisol also suppresses the body’s immune response; activating – not suppressing – the immune system is beneficial in fighting certain cancers. Many types of solid tumors express the GR and are potential targets for cortisol modulation therapy, among them ovarian, endometrial, cervical, pancreatic and prostate cancers.

Relacorilant in Combination with Chemotherapy. In July 2025, we submitted an NDA seeking approval to market relacorilant plus the chemotherapy medication nab-paclitaxel as a treatment for patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer

4

in the United States. In September 2025, the FDA accepted our NDA for filing and assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) date of July 11, 2026. In October 2025, we submitted a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) to the EMA seeking approval in the European Union. Our NDA and MAA are both based on positive results from our pivotal Phase 3 ROSELLA and Phase 2 trials, in which patients exhibited clinically meaningful improvements in progression free survival (“PFS”) and overall survival (“OS”). In both trials, relacorilant was well-tolerated and did not increase the safety burden of patients who took it.

ROSELLA enrolled three hundred eighty-one women with recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer who were randomized 1:1 to receive either 150 mg of relacorilant intermittently in addition to the chemotherapeutic agent nab-paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. Patients enrolled in ROSELLA received prior bevacizumab therapy, which is the approved standard of care for patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Women who have received more than three prior lines of therapy were excluded.

ROSELLA met its dual primary endpoints – PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review and OS. In March 2025, we announced that ROSELLA had met its PFS endpoint. Patients treated with relacorilant in addition to nab-paclitaxel experienced a clinically and statistically significant 30 percent reduction in risk of disease progression compared to patients treated with nab-paclitaxel alone (hazard ratio: 0.70; p-value: 0.008). PFS improvement as assessed by ROSELLA’s clinical investigators was also positive (hazard ratio: 0.71; p-value: 0.0030). In January 2026, we announced that ROSELLA had met its OS primary endpoint. Patients treated with relacorilant in addition to nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy experienced a clinically and statistically significant 35 percent reduction in the risk of death compared to patients treated with nab-paclitaxel alone (hazard ratio: 0.65; p-value: 0.0004). The median OS for patients receiving relacorilant was 16.0 months, compared to 11.9 months for patients receiving nab-paclitaxel alone. Importantly, both PFS and OS benefits were seen in all clinically relevant patient subgroups, including those with poor prognoses.

Relacorilant in combination with nab-paclitaxel was well-tolerated, consistent with its known safety profile. Importantly, relacorilant conferred its benefit without increasing the safety burden of the patients who received it. The type, frequency and severity of adverse events in the combination arm were comparable to those in the nab-paclitaxel monotherapy arm.

The results from ROSELLA were published in The Lancet (Olawaiye et al., June 2025).

ROSELLA’s results are consistent with the positive results of our Phase 2 trial, a 178-patient, controlled, multi-center, trial of relacorilant combined with nab-paclitaxel in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Phase 2 study participants were randomized to one of three treatment arms: 60 women received 150 mg of relacorilant intermittently (the day before, the day of and the day after their weekly nab-paclitaxel infusion) and 58 women received a daily relacorilant dose of 100 mg per day in addition to nab-paclitaxel. Sixty women received nab-paclitaxel alone. The trial’s primary endpoint was PFS.

Patients in both relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel treatment arms of the Phase 2 trial experienced longer PFS than did patients who received nab-paclitaxel alone. Patients who received a higher dose of relacorilant intermittently exhibited a statistically significant improvement in median PFS (5.6 months versus 3.8 months, hazard ratio: 0.66; p-value: 0.038). Patients who received a lower dose of relacorilant daily exhibited a median PFS that was 1.5 months longer than did the patients who received nab-paclitaxel alone (5.3 months versus 3.8 months, hazard ratio: 0.83; p-value: not significant). Patients who received relacorilant intermittently also had a longer median duration of response (“DoR”) (5.6 months versus 3.7 months, hazard ratio: 0.36; p-value: 0.006) compared to those who received nab-paclitaxel alone. Patients who received relacorilant intermittently also lived longer (median OS: 13.9 months versus 12.2 months, hazard ratio: 0.67; p-value: 0.066) compared to those who received nab-paclitaxel alone.

As was the case in ROSELLA, the addition of relacorilant to treatment with nab-paclitaxel did not increase patients’ safety burden. The safety and tolerability of relacorilant and nab-paclitaxel combination treatment was comparable to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy alone.

The final analysis from our Phase 2 trial was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (Colombo et al., 2023), the premiere journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In April 2025, we initiated a Phase 2 trial, BELLA, which has three parts. In December 2025, Part A completed enrollment of 95 patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Part A will evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Part B has a planned enrollment of 90 patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, whose disease had progressed while receiving treatment with a PARP-inhibitor. Part B will evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Part C has a planned enrollment of 90 patients with endometrial cancer who have received one or two prior lines of therapy. Part C will evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel.

5

In December 2025, we initiated a Phase 2 trial, TRIDENT, with a planned enrollment of 50 patients with pancreatic cancer, who have not received prior therapy for metastatic disease. TRIDENT will evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine.

In collaboration with the Paris-based academic research cooperative ARCAGY-GINECO, we will initiate, in the first quarter of 2026, a Phase 2 trial, STELLA, in 50 patients with cervical cancer, who have received one or two prior lines of therapy. STELLA will evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel.

The EC has designated relacorilant as an orphan drug for the treatment of ovarian and pancreatic cancers.

Nenocorilant in Combination with Immunotherapy. Immunotherapy harnesses the body’s immune system to identify and destroy cancer cells. We are testing the potential of our proprietary, selective cortisol modulator, nenocorilant to treat cancer by reducing cortisol-activated immune suppression and thereby help the patient’s immune system reduce or eradicate tumors while they receive immunotherapy. In December 2025, we initiated a Phase 1b trial, SYNERGY, with a planned enrollment of 30 patients with solid tumors to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with nenocorilant plus nivolumab (a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor).

Relacorilant in Combination with Androgen Deprivation Therapy. Androgen deprivation is the standard treatment for prostate cancer because androgens stimulate prostate tumor growth. Prostate cancer tumors eventually escape androgen deprivation therapy; one of the prime reasons is that these tumors begin to be stimulated by cortisol’s activity. Combining a cortisol modulator with an androgen modulator may block this escape route. Our collaborators at the University of Chicago have initiated a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2 trial of relacorilant plus enzalutamide in patients with prostate cancer, pre-prostatectomy. Patents we have licensed from the University of Chicago cover the use of relacorilant combined with anticancer agents, including enzalutamide, to treat patients with this disease.

Metabolic Diseases

Liver Disease. MASH is an advanced form of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease that afflicts millions of patients and is a leading cause of liver-related mortality. Our Phase 1b trial of the selective cortisol modulator miricorilant as a potential treatment for MASH identified a dosing regimen that reduced liver fat, improved liver health and key metabolic and lipid measures and was well-tolerated. Following these compelling results, we initiated a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 2b trial, MONARCH, of miricorilant in patients with MASH in October 2023. MONARCH has two patient cohorts: Cohort A enrolled 82 patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH, randomized 2:1 to receive either 100 mg of miricorilant twice weekly or placebo for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint of Cohort A is reduction in liver fat, with MASH resolution and fibrosis improvement being key secondary endpoints. Cohort B enrolled 93 patients with presumed MASH, randomized 2:1 to receive either 100 mg of miricorilant twice weekly for 6 weeks and then 200 mg of miricorilant twice weekly for 18 weeks or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint of Cohort B is reduction in liver fat. Enrollment in both cohorts is complete.

ALS

ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a devastating neuromuscular illness. Our selective cortisol modulator dazucorilant improved motor performance and reduced neuroinflammation and muscular atrophy in an animal model of ALS. Following these compelling results, we initiated a Phase 2 trial (“DAZALS”) of dazucorilant in patients with ALS. Two hundred forty-nine patients were randomized on a double-blind basis 1:1:1 to receive either 150 mg of dazucorilant, 300 mg of dazucorilant or placebo daily for 24 weeks. Upon completion of the trial, patients were eligible to enter an open-label, long-term extension study, in which they receive 300 mg of dazucorilant for up to 132 weeks.

Although DAZALS did not meet its primary endpoint – change from baseline in the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) in patients who received dazucorilant compared to those who received placebo – a statistically significant reduction in early death was observed at week 24 of the study. An exploratory analysis at the one-year mark found that this benefit continued. Patients who were randomized to receive 300 mg of dazucorilant from the start of DAZALS had an 84 percent reduction in risk of death, compared to patients who received only placebo, with a hazard ratio of 0.16 (p-value: 0.0009). A similar survival benefit was observed in an exploratory analysis of patients who received 300 mg of dazucorilant for greater than 24 weeks, either in the treatment period or in the extension study, compared to patients who received either placebo or 150 mg of dazucorilant for 24 weeks and did not receive dazucorilant in the extension study (hazard ratio: 0.36; p-value 0.02).

Dazucorilant has demonstrated a manageable safety profile, with 92 percent of adverse events being mild to moderate in severity. The frequency of severe and serious adverse events in patients who received dazucorilant was similar to those who received placebo. Mild to moderate, dose-related, transient abdominal pain was the most common adverse effect. The open-label, long-term extension study, which enrolled 118 patients, is continuing. We are currently conducting a study in patients

6

with ALS to determine whether dose titration will reduce instances of abdominal pain and allow more patients to benefit from dazucorilant. Following completion of this study, we expect to start a pivotal Phase 3 trial in 2026.

The FDA has granted dazucorilant Fast Track Designation and orphan drug status for the treatment of ALS in the United States.

Development of Other Selective Cortisol Modulators

Our portfolio of proprietary selective cortisol modulators consists of four structurally distinct series. More than 1,000 of these compounds, including relacorilant, nenocorilant, miricorilant and dazucorilant, potently bind to the GR but not the progesterone, estrogen or androgen receptors. We hold U.S. and foreign patents covering these compounds and their methods of use in a wide range of indications. We have applied, and will continue to apply, for patents covering the composition and method of use of our Products and product candidates. See “Business – Intellectual Property” for additional information.

We continue to create new selective cortisol modulators and advance the most promising of them towards the clinic.

Studies by Independent Investigators

For many years we have advanced our understanding of cortisol modulation by supporting the work of independent academic investigators. These researchers have studied the potential utility of mifepristone and our proprietary selective cortisol modulators in a wide range of disorders, including central serous retinopathy, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, alcoholism, cocaine addiction, Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, hypercortisolism, metabolic syndrome, atherosclerosis, fatty liver disease, sarcoma, melanoma and solid tumors, including triple-negative breast, prostate, ovarian and non-small cell lung cancers.

Clinical Trial Agreements

We typically conduct our clinical trials with the assistance of clinical research organizations (“CROs”). Syneos Health is helping us conduct our ROSELLA and BELLA trials. Medpace Research is helping us conduct our MOMENTUM and MONARCH trials. We may terminate our agreements with Syneos Health on 60 days’ written notice and with Medpace Research without cause at any time.

Research and Development Spending

We incurred $254.9 million, $246.9 million and $184.4 million of research and development expense in the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023, respectively, which accounted for 36 percent, 46 percent and 49 percent, respectively, of our total operating expenses in those years.

Manufacturing

We rely on contract manufacturers to produce our Products and product candidates.

We have agreements with manufacturers to supply mifepristone, the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) in our Products, and to produce and bottle tablets of our Products. We have purchased and hold significant quantities of API.

Competition

Our Products compete with established treatments, including surgery, radiation and other medications approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with Cushing’s syndrome. Approved products include Signifor® (pasireotide) to treat patients with Cushing’s disease - a subset of hypercortisolism - as well as Isturisa® (osilodrostat) and Recorlev®, a chiral form of the commonly-prescribed cortisol synthesis inhibitor ketoconazole. Isturisa and Recorlev have been approved to treat patients with Cushing’s syndrome. Signifor and Isturisa are sold by the Italian pharmaceutical company Recordati S.p.A (“Recordati”). Recorlev is sold by Xeris Biopharma Holdings, Inc. Our Products also compete with drugs used “off-label,” such as ketoconazole, an FDA-approved anti-fungal medication, and metyrapone, which is approved for testing patients’ hypothalamic-pituitary function. Since January 2024, our Products also compete with a generic version of Korlym sold by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”).

Intellectual Property

Overview. Patents and other proprietary rights are important to our business. We own U.S. composition of matter patents related to our next-generation cortisol modulators. Foreign counterparts of some of these patents have been issued in Europe, Japan, China, Canada, Australia and other countries. The expiration dates of these patents and their foreign counterparts range from 2028 to 2042.

7

We also own U.S. and foreign patents directed to the use of our selective cortisol modulators in the treatment of a variety of serious disorders, including hypercortisolism, various cancers, fatty liver disease, and other disorders.

We continue to file patent applications in the United States and abroad. There can be no guarantee that any of these applications will result in the issuance of patents, that any issued patent will include claims of the breadth we are seeking or that competitors or other third parties will not successfully challenge or circumvent our patents if they are issued.

We believe our patents are valid and that the production and use of our patented compounds and methods do not infringe the proprietary rights of others. Accordingly, we believe we are not obligated to pay royalties relating to the use of intellectual property to any third parties except the University of Chicago, from which we have licensed certain patents, as described below.

Hypercortisolism. The composition of matter patent covering Korlym’s active ingredient, mifepristone, has expired. We own U.S. method of use patents directed to the use of Korlym in the treatment of patients with hypercortisolism, with expiration dates ranging from 2028 to 2038. Furthermore, we own U.S. composition of matter and method of use patents using our proprietary selective cortisol modulators directed to the treatment of patients with hypercortisolism, with expiration dates ranging from 2033 to 2040. We have asserted two patents directed to patients with hypercortisolism in a lawsuit against Teva filed in Federal District Court. On December 29, 2023, the Court found that Teva’s proposed generic version of Korlym would not infringe either patent. We appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 19, 2026, the appellate court affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding no infringement of either patent. See “Part I, Item 3, Legal Proceedings” for additional details.

Oncology. We own U.S. patents covering methods of treating cancer using our proprietary selective cortisol modulators with expiration dates ranging from 2033 to 2042. In addition, we have exclusively licensed from the University of Chicago U.S. patents for (a) the use of cortisol modulators in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer, and (b) the use of cortisol modulators to treat castration resistant prostate cancer (“CRPC”). We are required to pay the University of Chicago customary milestone fees and royalties on revenue from products commercialized under the issued patents or patents that may issue pursuant to the pending applications. Our license will end upon expiration of the licensed patents in 2031 and 2033 or upon notification by us to the University of Chicago. See “Business – License Agreements” for additional information.

We hold U.S. and international patents covering relacorilant’s composition of matter, as well as U.S. patents covering its use to treat patients with ovarian and pancreatic cancer. We also own or have exclusively licensed U.S. and European patents covering the use of GR modulators, including relacorilant, nenocorilant, miricorilant, dazucorilant, and other of our proprietary compounds to treat a variety of disorders, including CRPC and other solid tumors. Relacorilant has been designated an orphan drug in both the United States and the EU for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Other Indications. In addition to the United States and foreign patents we own or have licensed relating to hypercortisolism and various cancers, we also own U.S. and foreign patents for the use of cortisol modulators to treat ALS, diseases characterized by fat build up in the liver, such as MASH, catatonia, psychosis induced by interferon-alpha therapy, migraine headaches and in the treatment of diseases using combined steroid and GR modulator therapy. The expiration dates of these patents and their foreign counterparts range from 2026 to 2043.

Government Regulation

Prescription pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive pre- and post-approval regulation governing the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, advertising, promotion, marketing, import and export of the products such as those we commercialize and are developing. All of our product candidates require regulatory approval by government agencies prior to commercialization and are subject to continued regulatory oversight thereafter. Before a new drug may be marketed in the United States, the FDA generally requires completion of preclinical laboratory and animal testing, performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug’s intended use and approval by the FDA. Complying with these and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations involves significant time and expense.

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and its implementing regulations and associated guidance. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may result in delays to the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval, or subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical trials, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of untitled or warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of

8

profits or civil or criminal investigations or penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, a sponsor must submit an investigational new drug application (“IND”) to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamics characteristics of the drug, chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information, and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational drug. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the IND on full clinical hold or partial clinical hold within that 30-day time period. Under a full clinical hold, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Under a partial clinical hold, there may be a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, a clinical trial (or full clinical trial in the case of a partial clinical hold) may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the trial 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 clinical trial can proceed. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a drug product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns, non-compliance or other issues affecting the integrity or utility of the trial. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that could cause the trial to be suspended or terminated.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”) regulations, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND before a trial commences. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Typically, human clinical trials are conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

•Phase 1. The product candidate is administered to a small number of healthy subjects or patients with the target disease or condition to provide preliminary information as to its safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics and sometimes to provide preliminary information as to its activity and/or efficacy.

•Phase 2. The product candidate is administered to a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to evaluate its preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and to identify possible adverse events and safety risks.

•Phase 3. The product candidate is administered to a larger group of patients with the target disease or condition to further evaluate dosage, establish its risk/benefit ratio and provide an adequate basis for product approval.

Generally, two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials demonstrating that the statutory standard is met are required by the FDA for approval. In certain instances, FDA may condition approval of an NDA on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies (post-marketing commitments or post-marketing requirements) to further assess the drug’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of subjects in the intended therapeutic indication. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting such Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products or other consequences.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA; written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for Serious and Unexpected Suspected Adverse Reactions, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the drug, findings from animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate

9

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, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity and potency of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, drug developers will submit the results of preclinical studies, clinical trials, formulation studies and data supporting manufacturing to the FDA, along with proposed labeling, in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug for one or more indications. The application may include both negative or ambiguous results of preclinical and clinical trials as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators, with appropriate rights of reference. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for the specified indication(s) to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be marketed in the United States.

Under the PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a significant user fee, which is adjusted on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual prescription drug product program fee. Fee waivers, reductions or exemptions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business (with fewer than 500 employees) and for applications seeking approval for orphan drugs.

Once an NDA is submitted, FDA has 60 days to review the NDA to determine if it is substantially complete before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once filed, the FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is sufficient to assure and preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA has a goal of responding to NDAs within ten months of the filing date for standard review, and six months for priority review, which the FDA may undertake, in its sole discretion, if a sponsor shows that its drug candidate is designed to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to marketed drugs. FDA approvals may not be granted on a timely basis or at all. The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to file any application or not approve an NDA if the FDA determines that the data are insufficient for approval. The FDA may also require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies before it accepts the filing. Additionally, the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification

After the NDA is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product candidate is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product candidate is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP requirements. The FDA may refer applications for drug product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved 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. The FDA conducts its own analysis of the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and us during the review process. The review and evaluation of an NDA by the FDA is extensive and time-consuming and may take longer than originally planned to complete, and we may not receive a timely approval, if at all.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will generally conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether the facilities comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product 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. In addition, before approving an NDA, the FDA may also audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates the application, manufacturing process and manufacturing facilities, it may issue an Approval Letter or a Complete Response Letter. An Approval Letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications

10

and conditions of use. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter describes the deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. Responding to a Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data and/or an 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 Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, withdraw the application, or engage in a dispute resolution proceeding or request a hearing. Even if additional data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

There is no assurance that the FDA will ultimately approve a product for marketing in the United States, and we may encounter significant difficulties or costs during the review process. If a product receives marketing approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific populations, severities of the condition being treated, and dosages, or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Furthermore, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling or may condition the approval of the NDA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment or requirement to conduct post-market testing or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the effects of approved products. For example, the FDA may require Phase 4 trials designed to further assess the product’s safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized, including long-term follow up for certain cellular products. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”), such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. Additionally, post-approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, changing manufacturing processes and adding labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. Such post-approval requirements can be costly and time-consuming and can affect the potential market and profitability of the product.

In addition, under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 individuals in the United States and when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for a particular active ingredient for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA, to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the NDA application user fee. Orphan drug exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval before we do for the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same indication we are seeking approval, or if our product is determined to be contained within the scope of the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If we pursue marketing approval for an indication broader than the orphan drug designation we have received, we may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity for the broader indication.

It is unclear how future litigation, legislation, FDA decisions, and administrative actions will impact the scope of the orphan drug exclusivity. For example, in Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra, 14 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2021), the court disagreed with the FDA’s longstanding position that the orphan drug exclusivity only applies to the approved use or indication within the relevant orphan drug designation. This decision created uncertainty in the application of the orphan drug exclusivity. In January 2023, the FDA published a notice in the Federal Register to clarify that while the FDA complies with the court’s order in Catalyst, the FDA intends to continue to apply its longstanding interpretation of the regulations to matters outside of the scope of the Catalyst order – that is, the agency will continue tying the scope of orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved, which permits other sponsors to obtain approval of a drug for new uses or indications within the same orphan designated disease or condition that have not yet been approved.

The FDA also has the authority to grant Fast Track designation for drugs intended to fill an unmet need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition. When a drug receives Fast Track designation, among other things, the manufacturer is eligible for more frequent communication with the FDA regarding the drug’s NDA, and for the FDA to review parts of the

11

application as they are submitted, rather than waiting until every section of the NDA is completed. Fast track designation does not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a marketing application for a drug for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy 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 FDCA requires that a sponsor submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“PSP”) within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that 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 FDA and the sponsor must reach agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Furthermore, with some exceptions, requirements under the Pediatric Research Equity Act generally do not apply to a drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer of the approved product is subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling, distribution, and tracking and tracing requirements and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as off-label use), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs and biologics for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. In addition, most changes to an approved drug, such as adding new indications, other labeling claims, or manufacturing changes, are often subject to prior FDA review and approval.

In the United States, once a product is approved, its manufacturer is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Manufacturers are also subject to record requests from the FDA that demonstrate cGMP compliance through data and other information. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance and oversight. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. NDA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories, or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms, and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such facilities or the ability to distribute products manufactured, processed or tested by them. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market.

The FDA also may require post-approval testing, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 testing, REMS and post-marketing surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, untitled or warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications

12

The Hatch-Waxman amendments to the FDCA established a statutory procedure for submission and FDA review and approval of abbreviated new drug applications (“ANDA”) for generic versions of listed drugs. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data, and quality control procedures. Premarket applications for generic drugs are termed abbreviated because they generally do not include clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. However, a generic manufacturer is typically required to conduct bioequivalence studies of its test product against the listed drug. Bioequivalence is established when there is an absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent for absorption of the generic product and the reference listed drug. For some drugs, other means of demonstrating bioequivalence may be required by the FDA, especially where the rate or extent of absorption is difficult or impossible to measure. The FDA will approve an ANDA application if it finds that the generic product does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness as compared to the reference listed drug. A product is not eligible for ANDA approval if the FDA determines that it is not bioequivalent to the reference listed drug if it is intended for a different use or if it is not subject to, and requires an approved suitability petition.

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

In seeking approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Upon approval, each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Upon submission of an ANDA, an applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the RLD in the Orange Book that:

•no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA;

•such patent has expired;

•the date on which such patent expires; or

•such patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted.

Generally, the ANDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except where the ANDA applicant challenges a listed patent through the last type of certification, also known as a paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA application will not be approved until all of the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. If the ANDA applicant has provided a paragraph IV certification the applicant must send notice of the paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the application 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. If the paragraph IV certification is challenged by an NDA holder or the patent owner(s) asserts a patent challenge to the paragraph IV certification, the FDA may not approve that application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the notice of the paragraph IV certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent was favorably decided in the applicant’s favor or settled, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay. In instances where an ANDA applicant files a paragraph IV certification, the NDA holder or patent owner(s) regularly take action to trigger the 30-month stay, recognizing that the related patent litigation may take many months or years to resolve. Thus, approval of an ANDA could be delayed for a significant period of time depending on the patent certification the applicant makes and the reference drug sponsor’s decision to initiate patent litigation. If the drug has new chemical entity (“NCE”) exclusivity and the ANDA is submitted four years after approval, the 30-month stay is extended so that it expires seven and a half years after approval of the innovator drug, unless the patent expires or there is a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant before then.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of our drug product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally 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 approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and, among other requirements, the application for the

13

extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments provide a period of five years of non-patent marketing exclusivity for the first approved drug containing an NCE as an active ingredient. An NCE is an active moiety that has not been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An “active moiety” is defined as the molecule or ion responsible for the drug substance’s physiological or pharmacologic action. During the five-year exclusivity period, the FDA cannot accept for filing any ANDA seeking approval of a product that contains the same active moiety, except that the FDA may accept such an application for filing after four years if the application includes a paragraph IV certification to a listed patent. In the case of such applications accepted for filing between four and five years after approval of the reference drug, the 30-month stay of approval triggered by a timely patent infringement lawsuit is extended by the amount of time necessary to extend the stay until 7-1/2 years after the approval of the reference drug NDA.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of the other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion and submission of data from of a pediatric trial conducted in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

Marketing Approvals Outside the United States

If we choose to distribute our product candidates outside the United States, we will have to complete an approval process similar to the one imposed by the FDA. The approval procedure and the time required for approval vary from country to country and may involve additional preclinical and clinical trials. Foreign approvals may not be granted on a timely basis, or at all. Regulatory approval of pricing is required in most countries other than the United States, which pricing may be too low to generate an acceptable return.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of our products and product candidates depend or will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products, if approved, will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products and services. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a drug product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of a drug product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that a payor will pay for the drug product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved drugs for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any drug product candidate that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the drug product candidate, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Whether or not we conduct such studies, our drug product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third party reimbursement may not be sufficient to enable us to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new drug products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the “HHS”). CMS decides whether and to what extent a new drug product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Additionally, one third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product or service, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process will often require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and can be a time-consuming process, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs, including biologics, have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. In many countries, the prices of drug products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of drug products under such systems are

14

substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for drug products may be reduced compared with the United States. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. The IRA , for example, includes provisions that impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allowing the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition. Orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program provided that the only approved indications (or indications) is for one or more rare diseases or conditions for which the drug received orphan designation by FDA. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our products or product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our products or product candidates could reduce physician usage of the products or candidates and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, 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 approved. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Other Healthcare Laws

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations in the United States and our current and future arrangements with clinical investigators, healthcare providers, consultants, third-party payors and patients expose us to broadly applicable federal and state fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and the HIPAA, among other laws. Foreign governments have comparable regulations, and violating these laws and regulations in any jurisdiction could result in significant criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully offering, soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, for an item or service or the purchasing or ordering of a good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In the past, the government has enforced the Anti-Kickback Statute to reach large settlements with healthcare companies based on sham consulting and other financial arrangements with physicians and other third parties. The Anti-Kickback Statute is subject to evolving interpretations, and in the absence of substantive guidance, it is possible for future initiatives or engagements with healthcare professionals to be challenged under this statute, which could adversely impact our operations. While this statute has a number of exceptions and regulatory safe harbors that safeguard certain common, industry practices from prosecution, these exceptions and safe harbors are narrowly defined, and parties must satisfy all elements of an available exception or safe harbor to avoid scrutiny. Further, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of these statutes or specific intent to violate them to have committed a violation. For example, through legislative action, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. The majority of states also have anti-kickback laws, which establish similar prohibitions and in some cases may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers.

Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, drug manufacturers can be held liable under the federal civil False Claims Act, which imposes civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities (including manufacturers) for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Penalties for a False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. The government may deem manufacturers to have “caused” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. In addition, as noted previously, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal

15

Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act. The federal government has and continues to use the False Claims Act, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in connection with the potential or actual false claims resulting from promotion of products for unapproved uses or other sales and marketing practices. The government has obtained multi-billion dollar settlements under the False Claims Act and individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. We expect that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating potential or actual violations of the False Claims Act.

The federal criminal statute on false statements makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully (in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services): (i) falsify, conceal, or cover up any material fact, (ii) make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or (iii) make or use any materially false writing or document while knowing such writings or documents contain materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements.

The Civil Monetary Penalties Law provides the government the ability to impose civil monetary penalties against any party or entity who offers or transfers anything of value to a federal health care program beneficiary when a party or entity knows or should know that providing a transfer of value is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier for the order or receipt of any item or service reimbursable by a federal health care program. Notably, while pharmaceutical and biotech companies are generally not considered “providers, practitioners, or suppliers,” offering anything of value to a beneficiary that is likely to influence the beneficiary to select a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier (e.g., a physician or pharmacy) could implicate the Civil Monetary Penalties Law.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of these statutes or specific intent to violate them to have committed a violation.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (generally referred to as the Open Payments™ Program) is a provision under the Patent Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). The Open Payments Program imposes reporting requirements on covered entities (e.g., drug manufacturers) for payments made or transfers of value provided by them to certain healthcare organizations (e.g., teaching hospitals) and physicians, which is broadly defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors, and certain non-physician practitioners (e.g., physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists, anesthesiology assistants and certified nurse midwives). Covered entities are also required to report ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members (as it relates to the Covered entities). This information is then analyzed and made public, available via searchable databases. Failure to submit required information may result in significant civil monetary penalties for any payments, transfers of value, or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately and completely reported in an annual submission. Similarly, certain states also mandate the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians. Some of these states also require the implementation of commercial compliance programs and impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices. In addition, many states also govern the reporting of payments or other transfers of value, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, are often not pre-empted, and may have a more prohibitive effect than the Sunshine Act, thus further complicating compliance efforts.

We are subject to federal government price reporting laws, which require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs, as well as federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with federal and state laws relating to drug supply chain traceability, including those that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Federal laws require the implementation of systems to provide, capture, and maintain information about transactions involving drug products distributed within the United States and the trading partners who engaged in such transactions. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities and/or register their sales representatives and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices.

Similar federal, state and foreign fraud and abuse laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services. Such laws are generally broad and are enforced by various state agencies and private actions. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under

16

Medicaid and other state programs. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant federal government compliance guidance, and require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.

Federal and state agencies continue to spend time, energy and resources combating healthcare fraud and abuse. This regulatory environment, taken together with the evolving commercial compliance environment and the need to build, enhance and maintain robust and expandable systems and controls to comply with different compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions increase the possibility that a healthcare company may violate one or more of the requirements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare.

For example, in 2010, the ACA was enacted in the United States. The ACA includes measures that have significantly changed, and are expected to continue to significantly change, the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical industry are that the ACA:

•made several changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including increasing pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability by raising the minimum basic Medicaid rebate on average manufacturer price (“AMP”) on most branded prescription drugs and adding a new rebate calculation for “line extensions” (i.e., new formulations, such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products, as well as potentially impacting their rebate liability by modifying the statutory definition of AMP;

•imposed a requirement on manufacturers of branded drugs to provide a 70% point-of-sale discount as a condition for a manufacturer’s outpatient drugs being covered under Medicare Part D;

•extended a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;

•expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Drug Discount Program;

•imposed an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs; and

•established a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. The research conducted by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute may affect the market for certain pharmaceutical products. The ACA established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, in June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to challenge the ACA, dismissing the case on procedural grounds without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, while the ACA remains in effect in its current form, it is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted:

•The Budget Control Act of 2011 and subsequent legislation, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress that include aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which remain in effect through the first half of 2032. Under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, estimated budget deficit increases resulting from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and subsequent legislation would trigger reductions in Medicare payments to providers, but 2025 legislation eliminated the impact of the estimated budget deficit increases by setting the scorecard used to determine the need for such reductions (sequestration) equal to zero.

•American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from

17

three to five years. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

•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 request access to certain IND products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

In addition, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Previous administrations have issued multiple executive orders seeking to reduce prescription drug costs, and the current Trump administration has signaled that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority.

The IRA includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket spending cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries from $7,050 to $2,000 starting in 2025, thereby effectively eliminating the coverage gap; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allowing the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition; require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation; and delay until January 1, 2032 the implementation of the HHS rebate rule that would have limited the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Various industry stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, have lawsuits pending against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of the IRA are unconstitutional. The HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, but certain of these cases continue to be appealed. Under the Trump Administration, CMS has continued to negotiate drug prices pursuant to the IRA framework. The Trump Administration has also issued public statements about its commitment to lowering the cost of prescription drugs and has sought additional voluntary agreements to reduce drug pricing from certain pharmaceutical manufacturers. The effects of the IRA on our business is not yet known.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access, marketing cost disclosure, transparency measures and other measures designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In January 2024, the FDA authorized Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration’s drug importation program, which is the first step toward Florida facilitating importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. Authorization of other state programs may follow as other states have submitted importation program proposals. The Trump Administration has publicly supported such state-directed importation programs, and FDA has taken steps to facilitate such states in initiating such programs. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We cannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future. Further federal, state and foreign legislative and regulatory developments are likely, and we expect ongoing initiatives to increase pressure on drug pricing. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from our products or product candidates and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Data Privacy and Security

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws and regulations govern the collection of, disclosure of, use of, access to, transfer of, and confidentiality and security of health-related and other personal information and could apply now or in the future to our operations or the operations of our partners. For example, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and their implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of protected health information on HIPAA covered entities, which include certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, and their business associates who conduct certain activities for or on their behalf involving protected health information on their behalf. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA as the result of a breach of unsecured protected health information, a complaint about privacy practices or an audit by the HHS may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with the HHS to settle

18

allegations of HIPAA non-compliance. Further, entities that knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA may be subject to criminal penalties.

Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure constitutes unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. In 2024, the FTC finalized updates to the Health Breach Notification Rule that, among other things, clarified its applicability to health apps and other similar technologies and expanded the information the breach notification requirements for entities subject to the rule, which may add additional complexity to compliance obligations going forward.

The U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) issued a rule in 2025 entitled, “Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons,” and known less formally as the “Bulk Transfer Rule.” The Bulk Transfer Rule is codified at 28 CFR part 202 and prohibits and restricts bulk transfers of sensitive personal data (including genetic and health data) to countries of concern, such as China, Russia, and Iran to prevent access by foreign adversaries. It puts restrictions on the ability to engage in certain cross-border transactions involving genomic or biological samples and related data, which may increase compliance costs, lead to increased regulatory scrutiny or liability, and may require additional contractual negotiations, impacting our business operations.

In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. For example, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act imposes restrictive requirements regulating the use and disclosure of health information and other personally identifiable information. Further, the California Consumer Privacy Act as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (collectively, “CCPA”), created individual privacy rights for California consumers and increased the privacy and security obligations of entities handling certain personal information as well as limitations on data uses, audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA is enforced by the California Privacy Protection Agency, which is authorized to issue substantive regulations resulting in increased privacy and information security enforcement. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Several other states have implemented similar comprehensive privacy laws that took effect in the past year or will take effect in the near future, and states have implemented or are considering laws that specifically focus on the processing of personal data related to individuals’ health, including Washington’s My Health My Data Act and California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. In addition, some of these laws, along with other standalone health privacy laws, subject health-related information to additional safeguards and disclosures and some specifically regulate consumer health data. As a result, additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required. In the event that we are subject to or affected by HIPAA, the CCPA or other domestic privacy and data protection laws, any liability from failure to comply with the requirements of these laws could adversely affect our financial condition. Additional legislation proposed at the federal level and in other states, along with increased regulatory action, reflect a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States.

In Europe, the data privacy and security regulations in the EU, Switzerland, and United Kingdom (“UK”) continue to evolve. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”)imposes stringent data protection requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of persons within the EU. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EU or the European Economic Area (“EEA”) as well as to those outside the EU or the EEA if they collect and use personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EU or the monitoring of their behavior. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. In addition, the GDPR increases the scrutiny of transfers of personal data from clinical trial sites located in the EEA to the United States and other jurisdictions that the EC does not recognize as having “adequate” data protection laws. Transfers of personal information out of the European Union face a constantly shifting set of requirements, as courts in Europe have invalidated intergovernmental agreements. Currently, safeguards for cross-border transfers of personal information include the use of standard contractual clauses approved by the European Commission and the UK and Swiss Data Protection Authorities as well as the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. As a result, uncertainty exists with respect to GDPR compliance and the attendant obligations going forward as the regulatory environment is rapidly developing. In addition, from January 1, 2021, companies have had to comply with both the GDPR and the GDPR as incorporated into United Kingdom national law (“UK GDPR”), the latter regime having the ability to separately fine up to the greater of £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. The EC has adopted an adequacy decision in favor of the UK, enabling data transfers from

19

EU member states to the UK without additional safeguards. On December 19, 2025, the UK adequacy decision was extended until December 27, 2031. The European Data Protection Board has also released guidance for fines related to the GDPR, including proposed amendments to the GDPR in November 2025.

Outside Europe, significant data privacy regulatory regimes exist in major markets including Brazil, India, China, and elsewhere. The ever-shifting landscape of global data privacy regulation requires significant investment and attention to avoid significant noncompliance liabilities.

Employees

We are managed by experienced pharmaceutical executives and also enlist the expertise of independent advisors with extensive pharmaceutical experience. As of December 31, 2025, we had 730 employees. We consider our employee relations to be good. Our employees are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

We seek to hire, retain and motivate smart, ethical, hard-working employees, officers and directors. To achieve this goal, we offer a collegial work environment where creativity, collaboration and initiative are encouraged. We offer competitive salaries, performance bonuses and equity grants, as well as industry-leading health, retirement and other benefits. To align our employees’ goals with Corcept’s goals, we offer annual performance-based cash bonuses and stock-based compensation.

About Corcept

We were incorporated in the State of Delaware on May 13, 1998. Our registered trademarks include Corcept® and Korlym®. Other service marks, trademarks and trade names referred to in this document are the property of their respective owners.

Available Information

We are subject to the information requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and we therefore file periodic reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC relating to our business, consolidated financial statements and other matters. The SEC maintains an Internet site, www.sec.gov, that contains reports, proxy statements and other information regarding issuers such as Corcept.

For more information about Corcept, including free access to our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports, visit our website at www.corcept.com or the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov. The information found on or accessible through our website is not incorporated into, and does not form a part of, this Form 10-K.