MADRIGAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (MDGL) Business

Item 1.    Business

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on delivering novel therapeutics for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (“MASH”), a serious liver disease with high unmet medical need that can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer, need for liver transplantation and premature mortality. MASH was previously known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (“NASH”). MASH is the leading cause of liver transplantation in women, the second leading cause of all liver transplantation in the United States and the fastest-growing indication for liver transplantation in Europe. Our medication, Rezdiffra (resmetirom), is a once-daily, oral, liver-directed thyroid hormone receptor beta (“THR-β”) agonist designed to target key underlying causes of MASH. In March 2024, Rezdiffra became the first therapy approved by the FDA for patients with MASH and was commercially available in the United States beginning in April 2024. Following receipt of conditional marketing authorization (“CMA”) from the European Commission (“EC”), we launched Rezdiffra in Germany in September 2025. Rezdiffra was the first medication approved by both the FDA and EC for the treatment of adults with noncirrhotic MASH with moderate to advanced liver fibrosis (F2 to F3 fibrosis). We are also evaluating Rezdiffra in patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis (consistent with F4c fibrosis) in our MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES trial, that, if successful, could expand the eligible patient population for Rezdiffra.

In addition, we are advancing a focused pipeline to lead the evolution of MASH treatment for patients for decades to come. Through our business development efforts, we have acquired rights to MGL-2086, an oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (“GLP-1”) receptor agonist, ervogastat, an oral diacylglycerol O-acyltransferase 2 (“DGAT2”) inhibitor, six small interfering RNA (“siRNA”) programs and additional preclinical MASH candidates. We plan to evaluate these candidates with the goal of delivering best-in-disease therapies for the treatment of MASH. As we continue to build our pipeline, we will evaluate mechanisms that fit scientifically, strategically and commercially to enhance our leading position in MASH care.

5

Table of Contents

Key 2025 and Recent Highlights

We experienced tremendous growth in 2025, highlighted by our strong commercial execution. For the year ended December 31, 2025, we generated $958.4 million in product revenue from sales of Rezdiffra. In addition, 2025 featured the following key achievements:

•In May 2025, we announced positive two-year results from the open-label compensated MASH cirrhosis (F4c) arm of the Phase 3 MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial of Rezdiffra. Patients (n=122) achieved significant improvements from baseline in liver stiffness, liver fat, fibrosis biomarkers, liver volume and risk scores for clinically significant portal hypertension (“CSPH”). The results were presented in a late-breaking oral abstract at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (“EASL”) Congress. In addition, in November 2025, we announced additional data showing Rezdiffra’s impact in patients with more advanced compensated MASH cirrhosis (those with a platelet count of 100,000/µL at baseline). In this patient population, Rezdiffra demonstrated improvements from baseline across multiple imaging tests and biomarkers including liver stiffness, liver enzymes and lipids, as well as Baveno risk scores for CSPH.

•In July 2025, we announced that we received a Notice of Allowance from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for a new U.S. patent covering the FDA-approved use of Rezdiffra. The patent, which was issued on August 5, 2025, includes claims directed to Rezdiffra’s commercial weight-threshold dosing regimen as prescribed in the FDA-approved label. The U.S. patent provides protection to February 2045 and was listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book, in August 2025.

•In July 2025, we entered into a Financing Agreement (as amended, the “Financing Agreement”) with certain funds managed by Blue Owl Capital Corporation as the lenders (the “Lenders”) and LSI Financing LLC as the administrative agent for the Lenders (the “Administrative Agent”). Under the Financing Agreement, the Lenders committed up to $500.0 million in senior secured credit facilities, consisting of (a) an initial term loan in an aggregate principal amount equal to $350.0 million (the “Initial Term Loan”) and (b) delayed draw term loans in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $150.0 million (the loans thereunder, if any, the “Delayed Draw Term Loans”). In addition, the Financing Agreement includes an uncommitted incremental facility in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $250.0 million (the loans thereunder, if any, the “Incremental Term Loans,” and together with the Initial Term Loan and any Delayed Draw Term Loans, collectively, the “Term Loans”), subject to the satisfaction of certain terms and conditions set forth in the Financing Agreement. The Initial Term Loan was funded on July 17, 2025. Delayed Draw Term Loans are available at our election from time to time until December 31, 2027. Incremental Term Loans are available at our and the Lenders’ mutual consent from time to time.

•In July 2025, we entered into an exclusive global license agreement (the “CSPC License Agreement”) with CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited (“CSPC”) for MGL-2086 (formerly SYH2086), an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist. Pursuant to the CSPC License Agreement, CSPC granted us an exclusive global license to develop, manufacture and commercialize MGL-2086. We expect to initiate a single ascending dose study of MGL-2086 in the second quarter of 2026.

•In August 2025, we announced that the EC granted a CMA for Rezdiffra for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced liver fibrosis. We launched Rezdiffra in Germany in September 2025. Rezdiffra was the first medication approved for patients with MASH in the European Union and is included in the European MASH treatment guidelines.

•In January 2026, we announced the expansion of our pipeline with an exclusive global license for ervogastat, a Phase 2 oral DGAT-2 inhibitor. DGAT-2 inhibitors work by blocking the final step in triglyceride assembly and storage, resulting in lower hepatic triglycerides, reduced lipotoxic fat and decreased inflammation. In 2026, we plan to conduct a drug-to-drug interaction study with resmetirom and consult with the FDA on the design of a Phase 2 combination trial.

•In February 2026, we announced an exclusive global license agreement (the “Ribocure License Agreement”) with Suzhou Ribo Life Science Co. Ltd. and Ribocure Pharmaceuticals AB (together, “Ribocure”) for six novel siRNA programs designed to silence certain genes implicated in MASH disease progression. By pairing the precision of gene-silencing with Rezdiffra, we are exploring

6

Table of Contents

whether reducing drivers of disease at the genetic level can complement Rezdiffra’s therapeutic effects. IND-enabling activities in initial candidates are expected to begin in 2026.

Our Strategy

The critical components of our business strategy include the following:

Maximize the value of Rezdiffra. We generated $958.4 million in net product revenue from sales of Rezdiffra in 2025. With quarterly sales now annualizing at greater than $1.0 billion as of December 31, 2025 and a low market penetration rate, we believe we are well positioned to continue to deliver on this strategic priority. We have secured broad first-line access across commercial payers through our payer contracting efforts and believe that we will continue to steadily add patients through 2026. In the United States, we continue to educate healthcare providers and patients on the risks of MASH and the potential clinical benefits and appropriate use of Rezdiffra and believe that the MASH market will continue to grow significantly over time given low MASH diagnosis rates today. We also launched Rezdiffra in Germany in September 2025 and expect to launch Rezdiffra in other international markets over time. We continue to believe that Rezdiffra’s product profile as a liver-directed, once-daily, generally well-tolerated oral therapy, as well as its first-to-market position, provide meaningful points of differentiation in the MASH competitive landscape.

Deliver transformational outcomes data in F4c. A key component of our strategy is to expand Rezdiffra’s label to treat patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis (F4c), which currently has no approved treatments available. We have fully enrolled our Phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES trial evaluating Rezdiffra in patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis, and we expect a data readout from this trial in 2027. A positive outcome from this trial is expected to support the full approval of Rezdiffra in the United States for moderate to advanced liver fibrosis (F2 to F3 fibrosis) and an additional indication for Rezdiffra in patients with F4c, which we believe could double Rezdiffra’s commercial opportunity. In 2025, we announced positive two-year data from a 122-patient open label cohort from our MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial evaluating Rezdiffra in the F4c patient population, reinforcing our confidence in receiving positive results from our OUTCOMES trial. We plan to continue to evaluate opportunities to expand Rezdiffra’s label and generate new data to maintain our leadership position in the MASH treatment landscape.

Build an industry-leading MASH pipeline. MASH is a complex and heterogeneous disease, and we expect future treatment will include multiple therapies, combinations and personalized regimens. Through our business development efforts, we have added several product candidates to our pipeline, including MGL-2086, ervogastat and multiple siRNA programs, and we plan to continue to invest in new mechanisms with complementary biology and combination potential with resmetirom. We expect to initiate clinical testing of our product candidates with the goal of delivering enhanced efficacy across the MASH spectrum. By leveraging our research and development capabilities that pioneered MASH treatment, we believe we will be able to design and advance more informative clinical trials and progress the most promising programs to later stage testing in a capital efficient manner. With patent protection for Rezdiffra expected into 2045, we believe we have a long runway to invest in innovative therapies and build a pipeline that will define the future of MASH care.

Rezdiffra for Patients with MASH

Rezdiffra is our first and only approved product. Rezdiffra received accelerated approval from the FDA in March 2024 in conjunction with diet and exercise for the treatment of adults with noncirrhotic MASH with moderate to advanced liver fibrosis (consistent with stages F2 to F3 fibrosis). In August 2025, the EC granted a CMA for Rezdiffra, making it the first medication approved by both the FDA and EC for the treatment of adults with noncirrhotic MASH with moderate to advanced liver fibrosis. Rezdiffra is a once-daily, oral, liver-directed THR-β agonist designed to target key underlying causes of MASH.

Approval of Rezdiffra

In March 2024, the FDA granted accelerated approval for Rezdiffra for the treatment of adults with noncirrhotic MASH with moderate to advanced liver fibrosis (F2 to F3 fibrosis) pursuant to section 506(c) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and 21 C.F.R. Part 314 Subpart H (Accelerated Approval of New Drugs for Serious or Life-Threatening Illnesses) (Subpart H). In addition, in June 2025, we received a positive opinion from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) of the EMA recommending the granting of a CMA of resmetirom for the treatment of adults with noncirrhotic MASH with moderate to advanced liver fibrosis (F2 to F3 fibrosis). The EC issued a decision to grant the CMA for Rezdiffra in August 2025. The EC decision is valid in all 27 member states of the European Union, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The FDA’s accelerated approval and the EC’s CMA, as well as Rezdiffra’s approved prescribing information, were supported by results from our Phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH trial and additional safety data from the Phase 3 MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 and MAESTRO-NAFLD-OLE extensions trials, each of which was 52 weeks in duration. Following 52 weeks of treatment in the MAESTRO-NASH trial, both 100 mg and 80 mg doses of

7

Table of Contents

Rezdiffra demonstrated statistically significant improvement compared to placebo on two primary endpoints: MASH resolution (including a reduction in the non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (“NAFLD”) activity score by ≥ 2 points) with no worsening of fibrosis, and an improvement in fibrosis by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score. See the section titled “—Clinical Trial Overview” in this Annual Report for additional information on our clinical trials for resmetirom.

In connection with Rezdiffra’s approvals, we have agreed to certain post-marketing commitments, including completing our MAESTRO-NASH trial to demonstrate a clinical benefit of Rezdiffra on composite endpoints. Patients enrolled in the MAESTRO-NASH trial have continued on therapy after the initial 52-week treatment period for up to 54 months to accrue and measure hepatic clinical outcome events, including progression to cirrhosis on biopsy and hepatic decompensation events, as well as all-cause mortality. We expect outcomes data from this trial in 2028. Positive confirmatory outcomes data from this trial is expected to verify a clinical benefit and support the full approval of Rezdiffra in noncirrhotic MASH in the United States. Separate from our commitment to complete the MAESTRO-NASH trial, we have fully enrolled our Phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES trial, which is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that noninvasively measures progression to liver decompensation events in patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis. The primary endpoint of MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES is the incidence of composite liver-related outcome events. Key inclusion criteria are well-compensated MASH cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A) and presence of three metabolic risk factors (metabolic syndrome). Patients are randomized 3:1 in a blinded manner to receive 80 mg resmetirom or matching placebo, given orally once daily. We expect results from the OUTCOMES trial in 2027. Positive data from our MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES trial is expected to support the full approval of Rezdiffra in noncirrhotic MASH (F2 to F3 fibrosis) in the United States and support approval for patients with compensated cirrhosis (F4c), expanding the eligible patient population for Rezdiffra. We have agreed to submit results from these trials to the EMA in support of transitioning the Rezdiffra CMA into a standard marketing authorization in the European Union.

Market Opportunity for Rezdiffra in MASH

Disease Overview

MASH is a more advanced form of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (“MASLD”). MASLD has become the most common liver disease in the United States and other developed countries and is characterized by an accumulation of fat in the liver with no other apparent causes. MASH can progress to cirrhosis or liver failure, can require liver transplantation and can also result in liver cancer. Patients with MASH, especially those with more advanced metabolic risk factors (hypertension, concomitant type 2 diabetes), are at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events and increased morbidity and mortality. In addition, MASH patients with moderate to advanced fibrosis (consistent with fibrosis stages F2 and F3) have a 10- to 17-times higher risk of liver-related mortality. MASH is also an independent driver of cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of mortality for patients.

In addition to the accumulation of fat in the liver, MASH is characterized by inflammation and cellular damage with or without fibrosis, which may ultimately progress to cirrhosis. Within MASH cirrhosis, patients can be categorized as being compensated or decompensated. MASH with compensated cirrhosis (consistent with F4c fibrosis) is characterized by liver scarring or damage that reduces the ability to process blood supplied to the liver, though patients generally remain asymptomatic with normal liver function. MASH patients with compensated cirrhosis are on the cusp of negative consequences associated with end-stage liver disease including decompensation, esophageal varices, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, liver cancer and liver failure. Patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis have a 42-times higher risk of liver-related mortality, underscoring the need to treat MASH before complications of cirrhosis develop.

Progression to cirrhosis generally occurs in approximately 20% of MASH patients with moderate-to-advanced fibrosis and can occur within ten to fifteen years from initial diagnosis. Further, approximately 20% of patients with advanced fibrosis (stage F3) will progress to cirrhosis in approximately two years. MASH patients with type-2 diabetes have a heightened risk of MASH disease progression, with an estimated two-to-three times faster rate of progression of fibrosis. Once the disease advances beyond MASH to such life-threatening conditions as liver cancer or liver failure, liver transplantation is the only treatment alternative. MASH is the leading cause of liver transplants for women, the second leading cause of all liver transplantation in the United States, and the fastest-growing indication for liver transplantation in Europe. With more advanced liver disease as a result of unaddressed MASH with fibrosis, the burden to the healthcare system in terms of healthcare resource utilization and cost increases, driven by hospitalization due to decompensated disease, treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver transplants. Importantly, due to the limited availability of donor organs and the comorbidities associated with MASH, patients with MASH who are put on the transplant list are at much lower odds of actually getting transplanted relative to those with liver disease driven by other causes. As such, Rezdiffra addresses a significant unmet medical need for patients with MASH.

Commercial Strategy

We launched Rezdiffra in the United States in April 2024 and in Germany in September 2025. Prior to receiving approval, we conducted quantitative and qualitative market research studies and secondary data analytics to inform the

8

Table of Contents

commercial strategy for Rezdiffra. These studies and analytics evaluated the size of the market opportunity for Rezdiffra as well as physician, patient and payer perspectives on unmet needs in MASH patient care and the Rezdiffra product profile.

Based on published epidemiology data and an analysis of medical claims using ICD-10 disease diagnosis codes as of 2023, we estimate that 315,000 patients diagnosed with MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis (stages F2 to F3) are under the care of specialist prescribers which we are targeting during the launch of Rezdiffra in the U.S. In addition, we estimate that approximately 370,000 patients with MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis are currently diagnosed and under the care of specialists across Europe. We believe the number of patients under specialist care in the U.S. has grown nearly 50% through 2025, and as disease awareness improves and disease prevalence increases, we expect the number of identified MASH patients with moderate to advanced fibrosis eligible for treatment to grow significantly going forward.

With a growing body of real-world supportive data, we continue to educate healthcare providers and patients on the risks of MASH and the potential clinical benefits and appropriate use of Rezdiffra. During our first six quarters of launch in the United States, we focused our efforts on hepatologists and gastroenterologists. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2025, we expanded our field team to further target select endocrinologists that provide care to MASH patients. We are also supporting the creation of care pathways for patients at physician offices, driving breadth and depth of Rezdiffra prescribers and engaging with payers to support patient access to therapy.

Beyond Germany, we expect to launch Rezdiffra on a country-by-country basis in Europe dependent on multiple factors, including the completion of reimbursement procedures and regulatory approval where required. In addition, we may enter into distribution agreements with third parties to distribute Rezdiffra in smaller European countries and in other jurisdictions globally.

Clinical Trial Overview

Set forth below is a summary of our clinical trial programs for Rezdiffra:

•The pivotal MAESTRO-NASH (moderate to advanced fibrosis) trial evaluated daily oral doses of resmetirom at 80 mg and 100 mg doses. The primary 52-week results of the MAESTRO-NASH trial supported the grant of accelerated approval by the FDA and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in February 2024. This trial remains ongoing as part of our post-marketing commitments to the FDA. The 54-month outcomes portion of the trial is designed to generate confirmatory data that, if positive, is expected to verify a clinical benefit and support the full approval of Rezdiffra in noncirrhotic MASH in the United States. We expect outcomes data from this trial in 2028.

•The MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 (Safety) trial was a 52-week trial that noninvasively evaluated the safety and tolerability of resmetirom and provided a larger safety database to support regulatory benefit-risk assessment. The primary results from the MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial were published in Nature Medicine in October 2023. MAESTRO-NAFLD-OLE, an open-label active treatment extension of MAESTRO-NAFLD-1, is ongoing to collect additional data in patients with noncirrhotic MASH and patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis. In 2025, we announced positive two-year data from the open-label compensated MASH cirrhosis (F4c) arm of this trial.

•MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES (Compensated Cirrhosis) is ongoing to evaluate progression to liver decompensation events in patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis treated with resmetirom versus placebo. A positive outcome is expected to support the full approval of Rezdiffra for noncirrhotic MASH in the United States and expand the eligible patient population for Rezdiffra with an additional indication in patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis. This event-driven trial is expected to deliver results in 2027.

MAESTRO-NASH Trial

In December 2022, we announced topline results from the pivotal Phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH biopsy trial of resmetirom and the primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in February 2024. Resmetirom achieved both primary endpoints with both daily oral doses, 80 mg and 100 mg, relative to placebo.

Patients meeting eligibility requirements for MAESTRO-NASH were randomized 1:1:1 to receive resmetirom 80 mg, resmetirom 100 mg or placebo taken orally once daily. Baseline liver biopsy fibrosis scores included F3 (~60%), F2 (~35%), F1B (~5%) (primary analysis population) with 84% with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (“NAS”) of ≥5. A second biopsy was conducted after 52 weeks of treatment for assessment of the dual primary endpoints. The primary efficacy analysis assessed histological response at 52 weeks in 955 patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH with significant fibrosis (modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population) that excluded 11 intent-to-treat patients who had their Week 52 biopsy after Week 60 due to COVID-related reasons per regulatory guidelines. Patients without a second biopsy due to early trial discontinuation or missing liver biopsy (approximately 17% across treatment arms) were included and considered as non-

9

Table of Contents

responders in the primary efficacy analyses (mITT). The compliance to treatment was high and minimally impacted by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

Dual Primary Endpoints (52 Weeks) and Key Secondary Endpoint (24 Weeks)

Biopsy endpoints were achieved independent of baseline fibrosis stage or diabetes status, including similar statistical significance and magnitude of effect at both doses in subgroups of F2, F3 and F2/F3 patients. Other secondary liver biopsy endpoints that were achieved at both doses include ≥2 point reduction in NAS with no worsening of fibrosis, ≥2 point reduction in NAS with ≥1-stage improvement in fibrosis, MASH resolution (with ≥2 point reduction in NAS) with ≥1-stage improvement in fibrosis and a 2-stage reduction in fibrosis without worsening of NAS. Multiple secondary endpoints were achieved, including statistically significant reduction from baseline in liver enzymes. Reductions in atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins, fibrosis biomarkers and imaging tests were also observed in resmetirom treatment arms as compared with placebo.

Safety

The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was similar across treatment arms in the MAESTRO-NASH trial. SAEs occurred at expected rates based on the patient population. The rate of trial discontinuation for adverse events (“AEs”) over the entire treatment period was low.

Consistent with previous Phase 2 and Phase 3 data, the most common AEs reported with greater frequency in the resmetirom groups versus placebo were an excess of generally mild and transient diarrhea at the beginning of therapy and generally mild nausea. Trial data indicated resmetirom treatment had no effect on heart rate or body weight and was not associated with arrhythmias. Blood pressure appeared slightly reduced among resmetirom-treated patients. Sex hormones were unchanged from baseline. Independent of thyroxine replacement status, resmetirom treatment reduced prohormone T4, as reflected by free thyroxine (FT4), with no effect on thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) or the active thyroid hormone, free triiodothyronine (FT3). Relative to placebo, resmetirom-treated patients did not show increases in fractures or fracture risk scores.

MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 Trial

In January 2022, we announced topline results from the Phase 3 MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 safety trial of resmetirom. The MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial was published in Nature Medicine in November 2023. We reported that resmetirom demonstrated statistical significance for primary and key secondary endpoints summarized below from the double-blind placebo-controlled 969-patient portion of the trial. These endpoints indicated that resmetirom (i) was well-tolerated at 80 and 100 mg in patients treated for 52 weeks, (ii) provided significant and clinically relevant reductions in liver fat as measured by magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) and (iii) significantly reduced atherogenic lipids, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (“LDLc”), apolipoprotein B and triglycerides.

A total of 972 patients were randomized in the double-blind arms of the MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial: 969 patients were included in the safety population and 943 patients were included in a modified ITT population for evaluation of key secondary and other endpoints. Important inclusion criteria included the presence of three risk factors of metabolic syndrome, a level of liver fibrosis (measured by FibroScan) consistent with a range of stages of liver fibrosis and ≥8% liver fat (measured by MRI-PDFF).

AEs observed in the MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial were generally mild to moderate in severity. The frequency of SAEs was similar across treatment arms and discontinuation for AEs was low. Consistent with published data, the most common AE reported with greater frequency in the resmetirom groups as compared to the placebo was generally mild diarrhea or increased stool frequency at the beginning of therapy.

10

Table of Contents

Compensated MASH Cirrhosis

The MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial also included an open label active treatment arm with 180 patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis. Data following 52 weeks of treatment with 80 or 100 mg of resmetirom daily showed improved liver chemistry tests, a reduction in vibration-controlled transient elastography (“VCTE”) in a responder analysis and a statistically significant reduction in liver volume by an average of approximately 20%. In May 2025, we reported two-year data showing that 122 patients in the study achieved significant improvements from baseline in liver stiffness, liver fat, fibrosis biomarkers, liver volume and risk scores for CSPH. In November 2025, we announced additional positive data from this cohort examining patients with more advanced compensated MASH cirrhosis (those with a platelet count of 100,000/µL at baseline). In this population, Rezdiffra demonstrated improvements from baseline across multiple imaging tests and biomarkers including liver stiffness, liver enzymes and lipids, as well as Baveno risk scores for CSPH.

These data from this open label active treatment arm continue to support the rationale for our MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES trial evaluating Rezdiffra in patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis.

MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES Trial

In October 2024, we announced that we completed enrollment of MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES, a Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that is designed to noninvasively measure progression to liver decompensation events in 845 patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis, exceeding our initial enrollment target.

The primary endpoint of MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES is the incidence of composite liver-related outcome events, including all-cause mortality, liver transplant, hepatic decompensation (ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage) and confirmed increase of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score from 12 to ≥15 due to progression of MASH cirrhosis. Key inclusion criteria are well-compensated MASH cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A) and presence of three metabolic risk factors (metabolic syndrome). Patients were randomized 3:1 in a blinded manner to receive 80 mg resmetirom or matching placebo, given orally once daily. We expect results from this event-driven trial in 2027.

A positive outcome is expected to support the full approval of Rezdiffra for noncirrhotic MASH in the United States, potentially accelerating the timeline to full approval. In addition, this trial has the potential to support approval of an additional indication for Rezdiffra in patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis.

Pipeline

Our research and development objective is to build the leading pipeline in MASH. Through our business development efforts, we have added several mechanisms with biology that we believe is complimentary to resmetirom to potentially enhance efficacy across the spectrum of MASH. Given Rezdiffra’s profile as a liver-directed therapy, we believe it is the best foundation on which to build the future of MASH treatment. In addition to the following programs, we are evaluating several other candidates that may have the potential to treat MASH either as a monotherapy or as part of a combination.

MGL-2086 (oral GLP-1)

In September 2025, we acquired from CSPC an exclusive global license for MGL-2086 (formerly SYH2086), an oral small molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist. GLP-1 receptor agonists improve systemic metabolism, insulin sensitivity and weight loss. Rezdiffra reverses hypothyroidism in the liver, restoring mitochondrial function and increasing fat processing through beta-oxidation. Based on data from our MAESTRO-NASH trial, Rezdiffra’s efficacy is enhanced by even modest amounts of weight loss. By combining these complementary mechanisms in an oral combination therapy, we expect to see greater reductions in both liver fat and fibrosis. An Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) has been accepted and we plan to start a Phase 1 single ascending dose trial of MGL-2086 in the second quarter of 2026.

Ervogastat (oral DGAT-2 inhibitor)

In December 2025, we acquired an exclusive global license for ervogastat, a liver-directed, oral DGAT-2 inhibitor, from Pfizer. DGAT-2 inhibitors work by blocking the final step in triglyceride assembly and storage, resulting in lower hepatic triglycerides, reduced lipotoxic fat and decreased inflammation. In a Phase 2b trial conducted by Pfizer, ervogastat demonstrated impressive liver fat reduction as measured by MRI-PDFF, a noninvasive technique to precisely measure the percentage of fat in the liver. 72% of patients treated with ervogastat (150 mg) achieved at least a 30% reduction in liver fat, with 61% experiencing at least a 50% reduction. Improvements in liver enzymes and liver stiffness as measured by VCTE were also observed, and all active doses studied were well tolerated. By inhibiting DGAT-2, we believe we can decrease lipid accumulation in the liver and lower inflammation and fibrosis by keeping stellate cells in their inactive state. Rezdiffra restores mitochondrial function and increases fat processing via beta-oxidation which leads to lower inflammation and a reduction in downstream fibrosis. In combination, we believe these two mechanisms can be

11

Table of Contents

complementary by addressing both the production and clearance of hepatic fat. In 2026, we expect to conduct a Phase 1 drug-to-drug interaction study with ervogastat and resmetirom. In addition, we expect to initiate a Phase 2 combination trial with ervogastat and resmetirom in 2027 following discussions with the FDA.

siRNA programs

In February 2026, we entered into the Ribocure License Agreement pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive global license to six preclinical siRNA programs. These siRNAs target clinically validated genes implicated in MASH disease progression. siRNAs may offer a precision approach to gene silencing in MASH by potentially reducing the production of disease-driving proteins. The siRNAs are N-acetylgalactosamine (“GalNac”) conjugated. When linked to a GalNac ligand, siRNA molecules are delivered directly into hepatocytes, where they silence genes that have been identified as key risk factors for MASH by breaking down targeted mRNA. By pairing this precise gene-silencing approach with Rezdiffra, we aim to explore whether reducing drivers of disease at the genetic level can complement Rezdiffra’s therapeutic effects. IND-enabling activities in initial candidates are expected to begin in 2026.

Collaborations

Roche Agreement

VIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“VIA”) entered into a research, development and commercialization agreement (as amended from time to time, the “Roche Agreement”) with Hoffmann-La Roche (“Roche”), in December 2008. We subsequently assumed all of VIA’s rights in, to and under, and all of VIA’s obligations under, the Roche Agreement pursuant to an asset purchase agreement in September 2011. Pursuant to the terms of the Roche Agreement, we, as successor-in-interest to VIA, assumed control of all development and commercialization of resmetirom and hold exclusive worldwide rights for all potential indications. Under the Roche Agreement, Roche exclusively licensed certain patent rights and know-how relating to resmetirom in exchange for consideration consisting of an upfront payment, milestone payments and tiered single-digit royalty payments based on net sales of Rezdiffra and any derivative products of resmetirom, subject to certain reductions. In 2011, we commenced Phase 1 clinical trials and subsequently paid Roche a related milestone payment. In October 2016, we commenced a Phase 2 clinical trial in MASH and subsequently paid Roche a related milestone payment. In 2019, we commenced a Phase 3 clinical trial in MASH and subsequently paid Roche a $2.0 million related milestone payment. In March 2024, we received FDA approval of Rezdiffra and subsequently paid Roche a $5.0 million related milestone payment. In August 2025, upon receiving a CMA from the EC, a milestone was achieved and we paid $3.0 million to Roche.

Pursuant to the Roche Agreement, we agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to conduct clinical and commercial development programs for products containing resmetirom. If we determine not to pursue the development or commercialization of resmetirom in certain jurisdictions, Roche may terminate the license for such territories. Our obligation to pay royalties based on net sales of resmetirom in a given country will expire, unless earlier terminated pursuant to other provisions of the Roche Agreement, on the last to occur of (i) the expiration of the last valid claim of a licensed patent covering the manufacture, use or sale of products containing resmetirom in a given country, or (ii) ten years after the first sale of a product containing resmetirom in such country. In January 2026, we entered into an amendment to the Roche Agreement to provide us the full and exclusive right and discretion to control all patent term adjustments and patent term extensions applicable to Rezdiffra, including patents owned by Roche and jointly owned between the parties. In consideration of the foregoing, the royalty payable to Roche based on net sales of Rezdiffra will not be reduced until the expiration of certain patent term extensions that have been, or could have been, filed.

CSPC License (MGL-2086)

In July 2025, we entered into the CSPC License Agreement with CSPC for MGL-2086 (formerly known as SYH2086), an oral small molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist. Pursuant to the CSPC License Agreement, CSPC has granted us an exclusive global license to develop, manufacture, and commercialize MGL-2086. The transaction closed in September 2025. We paid CSPC an upfront payment of $120.0 million in October 2025. CSPC is eligible to receive up to $2.0 billion in development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments, as well as royalties on net sales ranging from mid-single digits to low-double digits.

Pfizer License (ervogastat)

In December 2025, we entered into an exclusive global license agreement with Pfizer (the “Pfizer License Agreement”) to develop, manufacture and commercialize ervogastat, a Phase 2 oral DGAT-2 inhibitor, and two additional early-stage MASH assets. We paid Pfizer an upfront payment of $50.0 million in December 2025. In addition, Pfizer is eligible to receive up to $70.0 million in development and regulatory milestone payments related to ervogastat and low-

12

Table of Contents

double digit royalties on net sales of ervogastat. Pfizer is eligible to receive additional development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments and royalty payments on net sales of the two licensed early stage assets.

Ribocure License (siRNA programs)

In February 2026, we entered into the Ribocure License Agreement granting us exclusive global rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize six siRNA programs. Pursuant to the Ribocure License Agreement, we will pay Ribocure an upfront payment of $60.0 million. In addition, Ribocure is eligible to receive up to $4.4 billion in development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments across all programs, as well as royalties on net sales ranging from mid-single digits to low-double digits.

Competition

The development and commercialization of drugs in MASH is highly competitive. We will face competition with respect to Rezdiffra and all product candidates we may develop or commercialize in the future from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies worldwide. The key factors affecting the success of an approved product will generally be such product’s efficacy, safety profile, drug interactions, method of administration, pricing, reimbursement and level of promotional activity relative to those of competing drugs.

Our potential competitors include companies with substantially greater financial, technical and personnel resources than us. In addition, our competitors may have significantly greater research, development, manufacturing and commercial infrastructures. Our ability to compete successfully will depend largely on our ability to leverage our collective experience in drug development and commercialization to:

•develop medicines that are differentiated from other products in the market;

•obtain patent or proprietary protection for our products and technologies;

•obtain required regulatory approvals;

•commercialize our drugs, if approved; and

•attract and retain high-quality research, development and commercial personnel.

Rezdiffra was the first medication approved by both the FDA and EC for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. Since then, semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist developed and commercialized by Novo Nordisk A/S (“Novo”), was approved for the treatment of MASH by the FDA and is pending approval in the EU. In addition, there are more than 140 drugs in development for MASH by companies ranging in size from small biotechnology companies to large pharmaceutical organizations. Investigational candidates include, among others, THR-β agonists, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists (PPAR), GLP-1 agonists, dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists, fatty acid synthase (FASN) inhibitors, fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF-21) stimulators, farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonists and dual GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonists. Other companies are conducting Phase 3 trials, including Novo, Inventiva S.A., Roche, Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. In addition, there are 51 investigational therapies being evaluated in Phase 2 clinical trials in MASH.

We believe that Rezdiffra’s product profile and first-to-market advantage provide meaningful points of differentiation in the MASH competitive landscape. In addition, we believe positive results from the Phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH OUTCOMES trial could position Rezdiffra as the first medication to receive approval in both MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis (consistent with stages F2 to F3 fibrosis) and MASH with compensated cirrhosis (consistent with stage F4c fibrosis). See the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Commercialization and Continued Approval of Rezdiffra—We operate in a highly competitive and changing environment, and if we are unable to adapt to our environment, we may be unable to compete successfully.” in this Annual Report for additional discussion of the competitive risks we face.

Manufacturing, Supply and Distribution

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party contract manufacturers (“CMOs”) for all required starting materials, active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”) and finished product for the manufacture of any product candidates that we may develop for larger-scale preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial quantities of Rezdiffra and any future drug candidates that may be approved.

In December 2024, we entered into a Resmetirom Commercial Supply Agreement (the “Evonik Agreement”) with Evonik Corporation (“Evonik”). Pursuant to the Evonik Agreement, Evonik has agreed to manufacture and supply resmetirom, the API in Rezdiffra, in commercial quantities. We have agreed to provide Evonik with a forecast of our

13

Table of Contents

purchases on a rolling basis. Under the Evonik Agreement, our purchase price for supply of resmetirom is based on the volume of material subject to a purchase order. The initial term of the Evonik Agreement will expire on December 31, 2029 and will be automatically renewed for successive two-year periods, unless terminated in accordance with the terms of the Evonik Agreement. In addition, in August 2023, we entered into a Commercial Supply Agreement (the “UPM Agreement”) with UPM Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“UPM”) for the primary commercial supply of Rezdiffra tablets in the United States. Pursuant to the UPM Agreement, we must purchase a specified percentage of our annual requirements for Rezdiffra from UPM at volume-driven prices. The initial term of the UPM Agreement will expire in April 2032 and will be automatically renewed for two-year periods unless terminated in accordance with the terms of the UPM Agreement. We have also entered into a supply agreement (the “Corden Supply Agreement”) with Corden Pharma GmbH (“Corden”), a German-based manufacturer, for the primary commercial supply of Rezdiffra tablets in Europe and to serve as a secondary commercial supplier for the U.S. market. Pursuant to the Corden Supply Agreement, we must submit to Corden binding forecasts for our expected delivery of Rezdiffra. The initial term of the Corden Supply Agreement will expire in 2029 and is expected to renew for successive two-year terms. All of our CMO partners have extensive technical expertise, GMP experience and experience manufacturing our specific technology. We believe our supply arrangements are satisfactory for our current operations.

Rezdiffra is distributed in the United States through a network of specialty pharmacy providers that deliver Rezdiffra to patients. We may expand our distribution network in the future.

Intellectual Property

Our success will depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for Rezdiffra and any current or future product candidates, technology and know-how, our ability to freely operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and our ability to establish proprietary rights and prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing United States and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, and maintaining the confidentiality of inventions and improvements that are material to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our competitive position.

We will be able to protect our technology and products from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent we are covered by valid and enforceable patents or such knowledge is effectively maintained as trade secrets. Patents and other proprietary rights are thus an essential element of our business. We monitor for activities that may infringe our proprietary rights, as well as the progression of third-party patent applications that may have the potential to interfere with the development of our business.

As of December 31, 2025, we owned or co-owned nine United States issued patents and 107 foreign issued patents, 24 United States pending patent applications and 97 foreign pending patent applications and three international patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Issued patents directed to resmetirom have statutory expiration dates between 2026 and 2045, excluding any patent term extensions or equivalents thereof that might be available following the grant of marketing authorizations. Each of these patents and patent applications is directed to resmetirom, including composition-of-matter, certain polymorph forms, Rezdiffra’s commercial weight-threshold dosing regimen as prescribed in the FDA-approved label, methods of making resmetirom, the use of resmetirom in the treatment of key disease indications or other THR-β analogs and uses thereof. Our current patent portfolio covers the United States and certain other jurisdictions worldwide. The international patent application can be used as the basis for multiple additional patent applications worldwide. In addition, pursuant to the Roche Agreement, Roche granted us an exclusive license to certain United States and foreign patents and patent applications owned by Roche and Roche know-how relating to resmetirom. The Roche Agreement imposes various diligence, milestone payment, royalty payment, insurance, indemnification, and other obligations on us. In addition, pursuant to the Roche Agreement, we have the exclusive right to control all patent term adjustments and patent term extensions applicable to Rezdiffra patents, including patents owned by Roche and jointly owned between the parties.

Of the patents and applications related to Rezdiffra, there are six U.S.-issued patents listed in the FDA Orange Book. These patents and their expiration dates, excluding any patent term extensions, are as follows:

•U.S. Patent No. 7,452,882 (expires September 12, 2026)

•U.S. Patent No. 9,266,861 (expires September 17, 2033)

•U.S. Patent No. 10,376,517 (expires September 17, 2033)

•U.S. Patent No. 11,564,926 (expires September 17, 2033)

•U.S. Patent No. 11,986,481 (expires September 17, 2033)

•U.S. Patent No. 12,377,104 (expires February 4, 2045)

14

Table of Contents

In addition, we have licensed several patents and patent applications related to our pipeline candidates, and have filed several patent applications directed toward our product candidates in combination with resmetirom.

Our trademarks are protected under the common law or by registration in the United States and other countries. We seek to protect our proprietary processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our personnel, including consultants and commercial partners. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information.

See the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property” in this Annual Report for a discussion of the risks associated with our intellectual property.

Government Regulation

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, monitoring and reporting, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of drug products such as those we are developing. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the new drug application (“NDA”) process before it may be legally marketed in the United States and must be approved by foreign regulatory authorities via various analogous procedures before it can be marketed in the applicable country. The animal and other non-clinical data and the results of human clinical trials performed under an IND and under similar foreign applications will become part of the NDA. Even after obtaining initial marketing approval, a product and its manufacturer remain subject to extensive, continuing regulatory requirements, including with respect to manufacturing, quality control, adverse event reporting, advertising and promotion and periodic inspections by regulatory authorities.

United States Drug Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state and local statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, FDA Form 483, untitled letters, warning letters and other types of enforcement-related letters, requesting product recalls, product seizures, changes to the conditions surrounding marketing approval such as labeling changes or changes to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigations Strategies (“REMS”) program, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits or civil or criminal investigations and penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The FDA may also prevent the import or export of products manufactured in non-compliant facilities or under non-compliant conditions. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

•completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies, some in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”), the Animal Welfare Act administered and enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture and other applicable regulations;

•submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

•approval by an institutional review board (“IRB”) before each clinical trial may be initiated at each clinical site;

•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials under protocols submitted to the FDA and reviewed and approved by each IRB, conducted in accordance with federal regulations and according to GCP to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use;

•preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA (and the FDA’s acceptance for filing of the NDA);

•completion of registration batches and validation of the manufacturing process to show ability to consistently produce quality batches of product;

15

Table of Contents

•satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable;

•satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug is produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•satisfactory completion of FDA audits of clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data;

•payment of user fees and procurement of FDA approval of the NDA;

•FDA review and approval of the NDA; and

•compliance with any post-approval requirements, including, as applicable, REMS and post-approval trials required by the FDA.

Once a pharmaceutical candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies, to assess the initial safety and quality profile of the product. Animal studies must be performed in compliance with federal regulations and requirements, including, as applicable, GLP and the Animal Welfare Act. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. The sponsor will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated, if the trial lends itself to an efficacy evaluation. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If during this 30-day period the FDA does not raise any concerns or issues that must be addressed prior to the commencement of clinical trials or does not impose a clinical hold, the IND becomes effective 30 days following the FDA’s receipt of the IND and the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns, non-compliance or other reasons.

All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with GCP. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually. In addition, timely safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions, any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol, or animal test results that suggest a significant risk to human subjects. An IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve each protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution and must also approve the consent form that must be provided to each trial subject or his or her legal representative, monitor the trial until completed and otherwise comply with IRB regulations. Foreign trials conducted under an IND must meet the same requirements that apply to trials being conducted in the United States. The FDA may inspect foreign clinical sites to ensure data integrity and compliance with GCP. Data from a foreign trial not conducted under an IND may be submitted in support of an NDA if the trial was conducted in accordance with GCP and the FDA is able to validate the data.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases:

•Phase 1: The product candidate is initially introduced into humans. Phase 1 clinical trials are typically conducted in healthy human subjects, but in some situations are conducted in patients with the target disease or condition. Phase 1 clinical trials are generally designed to evaluate the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion of the product candidate in humans, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness.

•Phase 2: This phase involves trials in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.

•Phase 3: This phase involves trials undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These trials are intended to establish the overall risk-benefit ratio of the product candidate and provide, if appropriate, an adequate basis for product approval and product labeling. Generally, the FDA requires two adequate

16

Table of Contents

and well controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the product candidate, although a single Phase 3 clinical trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in certain instances.

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. In some cases, clinical trials are also monitored by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor. These groups are often referred to as data monitoring committees. This group typically provides recommendations to the trial sponsor for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points. These decisions are based on the data monitoring committee’s independent review of data from the ongoing trial. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. Further, success in either preclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials does not assure success in later-stage clinical trials. In general, sponsors of most interventional clinical trials that are not Phase 1, are required to submit certain clinical trial information for inclusion in the public clinical trial registry and results data bank maintained by the National Institutes of Health, which are publicly available at http://clinicaltrials.gov. Sponsors are generally also obligated to disclose the results of these clinical trials after completion. Competitors and others may use this publicly-available information to gain knowledge regarding the design and progress of our development programs.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if SAEs occur. Written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end of Phase 2 meeting to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial that they believe will support approval of the new drug.

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 and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing and assuring the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

United States Review and Approval Processes

The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling, and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for a specific indication. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of user fees under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended (“PDUFA”) ; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. The sponsor under an approved NDA is also subject to annual program user fees. Program fees are assessed for each approved prescription drug product identified in an approved application, with up to five program fees per application. These fees are typically modified annually. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of a submitted NDA within 60 days from receipt to ensure that the application is sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts the application for filing. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA’s PDUFA performance goals generally provide for action on an NDA within 10 months of the 60-day filing date. That deadline can be extended under certain circumstances, including by the FDA’s requests for additional information. The targeted action date can also be shortened to within 6 months of the 60-day filing date for products that are granted priority review designation because they are intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended

17

Table of Contents

use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. In addition, the FDA often will conduct a bioresearch monitoring inspection of the clinical trial sites involved in conducting pivotal trials to ensure data integrity and compliance with applicable GCP requirements. The FDA may refer the NDA to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the regulatory 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.

At the end of the review period, the FDA may issue an approval letter following satisfactory completion of all aspects of the review process, or the FDA may issue a complete response letter (“CRL”), which generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require additional clinical or other data or impose other conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA. If and when deficiencies outlined in a CRL have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA may issue an approval letter. The FDA’s PDUFA review goal is to review such resubmissions within two or six months of receipt, depending on the type of information included. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval of a resubmitted NDA.

NDAs receive either standard or priority review. An application for a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease may qualify for priority review. Priority review for an NDA for a new molecular entity means the FDA will review the NDA within six months from the date that the NDA is accepted for filing by FDA. The FDA has ten months in which to complete its initial review of a standard new molecular entity NDA. The FDA does not always meet its goal dates and in certain circumstances, the goal date may be extended. Priority review does not change the standard for approval, but may expedite the approval process.

Product candidates may qualify for review and approval under the 21 CFR Part 314, Subpart H accelerated approval pathway if the candidates are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition, provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments, and demonstrate an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on an intermediate clinical endpoint. In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that is thought to predict clinical benefit, such as how a patient feels, functions, or survives, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA requires that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform confirmatory adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. Approval of a product may be withdrawn if these trials fail to verify clinical benefit or do not demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit to justify the risks associated with the product. Accelerated approval does not change the standards for approval. All promotional materials for drug candidates approved under the accelerated approval pathway are subject to prior review by the FDA. If a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval trial with “due diligence,” the FDA may withdraw approval of the product.

Further, on December 29, 2022, Congress enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which included the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (“FDORA”). Under FDORA, the FDA must specify the conditions for any post-approval trials by the date of the accelerated approval and the agency has flexibility in setting forth such conditions, which may include enrollment targets, clinical trial protocol and milestones – including the target date of trial completion. The FDA may also require, as appropriate, that certain post-approval trials be underway prior to accelerated approval or within a specified time from the date of approval. Accelerated approval sponsors must submit progress reports every six months on required post-approval trials.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product candidate with specific prescribing information for specific indications. If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be further limited to specific diseases, dosages or patient populations, or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. In addition, the FDA may require a sponsor to conduct additional (i.e., Phase 4) testing which involves clinical trials designed to further assess a drug’s safety and effectiveness after NDA approval, and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products which have been commercialized.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (“FDASIA”) which was enacted in 2012, made permanent the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), which requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric studies for most drug applications and supplements to applications, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, such original NDAs and supplements thereto must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must assess the safety

18

Table of Contents

and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product has been assessed to be safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric studies for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric studies are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric studies begin. The FDA may send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, maintain a current deferral or submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.

Patent Term Restoration and Regulatory Exclusivities

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our product candidates, some of our United States patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits 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 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 the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent and within 60 days of approval. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

The Hatch-Waxman Act also provides periods of regulatory exclusivity for products that would serve as a reference listed drug (“RLD”) for an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) or application submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, or 505(b)(2) application. If a product is a new chemical entity (“NCE”)—generally meaning that the active moiety has never before been approved in any drug—there is a period of five years from the product’s approval during which the FDA may not accept for filing any ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a drug with the same active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application may be submitted after four years, however, if the sponsor of the application makes a “Paragraph IV” certification.

A product that is not an NCE may qualify for a three-year period of exclusivity if the NDA or supplement to an approved NDA contains new clinical data (other than bioavailability studies), derived from trials conducted by or for the sponsor, that were necessary for approval. In that instance, the exclusivity period does not preclude filing or review of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application; rather, the FDA is precluded from granting final approval to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until three years after approval of the RLD. Additionally, the exclusivity applies only to the conditions of approval that required submission of the clinical data.

Once the FDA accepts for filing an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application containing a Paragraph IV certification, the applicant must within 20 days provide notice to the RLD NDA holder and patent owner that the application has been submitted and provide the factual and legal basis for the applicant’s assertion that the patent is invalid or not infringed. If the NDA holder or patent owner files suit against the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant for patent infringement within 45 days of receiving the Paragraph IV notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a period of 30 months or the resolution of the underlying suit, whichever is earlier. If the RLD has NCE exclusivity and the notice is given and suit filed during the fifth year of exclusivity, the regulatory stay extends until seven and a half years after the RLD approval. The FDA may approve the proposed product before the expiration of the regulatory stay if a court finds the patent invalid or not infringed or if the court shortens the period because the parties have failed to cooperate in expediting the litigation.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of marketing exclusivity available in the United States. The FDASIA made permanent the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (“BPCA”), which provides for an additional six months of marketing exclusivity if a sponsor conducts clinical trials in children in response to a written request from the FDA (“Written Request”). If the Written Request does not include trials in neonates, the FDA is required to include its rationale for not requesting those trials. The FDA may request trials on approved or unapproved indications in separate Written Requests. The issuance of a Written Request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described trials.

Expedited Programs

The FDA maintains several programs to facilitate and expedite the development and review of drug applications that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition that meet certain other criteria, including Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Designation, Priority Review (discussed above in United States Review and Approval Processes), and the Accelerated Approval pathway (discussed above in United States Review and Approval Processes). Under the Fast Track Designation program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that the FDA

19

Table of Contents

designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a fast track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. Under the Fast Track Designation program, the FDA may grant fast track designation for a product candidate if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need. Features of Fast Track Designation include more frequent interactions with the review team, and the possibility of rolling review.

Under the Breakthrough Designation Program, FDA may grant a drug Breakthrough Therapy Designation if it is intended to treat a serious condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement on a clinically significant endpoint over available therapies. Features of Breakthrough Therapy Designation include intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program, an organizational commitment by the agency involving senior managers in a proactive, cross-disciplinary review of the drug application, and the possibility of rolling review.

Post-Approval Requirements

Once an approval is granted, products are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA may withdraw the approval if, among other things, compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if safety or efficacy problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on product marketing or even withdrawal of approval for the product application. If new safety issues are identified following approval, the FDA may require the NDA sponsor to take certain measures, such as revising the approved labeling to reflect the new safety information, conducting post-market studies or clinical trials to assess the new safety information, and/or implementing or changing a REMS program to mitigate newly-identified risks. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs 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 and regulations. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and notify the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our product candidates. Future inspections by the FDA and other regulatory agencies may identify compliance issues at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct.

Any drug products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the drug, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, drug sampling and distribution requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. The FDA strictly regulates labeling, advertising, promotion and other types of information on products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label.

From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or interpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the EU, before we may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and

20

Table of Contents

requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Under the EU regulatory systems, a company may submit a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) either under the centralized procedure or one of the national procedures, depending on the type of product. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the EC that is valid throughout the EU and in the additional countries of the European Economic Area (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) (“EEA”). The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by certain biotechnological processes; advanced therapy medicinal products (gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue engineered products); medicinal products containing new active substances for specific indications such as the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases and other immune dysfunctions; and designated orphan medicines. For medicines that do not fall within one of the mandatory categories, an applicant still has the option of submitting an application for a centralized marketing authorization as long as the medicine concerned contains a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, is a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or if its authorization would be in the interest of public health in the EU. Under the centralized procedure, an MAA is submitted to the EMA where it will be evaluated by the CHMP. The CHMP is responsible for conducting an initial assessment of whether a product meets the required quality, safety and efficacy requirements, and whether a product has a positive benefit/risk ratio. Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of an MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, it provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the EC, who makes the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding clock stops, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. The initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period, unless the EC decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance (e.g. exposure of an insufficient number of patients to the medicinal product concerned), to mandate one additional five-year renewal.

In specific circumstances, applicants may obtain a CMA prior to having the full clinical data normally required for a standard marketing authorization where (i) the benefit-risk balance of the product is positive, (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be able to provide comprehensive clinical data, (iii) the product addresses an unmet medical need and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability of the medicinal product on the market outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A CMA may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder following grant of the marketing authorization, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. CMAs are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a CMA.

There are also two other possible routes to authorize products for therapeutic indications in several countries in the EU, which are available for products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

•Decentralized procedure—Using the decentralized procedure, an applicant may apply for simultaneous authorizations in more than one EU Member State for a medicinal product that has not yet been authorized in any EU Member State and that does not fall within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure.

•Mutual recognition procedure—In the mutual recognition procedure, a medicine is first authorized in one EU Member State, in accordance with the national procedures of that country. Following this, additional marketing authorizations can be sought from other EU Member States in a procedure whereby the countries concerned recognize the validity of the original, national marketing authorization.

In both cases, as with the centralized procedure, the competent authorities of the EU Member States assess the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy before granting the marketing authorization.

When conducting clinical trials in the EU, we must adhere to the provisions of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (“EU CTR”). The EU CTR requires, among other things, that the prior authorization of an ethics committee and the submission and approval of a clinical trial authorization application be obtained in each applicable EU Member State before commencing a clinical trial in that EU Member State. The EU CTR replaced the previous EU Clinical Trials Directive and aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. For example, the EU CTR

21

Table of Contents

implements a coordinated procedure for authorization of clinical trials (through a centralized EU portal known as the Clinical Trials Information System) that is similar to the mutual recognition procedure for marketing authorization of medicinal products, and includes obligations on sponsors to publish clinical trial results.

As in the United States, it may be possible in foreign countries to obtain a period of market and/or data exclusivity that would have the effect of postponing the entry into the marketplace of a competitor’s generic or biosimilar product. For example, in the EU, if any of our products receive marketing approval in the EU, we expect that we will benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of marketing exclusivity. An additional one-year extension of marketing exclusivity is possible if during the data exclusivity period we obtain an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications that is deemed to bring a significant clinical benefit compared to existing therapies for the indication. The data exclusivity period begins on the date of the product’s first marketing authorization in the EU and prevents biosimilars or generics from referencing the pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic marketing authorization for a period of eight years. After eight years, a biosimilar or generic MAA may be submitted and the sponsoring companies may rely on the data for the reference product. However, even with a market authorization a biosimilar or generic medicine cannot launch in the EU until two years after the data exclusivity expires (or a total of ten years after the first marketing authorization in the EU of the innovator product), or three years later (or a total of eleven years after the first marketing authorization in the EU of the innovator product) if the marketing authorization holder obtains marketing authorization for a new indication with significant clinical benefit within the eight year data exclusivity period.

If a marketing authorization for a medicinal product in the EU is obtained, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include:

•Compliance with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules must be ensured. These rules can impose post-authorization trials and additional monitoring obligations.

•The manufacturing of authorized medicinal products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive (EU) 2017/1572, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice. These requirements include compliance with EU GMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the EU with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the EU.

•The marketing and promotion of authorized products, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of products and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the EU. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is prohibited across the EU.

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statue prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians or other health care professionals to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to induce or reward improper performance generally is usually governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU Member States, and the Bribery Act 2010 in the United Kingdom (“UK”). Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which is the EU Directive governing medicinal products for human use, further provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This provision has been transposed into the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable in the UK despite its departure from the EU.

Payments made to physicians or other healthcare professionals in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA.

The EC introduced legislative proposals in April 2023 that, if implemented, will replace the current regulatory framework in the EU for all medicines (including those for rare diseases and for children). In April 2024, the European Parliament adopted its position on the legislative proposals and, in June 2025, the Council of the European Union adopted

22

Table of Contents

its position. A common position on the text has been agreed upon on December 11, 2025, in the context of subsequent inter-institutional trilogue negotiations. The proposed revisions remain to be adopted, and are not expected to become applicable before 2028.

The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. As a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, following the UK leaving the EU, the EMA remained responsible for approving novel medicines for supply in Northern Ireland under the EU centralized procedure, and a separate authorization was required to supply the same medicine in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland). On February 27, 2023, the UK government and the EC announced a political agreement in principle to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol with a new set of arrangements, known as the “Windsor Framework.” The Windsor Framework was approved by the EU-UK Joint Committee on March 24, 2023, and the medicines aspects of the Windsor Framework have applied since January 1, 2025. This new framework fundamentally changes the previous system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the UK. In particular, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (the “MHRA”) is now responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA no longer has any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland under the EU centralized procedure. A single UK-wide marketing authorization is granted by the MHRA for all novel medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK. In addition, the new arrangements require all medicines placed on the UK market to be labelled “UK only,” indicating they are not for sale in the EU.

The MHRA has introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, an accelerated assessment procedure and new routes of evaluation for novel products and biotechnological products. On January 1, 2024, the MHRA put in place a new international recognition framework which means that the MHRA may have regard to decisions on the approval of marketing authorizations made by the EMA and certain other regulators when determining an application for a new UK marketing authorization.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists regarding the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. In the United States, sales of any products for which we may receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in significant part on the availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include federal and state government authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a product does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

•a covered benefit under its health plan;

•safe, effective and medically necessary;

•appropriate for the specific patient;

•cost-effective; and

•neither experimental nor investigational.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for, examining the medical necessity of, and assessing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. Our drug candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. If third-party payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover the product after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to sell its products at a profit. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician ordering and patient demand for the product.

The marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for a product for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

23

Table of Contents

In addition, sales of our products in other countries are also dependent, in large part, on complex coverage and reimbursement mechanisms and programs in those countries. In some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. An EU Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to be significantly lower.

U.S. Healthcare Reform

The U.S. government and state legislatures have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid health care costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended the ACA, contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products, including, for example, increased rebates for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales for branded prescription drugs to federal health care programs. Adoption of government controls and measures, and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceuticals.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011 and subsequence 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 2031. The U.S. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. On March 11, 2021, former President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. These laws and regulations may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Further, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The Right to Try Act, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) includes several provisions that may impact our business, depending on how various aspects of the IRA are implemented. Provisions that may impact our business include a $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries, the imposition of new manufacturer financial liability on most drugs in Medicare Part D, permitting the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D pricing for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, requiring companies to pay rebates to Medicare for drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay until January 1, 2031 the implementation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) rebate rule that would have limited the fees that pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have one orphan designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, this restriction was eliminated; and effective for the 2028 initial price applicability year, all orphan drugs, regardless of the number of orphan drug designations or indications, are exempt from the Medicare drug price negotiation program. The implementation of the IRA is currently subject to ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the IRA’s Medicare drug price negotiation program. The effect of the IRA on our business and the healthcare industry in general continues to evolve and we may discover adverse impacts on our company or our industry. The IRA is anticipated to have significant effects on the pharmaceutical industry and may reduce the prices we can charge and reimbursement we can receive for our product, among other effects.

On December 2, 2020, the HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through PBMs, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between PBMs and manufacturers. Implementation of this change and new safe

24

Table of Contents

harbors for point-of-sale reductions in price for prescription pharmaceutical products and PBM service fees are currently under review by the current United States presidential administration and may be amended or repealed. Further, on December 31, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) published a new rule, effective January 1, 2023, requiring manufacturers to ensure the full value of co-pay assistance is passed on to the patient or these dollars will count toward the Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price calculation of the drug (“Accumulator Rule”). On May 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s (PhRMA) motion for summary judgment invalidating the Accumulator Rule. We cannot predict how the implementation of and any further changes to this rule will affect our business. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the current United States presidential administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures. Both the current United States presidential administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

On April 15, 2025, the Trump Administration published Executive Order 14273, “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First,” which generally directs the federal government to take measures to reduce drug prices, including eliminating the so-called “pill penalty” under the IRA that creates a distinction between small molecule and large molecule products for purposes of determining when a drug may be eligible for drug price negotiation. On May 12, 2025, the Trump Administration published Executive Order 14297, “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” which generally, among other things, directs the federal government to establish and communicate most-favored-nation price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations. Further, the Executive Order directs the federal government to support regulatory paths to allow direct-to-patient sales for companies that meet these targets. It also states that the Administration will take additional aggressive action (for example, examining whether marketing approvals should be modified or rescinded or opening the door for individual drug importation waivers) should manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the most-favored-nation lowest price. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to “take all necessary and appropriate action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in any act, policy, or practice that may be unreasonable or discriminatory or that may impair United States national security . . . including by suppressing the price of pharmaceutical products below fair market value in foreign countries.” Notably, a similar “Most Favored Nation” pricing rule enacted under the first Trump Administration was subject to an injunction resulting from judicial challenges to the rule, which was formally rescinded by the former Biden Administration in August 2021.

On November 6, 2025, CMS announced a new drug payment model designed to make Most Favored Nation (MFN)-level prices available to state Medicaid programs via manufacturer rebates. Referred to as the “GENErating cost Reductions fOr U.S. Medicaid Model” (“GENEROUS”), the initiative is designed to run from 2026 through 2030 and is voluntary for both manufacturers and state Medicaid programs. Under the model, participating states will be able to access MFN-level prices for participating manufacturers’ drugs through CMS-negotiated supplemental rebates tied to an MFN net price benchmark.

On December 19, 2025, CMS proposed a mandatory Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) drug payment model to test whether alternative methods for calculating Medicare rebates, based on international pricing metrics rather than inflation-based metrics, reduce costs for Medicare fee-for-service (“FFS”) beneficiaries and the Medicare program while preserving quality of care. The Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (“GUARD”) Model, would test an alternative approach to calculating rebates for certain Medicare Part D products using international pricing benchmarks. The GUARD Model would begin on January 1, 2027, and run through December 31, 2033. Public comments on the Proposed Payment Models are due by February 23, 2026.

Federal and state legislatures and health agencies may continue to focus on additional health care reform measures in the future that will impose additional constraints on prices and reimbursements for our marketed products. In addition, an emphasis on cost containment measures in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing.

There have been several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation and regulatory initiatives designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, evaluate the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government healthcare program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, President Trump reversed some of former President Biden’s executive orders, including rescinding Executive Order 14087 entitled “Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans.” President Trump may issue new executive orders designed to impact drug pricing. A number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report to state agencies when they introduce new drugs to market with prices over a certain threshold, or when they increase the price of a drug over a certain threshold. If healthcare policies or reforms intended to curb healthcare costs are

25

Table of Contents

adopted, the prices that we charge for any approved product may be limited, our commercial opportunity may be limited and/or our revenues from sales of our product and any future products, if approved, may be negatively impacted.

It is possible that the above-mentioned measures, as currently enacted or may be amended in the future, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, and new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on coverage and payment and the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of additional cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our approved product or products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted in the United States or outside of the United States, or whether regulatory changes, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on our product candidates, if any, may be.

Other Healthcare Laws

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below.

•The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, paying, receiving or providing any remuneration (including any kickback, bride or certain rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase order or recommendation of, any good or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. A person or entity need not have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. Violations are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs;

•The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act (“FCA”), which prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment or approval that are false, fictitious or fraudulent; knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false statement or record material to a false or fraudulent claim or obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the federal government; or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. In addition, the government may assert that a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery;

•The federal civil monetary penalties laws, which impose civil fines for, among other things, the offering or transfer or remuneration to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state health care program, unless an exception applies. The government may also assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim under federal civil monetary penalties laws;

•The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) imposes criminal and civil liability for knowingly and willfully executing a scheme or attempting to execute a scheme, to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense or falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of or

26

Table of Contents

payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity need not have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

•HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”) and their respective implementing regulations, imposes, among other things, specified requirements on covered entities and their business associates relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information including mandatory contractual terms and required implementation of technical safeguards of such information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates in some cases, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions;

•The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”) imposed new annual reporting requirements for certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, for certain payments and “transfers of value” provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other licensed health care practitioners and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by such physicians and their immediate family members; and

•Analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party-payors, including private insurers, and may be broader in scope than their federal equivalents; state and foreign laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers; state and foreign laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers and restrict marketing practices or require disclosure of marketing expenditures and pricing information; state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; state and foreign laws that govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the PhRMA Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. These data privacy and security laws may differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, which may complicate compliance efforts.

In addition, pharmaceutical manufacturers may also be subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws and regulations, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and that potentially harm consumers.

The distribution of drugs and biological products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

In the United States, to help patients afford our approved product, we may use programs to assist them, including patient assistance programs and co-pay coupon programs for eligible patients. Government enforcement agencies have shown increased interest in pharmaceutical companies’ product and patient assistance programs, including reimbursement support services, and a number of investigations into these programs have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements. In addition, at least one insurer has directed its network pharmacies to no longer accept co-pay coupons for certain specialty drugs the insurer identified. Our co-pay coupon programs could become the target of similar insurer actions. In addition, in November 2013, CMS issued guidance to the issuers of qualified health plans sold through the ACA’s marketplaces encouraging such plans to reject patient cost-sharing support from third parties and indicating that CMS intends to monitor the provision of such support and may take regulatory action to limit it in the future. CMS subsequently issued a rule requiring individual market qualified health plans to accept third-party premium and cost-sharing payments from certain government-related entities. In September 2014, the Office of Inspector General (the “OIG”) of the HHS issued a Special Advisory Bulletin warning manufacturers that they may be subject to sanctions under the federal anti-kickback statute and/or civil monetary penalty laws if they do not take appropriate steps to exclude Part D beneficiaries from using co-pay coupons. Accordingly, companies exclude these Part D beneficiaries from using co-pay coupons. It is possible that changes in insurer policies regarding co-pay coupons and/or the introduction and enactment of new legislation or regulatory action could restrict or otherwise negatively affect these patient support programs, which could result in fewer patients using affected products, and therefore could have a material adverse effect on our sales, business and financial condition.

27

Table of Contents

Third party patient assistance programs that receive financial support from companies have become the subject of enhanced government and regulatory scrutiny. The OIG has established guidelines that suggest that it is lawful for pharmaceutical manufacturers to make donations to charitable organizations who provide co-pay assistance to Medicare patients, provided that such organizations, among other things, are bona fide charities, are entirely independent of and not controlled by the manufacturer, provide aid to applicants on a first-come basis according to consistent financial criteria and do not link aid to use of a donor’s product. However, donations to patient assistance programs have received some negative publicity and have been the subject of multiple government enforcement actions, related to allegations regarding their use to promote branded pharmaceutical products over other less costly alternatives. Specifically, in recent years, there have been multiple settlements resulting out of government claims challenging the legality of their patient assistance programs under a variety of federal and state laws. It is possible that we may make grants to independent charitable foundations that help financially needy patients with their premium, co-pay and co-insurance obligations. If we choose to do so, and if we or our vendors or donation recipients are deemed to fail to comply with relevant laws, regulations or evolving government guidance in the operation of these programs, we could be subject to damages, fines, penalties or other criminal, civil or administrative sanctions or enforcement actions. We cannot ensure that our compliance controls, policies and procedures will be sufficient to protect against acts of our employees, business partners or vendors that may violate the laws or regulations of the jurisdictions in which we operate. Regardless of whether we have complied with the law, a government investigation could impact our business practices, harm our reputation, divert the attention of management, increase our expenses and reduce the availability of foundation support for our patients who need assistance.

The full scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal and state enforcement bodies have continued to increase their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to similar actions, penalties and sanctions. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from its business.

Pharmaceutical Price Reporting

A number of government pricing programs create certain price reporting obligations. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, a participating manufacturer is required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for its covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by the state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available for drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Those rebates are based on pricing data reported by the manufacturer on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of innovator products, the best price for each drug, which, in general, represents the lowest price available from the manufacturer to any wholesaler, retailer, provider, health maintenance organization, nonprofit entity, or governmental entity in the United States in any pricing structure, calculated to include all sales and associated rebates, discounts, and other price concessions.

The ACA (addressed further above in the section titled “—U.S. Healthcare Reform”) made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, and CMS issued a final regulation to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program under the ACA. CMS also issued a final regulation that modified prior Medicaid Drug Rebate Program regulations to permit reporting multiple best price figures with regard to value based purchasing arrangements; and provide definitions for “line extension,” “new formulation,” and related terms, with the practical effect of expanding the scope of drugs considered to be line extensions that are subject to an alternative rebate formula.

Federal law requires that a manufacturer also participate in the 340B Drug Pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs to a specified “covered entities,” including community health centers and other entities that receive certain federal grants, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the average manufacturer price and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.

28

Table of Contents

Further, the IRA establishes a Medicare Part D inflation rebate schemes (the first rebate period is in fourth quarter 2022 through third quarter 2023) and a drug price negotiation program, with the first negotiated prices to take effect in 2026. It also makes several changes to the Medicare Part D benefit, including the creation of a new manufacturer discount program in place of the current coverage gap discount program (beginning in 2025).

In order to be eligible to have its products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), Department of Defense (“DoD”), Public Health Service, and Coast Guard (the “Big Four Agencies”) and certain federal grantees, a manufacturer is required to participate in the VA Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) pricing program, established under Section 603 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992. Under this program, the manufacturer is obligated to make its covered drugs available for procurement on an FSS contract and charge a price to the Big Four Agencies that is no higher than the Federal Ceiling Price (“FCP”), which is a price calculated pursuant to a statutory formula. The FCP is derived from a calculated price point called the “non-federal average manufacturer price” (“Non-FAMP”), which the manufacturer calculates and reports to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. Pursuant to applicable law, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to significant penalties for each item of false information. The FSS contract also contains extensive disclosure and certification requirements. Under Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008, the manufacturer is required to pay quarterly rebates to DoD on utilization of its innovator products that are dispensed through DoD’s Tricare network pharmacies to Tricare beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and FCP for the calendar year that the product was dispensed.

In addition, at the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations similar to those under consideration at the federal level, as well as laws designed to control pharmaceutical and biotherapeutic product pricing, including restrictions on pricing or reimbursement at the state government level, limitations on discounts to patients, marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, restrictions or other limitations on patient assistance, and, in some cases, policies to encourage importation from other countries (subject to federal approval) and bulk purchasing. Certain states are also pursuing cost containment efforts through Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (“PDABs”) and similar entities. While many PDABs have been granted authority to promote drug price transparency and reporting, some states have granted PDABs more expansive authority, including to set Upper Payment Limits (“UPLs”) on select, high price drugs. The adoption and implementation of UPLs may put downward pressure on drug prices and impact our company’s future revenues.

Human Capital

As of December 31, 2025, we had 915 full-time employees, including 258 engaged in research, development and medical affairs, 526 in commercial activities and 131 in general and administrative functions. In 2025, we added a significant number of employees to support our commercial operations in both the United States and Europe. In addition, we have added employees in research and development as we continue to expand our pipeline activities. None of our employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements and we consider relations with our employees to be good. We also retain consultants on an as-needed basis.

We believe that our future success will be shaped by our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees. We provide our employees with a competitive total rewards package inclusive of salaries, bonuses and equity ownership. We also provide robust benefits designed to promote well-being across all aspects of their lives, including health care, disability, retirement investment options and paid time off. In addition, we believe that continued growth and development are essential to the professional well-being of our team. As our organization and capabilities grow, we aim to ensure that we provide our team members with the guidance and resources they need to develop as professionals and to support our business.

As a growing global commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company, we value our workforce and believe it contributes to our long-term success and ability to execute our objectives of delivering innovative therapies to patients in need. Our team is unified by four core values—focus on the patient, having an owner mindset, the relentless pursuit of innovation and commitment to collaboration. We strive to ensure that these core values guide our employee-related endeavors, including our onboarding initiatives, continuous feedback process and recognition program.

General Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in March 2000. Our principal executive offices are located at 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 200, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Our internet website address is www.madrigalpharma.com. No portion of our website is incorporated by reference into this Annual Report.

We advise you to read this Annual Report in conjunction with other reports and documents that we file from time to time with the SEC. In particular, please read our definitive proxy statement, which will be filed with the SEC in connection with our 2026 annual meeting of stockholders, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and any current reports on

29

Table of Contents

Form 8-K that we may file from time to time. You may obtain copies of these reports after the date of this Annual Report directly from us or from the SEC at its website at www.sec.gov. We make our periodic and current reports available on our internet website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.

We have adopted a Corporate Code of Conduct and Ethics, Corporate Governance Guidelines and written charters for our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Science and Technology Committee. Each of the foregoing is available on our website at www.madrigalpharma.com under “Investors & Media—Corporate Governance.” In accordance with SEC rules, we intend to disclose any amendment (other than any technical, administrative or other non-substantive amendment) to the above code, or any waiver of any provision thereof with respect to any of our executive officers, on our website within four business days following such amendment or waiver. In addition, we may use our website as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation Fair Disclosure promulgated by the SEC. These disclosures will be included on our website under the “Investors & Media” section.