TriSalus Life Sciences, Inc. (TLSI) Business

Verbatim Item 1 Business section from TriSalus Life Sciences, Inc.'s latest 10-K. Filing date: 2026-03-05. Accession: 0001628280-26-015163.

This page reproduces the company's own Item 1 Business text from the linked SEC filing. It is filer text, not grepcent analysis, scoring, or investment advice.

Informational only - not investment advice. See Disclaimer.

Extracted from Item 1 Business to the first Item 1A/1B/1C/2 boundary after HTML sanitization. Confidence: high. Source form: 10-K. Character span: 31334-146007.

Back to TLSI company profile

Item 1. Business

Unless the context indicates otherwise, references in this Annual Report to the “Company,” “TriSalus,” “we,” “us,” “our” and similar terms refer to TriSalus Life Sciences, Inc. (f/k/a MedTech Acquisition Corp.), a Delaware corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Overview

We are a growing, oncology focused medical technology business seeking to transform outcomes for patients with solid tumors by integrating our innovative delivery technology with standard-of-care therapies, and with our investigational immunotherapeutic, nelitolimod, a class C Toll-like receptor 9 ("TRL9") agonist, for a range of different therapeutic and technology applications. Our ultimate goal is to transform the treatment paradigm for patients battling solid tumors. We have developed an innovative technology designed to overcome two of the most significant challenges that prevent optimal delivery and performance of therapeutics in these difficult-to-treat diseases: (i) high intratumoral pressure caused by tumor growth and collapsed vasculature restricting the delivery of oncology therapeutics and (ii) off target delivery. Nelitolimod, specifically, combined with our technology aims to address the immunosuppressive properties of tumor immune cells in liver, pancreas and other solid tumors. By systematically addressing these barriers, we aim to improve response to therapies and to enable improved patient outcomes.

Background

Many solid tumors, especially desmoplastic tumors like pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ("PDAC"), liver tumors and various other tumor types have high interstitial fluid pressure which creates a physical barrier preventing therapeutics from penetrating the tumor. Beyond penetration issues, the blood vessels that supply these tumors are leaky and disorganized, leading to poor distribution of the therapeutic within the tumor.

We have developed a platform approach to address the unique challenges of drug delivery to solid tumors with the goal of overcoming the primary barriers described above that limit therapeutic delivery and inhibits treatment success.

PEDD & TriNav- Device Business with Potential for Growth:

Our delivery method, Pressure-Enabled Drug Delivery (“PEDD”), modulates pressure and flow within blood vessels to improve intravascular therapeutic delivery into tumors thereby increasing the likelihood of tumor response in comparison to conventional delivery technologies. Our on-market, 510(k) cleared device, the TriNav Infusion System (“TriNav”) using PEDD technology is currently being used for interventional radiology procedures, most commonly transarterial radioembolization (“TARE”) and transarterial chemoembolization (“TACE”) in patients with primary liver cancer or in patients with liver metastases. TriNav is a highly innovative device with a novel (PEDD) delivery method. At the core of the TriNav system is SmartValve technology, a self-expanding mechanism that:

•Modulates pressure and flow of the vasculature feeding the tumor to physiologically open collapsed blood vessels,

•Creates consistent turbulent flow to promote more uniform and repeatable distribution of particles or drugs,

•Self-centers the catheter tip within the vessel for precise delivery.

This design represents a meaningful departure from traditional end-hole catheter designs by actively controlling flow dynamics and positioning to improve therapeutic outcomes.

It is U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")-cleared and has undergone peer-reviewed studies at multiple clinical sites. The PEDD method has now been used in over 31,000 procedures, primarily TACE and TARE. TriNav achieved $45.2 million in revenue in 2025 representing growth of 53.4% vs. the previous year.

Additionally, our PEDD technology has proven to demonstrate improved drug delivery in a range of other non-malignant tumor embolizations such as Thyroid Artery embolization for treatment of Multi-nodular goiters, uterine artery embolization ("UAE") for treatment of fibroid tumors, prostate embolization for treatment of prostate cancer and an emerging new application for treatment of osteoarthritis and genicular artery embolization.

These tumor types share common procedural and drug delivery challenges as oncologic embolization such as tortuosity and small caliber target vessels, variable floor and collateral circulation, risk of off target embolization and the need for deeper penetration of embolic particles into the abnormal tissues. TriSalus is currently marketing our PEDD technology and generating clinical data in thyroid embolization, uterine artery embolization, and genicular artery embolization.

We also have developed a separate 510(k) cleared device for infusions into the pancreas, Pancreatic Retrograde Venous Infusion device, ("PRVI") to treat pancreatic tumors. TriSalus developed a novel way to access the pancreas via the venous vasculature where the vessels are larger, easier to access and PRVI with its use of PEDD, is designed to address many of the limitations inherent to arterial infusions in the pancreas. The PRVI device is currently being studied in a Phase I dose escalation trial for nelitolimod delivery into pancreatic tumors that has completed enrollment. Although FDA-cleared, the PRVI device has not yet been commercialized and commercial sale is not anticipated before 2026.

We are currently studying the ability of nelitolimod, an investigational class C TLR9 agonist, to reactivate the immune system within the liver and pancreas by broadly reprogramming immune cells and reducing myeloid derived suppressor cells (“MDSCs”), cells which cause immunosuppression, to enable more durable responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (“CPIs”), thereby improving patient outcomes.

We believe that the combination of PEDD with nelitolimod creates a platform approach with the potential to address common therapeutic barriers across numerous solid tumor indications, including those affecting the liver and pancreas and that this approach could provide a meaningful benefit to patients. There is also the potential that this platform may not only enable CPIs or other classes of immunotherapeutics, such as cell therapeutics, but also will prove to be beneficial when co-administered with currently approved chemotherapeutics and radiation, based on published clinical and preclinical data.

We are in the early stages of our development and have completed Phase I nelitolimod dose escalation (Uveal Melanoma with Liver Metastases ("UMLM") and LA-PDAC) and Phase Ib (Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma ("ICC")/Hepatocellular Carcinoma ("HCC")) clinical trials. Due to physician and investigator interest, we are supporting two Investigator Initiated Trials of nelitolimod, one in patients with advanced HCC in combination with cryoablation, durvalumab and tremelimumab and another in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases. TriSalus may seek to partner nelitolimod in recognition of the significant opportunity within the med-tech platform, while strategically leveraging a partner’s established drug development infrastructure. Following the completion of data analysis from the the studies mentioned above, we will explore potential partners to advance nelitolimod development to Phase II trials in one or more chosen indications. Results of these early trials will be available in 2026 and we will begin discussions with potential partners on further clinical development.

Overcoming Barriers to Effective Drug Delivery with PEDD

Systemic delivery of cancer therapeutics presents two critical challenges for patients with liver tumors. First, based on the normal distribution of cardiac output, the liver will receive only a small fraction of the dose. Second, intratumoral solid stresses compress the interior of the tumor and deform blood vessels, inhibiting therapeutic delivery into the tumor tissue. In particular, vessel leakiness together with vascular compression causes elevated interstitial fluid pressure that hinders delivery of therapeutic agents and limits efficacy. The end result of these factors creates barriers to the systemic administration of chemotherapeutic agents and nanomedicines to tumors, reducing treatment efficacy.

PEDD Delivery Technology is a technological solution to this intratumoral pressure barrier that can enable more effective delivery of therapeutic agents to solid tumors. PEDD devices are engineered to overcome high intratumoral pressure through creation of a favorable pressure gradient, causing increased blood flow to the tumor while constricting blood flow to normal tissue minimizing systemic exposure and decreasing toxicity.

The unique valve on the PEDD device, referred to as SmartValve, works in sync with the cardiac cycle and preserves more than 70% of forward blood flow with a pulsative response (vs. total occlusion) due to its intermittently occlusive design. This physiologically increases local vascular pressure at the target location close to the tumor, infusing therapeutics into resistive tumor vessels to enable deeper perfusion and to improve therapeutic delivery. The SmartValve also provides a fixed centro-luminal catheter position, unlike a standard microcatheter where the position of the catheter is in a random, off-centered position. This more reproducible catheter positioning has been associated with a more homogeneous particle distribution in an in vivo hepatic arterial model. The SmartValve has also been shown to reduce or eliminate reflux and has been shown in clinical studies to reduce delivery of therapeutics to non-target tissues.

Treatment of Liver Tumors with Transarterial Radioembolization ("TARE")

TARE is an image guided, locoregional therapy that involves hepatic artery embolization with intra-arterial infusion of Yttrium-90 ("Y90") microspheres for treatment of hepatocellular cancer as well as patients with certain metastatic liver cancers. The aim of the treatment is to target tumor cells with a high dose of radiation while limiting exposure to healthy tissue. This treatment is used commonly when the tumor can’t be surgically removed, the patient’s disease is liver dominant and their liver function is still reasonably preserved.

The PEDD approach is designed to provide a reliable method to maximize the tumor to normal liver ratio (“T/N ratio”). PEDD devices are designed to not only increase therapeutic delivery to target tumors but also to provide protection to minimize off-target delivery of radioactive micro spheres and the potential complications associated with undesired normal tissue exposure. A pilot study of a PEDD catheter not only demonstrated reduced hepatic nontarget embolization but also found a significant increase in tumor deposition of 99mTc-MAA by a factor of 1.68 (range 1.33 to 1.90, p 0.05). Another study at the Saint Luc University Hospital and King Albert II Cancer Institute in Brussels, Belgium confirmed the superiority of PEDD devices in improving tumor deposition in liver radioembolization with resin microspheres.

In patients undergoing TARE, augmenting the Tumor /Normal (T/N) ratio for the delivery of therapeutic micro spheres has the potential to increase therapeutic response as a direct positive relationship between absorbed dose and tumor response. In addition to the potential for improved response, an increased T/N ratio reduces radiation exposure to normal liver parenchyma and reduces the risk of associated liver toxicity and patient complications.

Treatment of Liver Tumors with Transarterial Chemoembolization ("TACE")

TACE is an image-guided, locoregional therapy that involves hepatic artery embolization with intra-arterial infusion of a chemotherapeutic agent and is used most commonly for treatment of HCC and hepatic metastases of colorectal and neuroendocrine tumors. As with TARE, the goal of TACE procedures is to deliver chemotherapeutic agents (in either an emulsion or as part of a drug-eluting bead system) with the goal of complete tumor coverage while avoiding delivery of therapeutic or embolic beads to normal tissue.

This goal of increasing tumor perfusion while reducing delivery to normal tissue may be achieved with the PEDD method using the 510(k) FDA-cleared TriNav device. TriNav alters downstream hepatic arterial blood pressure and may reduce resistance in tumor microvascular. In clinical studies, the use of PEDD devices for delivery of drug-coated micro spheres to treat HCC has demonstrated improved microsphere deposition, tumor necrosis and imaging response compared to delivery with conventional end-hole catheters. PEDD devices have also been demonstrated, in multiple independent clinical studies, to increase delivery of chemotherapy beads, enhance response rates to chemotherapy beads, improve tumor targeting with Y90 products and enhance cell therapy delivery to liver tumors.

PEDD Clinical Studies

In multiple clinical studies comparing PEDD devices to standard catheters, PEDD devices demonstrated improved therapy delivery in both TARE and TACE studies. For instance, such studies have shown that:

•PEDD has improved tumor targeting in liver radioembolization with resin Y90 microspheres and significantly increased both T/N ratio and dose delivery compared to a standard endhole microcatheter in head-to-head comparisons between PEDD devices and standard catheters in the studies summarized below:

◦A prospective company sponsored study included nine patients with a variety of tumor types who were referred for Y90 radioembolization treatment of their liver tumors. Prior to treatment via PEDD, each patient received two same-day sequential lobar infusions of macroaggregated albumin ("MAA") via endhole microcatheter and PEDD. Differences in MAA distribution within the tumors and non-target sites were evaluated and the results showed: a 33% to 90% (mean=68%; p0.05) increase in tumor deposition; a 24% to 89% (mean=42%; p0.05) decrease in nontarget embolization; and increased on target deposition in 100% of the tumors.

◦A retrospective independent study of 61 patients with liver cancer (190 lesions) treated with Y90 radioembolization. All patients in the study underwent an MAA planning procedure delivered via a standard endhole ("EH") catheter. Y90 was then delivered via either an EH catheter (control group) or via PEDD, followed by PET/CT imaging. Each patient’s post-Y90 PET/CT was co-registered to their post- MAA SPECT/CT to compare the T/N ratio and tumor dose ("TD"). The results showed that across all tumor types, PEDD increased the T/N by a median of 24%, and the TD by a median of 23%, (p0.001) with no significant difference seen in the standard EH catheter (control) group. The results showed that PEDD significantly improved both tumor targeting and dose delivery across multiple tumor types.

◦A retrospective, single-center study, included 88 treatment-naive patients with solitary HCC tumors 6.5cm who underwent treatment using either PEDD (n = 18) or a standard microcatheter (n = 70). PEDD patients exhibited lower aspartate aminotransferase (p = 0.003) and alanine aminotransferase (p = 0.044) at 6 months. Blinded radiological evaluation showed that PEDD achieved a significantly higher objective response rate, compared to the EH catheter (100% vs 76.5%; p=0.019). Following liver explant, a blinded review of the liver specimens found that PEDD achieved improved pathological response compared to the standard EH catheter (88.8% vs 33.8%; p=0.026) as well as a significantly higher concentration of therapy in tumor compared to the standard EH catheter (88.7 ± 10.6% vs 55.3 ± 32.7 %; p=0.002).

•TriSalus is collaborating with leading academic sites to expand the clinical evidence for PEDD in TACE and TARE procedures. The studies include: (1) a prospective, randomized study to compare PEDD versus standard microcatheter and T/N ratios in hypovascular and hypervascular liver tumors, (2) a study to measure concordance of MAA mapping and Y90 radioembolization using PEDD, (3) a prospective, randomized study to compare PEDD versus standard microcatheter to deliver TACE neuroendocrine tumors, (4) a prospective, randomized study to compare PEDD versus standard microcatheter for delivery of Y90 embolization in liver metastases, and (5) a prospective, randomized study to compare PEDD versus standard microcatheter for delivery of Y90 radioembolization for large liver tumors.

Real-world Evidence

TriSalus recently presented a Health Economic and Outcomes Research ("HEOR") study looking at real-world data capturing both safety and clinical complications for TriNav as compared to conventional catheters over the 2020-2023 time period. This study utilized a large, 300 million patient datasets covering 98% of US payers. These data, which compared key characteristics and clinical complication rates of 603 PEDD patients with those of 16,210 non-PEDD patients, provide valuable insights into the benefits of PEDD technology that would otherwise have taken many years to accumulate through alternative approaches, e.g., randomized controlled clinical trials.

Key findings include that TriNav patients, despite a higher baseline disease burden and clinical complexity as compared to non-TriNav patients, showed overall clinical results comparable to the patients with lower disease burden. The study also revealed that in propensity matched cohort analysis:

• TriNav patients showed reduced rates of post-procedure fatigue compared to non-TriNav patients (p 0.05)

• In TACE procedures, interventional radiologists were able to deliver significantly more chemotherapeutic to the tumor when using TriNav vs. the amount delivered using standard catheters, a critical treatment goal

• TriNav TACE patients had fewer 30-day inpatient visits post-procedure vs. non-TriNav patients in matched cohort comparison (p0.05)

•TriNav patients with had fewer clinical complications post-procedure vs. non-TriNav patients in matched cohort comparison (p = 0.07)

These study data demonstrate that TriNav is preferentially selected to treat the complex patient with a higher burden of disease vs. patients treated with standard catheters, yet these patients show similar results post-treatment compared to patients with a lower disease burden. TriNav patients showed meaningful trends toward better outcomes in matched cohort comparisons, including an increased rate of liver transplants.

TriNav Market Opportunity

TACE and TARE are widely used locoregional therapies for HCC, colorectal liver metastases ("CRLM"), and neuroendocrine tumor ("NET") liver metastases. However, significant unmet medical needs remain. One major challenge is inconsistent drug delivery. Traditional embolization techniques often result in suboptimal drug penetration due to high intratumoral pressure and poor perfusion, limiting treatment efficacy. Additionally, tumor heterogeneity and vascular variability can lead to uneven distribution of therapeutic agents, reducing overall response rates. Another key limitation is treatment resistance and recurrence, as embolization alone does not fully eradicate microscopic disease, necessitating repeat procedures that may compromise liver function over time. Furthermore, post-embolization syndrome, characterized by pain, fever and liver dysfunction, impacts patient quality of life and may delay subsequent treatments.

TriNav is focused on improved therapeutic delivery and reduction of off-target effects on a range of liver tumors including HCC, colorectal liver metastasis and neuroendocrine tumors. The incidence of primary and metastatic liver tumors has been increasing, presenting a large opportunity given the poor outcomes associated with liver cancers, whether primary or metastatic. According to the American Cancer Society, primary liver tumors, including ICC and HCC, currently represent more than 42 thousand cases annually in the U.S. The liver is also one of the most common sites for metastases, which is cancer that has spread from another site, and according to the National Cancer Institute and recent epidemiological data, there are at least 96,000 individuals diagnosed annually with liver metastases, primarily from colorectal cancer or non-small cell lung cancer, for a total of more than 137,000 new liver cancer diagnoses per year.

We estimate that 60% of these patients are eligible for TACE or TARE procedures and that between 75% and 80% are appropriate candidates for our current TriNav portfolio of devices, representing a potential market opportunity of approximately 62 thousand units, or approximately $494 million, based on our current unit price of $7,983.

TriSalus has expanded its portfolio of PEDD devices with multiple product launches in 2025 providing interventional radiologists ("IR") a choice of TriNav devices customized to specific patient anatomy and expanding the use in additional applications. These include the launch of TriNav FLX, a device with a more flexible distal tip for easier navigation of tortuous vascular anatomy and the launch of TriNav XP, a device with the more flexible distal tip and an increased internal diameter ensuring compatibility with the larger embolic beads commonly used in certain procedures such as uterine artery embolization. These new products are eligible for the same Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System ("HCPCS") reimbursement codes as existing TriNav products, enabling seamless integration into current billing structures.

Additionally, through our pancreas infusion technology we believe we can deliver to the site of disease (pancreatic tumor) in combination with systemic therapy allowing for maximum concentration of the therapeutic directly to the tumor with potential reduced toxicity. We believe that this technology potentially could treat two thousand patients annually adding an additional market expansion of $400 million.

In addition to the use of our technology for treatment of liver and pancreatic tumors, Interventional Radiologists have initiated its use in a range of other non-malignant tumor applications which include uterine artery embolization, thyroid artery embolization, prostate artery embolization and an emerging treatment for osteoarthritis, genicular artery embolization. All represent significant market opportunities for the use of the PEDD technology.

In regards to UAE, roughly 10% of women aged 18-65 lives with uterine fibroid today and current treatment approaches include hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and uterine artery embolizations. We estimate TriNav XP is applicable for 20 thousand UAEs per year, expanding the market opportunity by approximately $160.0 million.

TriSalus also initiated a registry study called PROTECT (Pressure Enabled Retrograde Occlusive Therapy with Embolization for Control of Thyroid Disease) and is enrolling up to 100 patients across several leading academic sites. It is estimated that approximately 5% of adults have multinodular goiters and the prevalence in adults over 50 is estimated to be up to 50%. This new procedure for thyroid goiters utilizing the TriNav system is eligible for the same HCPCS reimbursement code allowing for seamless integration into current billing approaches.

Another potential application of TriNav is for the use in prostate embolizations. Current treatment options for men with enlarged prostate include prostatectomy, trans-urethral prostate resection, alpha blockers and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors and other options. Prostate embolizations offer a minimally invasive alternative to pharmaceutical side effects or surgical complications. We estimate that TriNav has potential in 25 thousand patients of the 100 thousand patients diagnosed with the disease.

An emerging new application of TriNav is for the use of our PEDD technology is for genicular artery embolization. This procedure aims to treat the chronic knee pain from osteoarthritis, especially for patients who aren’t ready for or want to avoid knee replacement surgery. This procedure offers significant pain reduction for many patients, improved function and mobility and offers an alternative to other treatments. We estimate that TriSalus has the potential in 100,000 patients of the 33 million people who suffer from this disease.

The estimated total addressable market for TriSalus PEDD technology in the U.S. is project to exceed $2.3 billion annually. The market is divided into a current market valued at $1B million and an additional market opportunity estimated at $1.3 Billion. The analysis is based on patient population estimates for various conditions where PEDD may be applicable, including liver cancer, multinodular goiter, locally advanced pancreatic cancer, uterine artery embolization, genicular artery embolization and prostate artery embolization.

Reimbursement

In December 2023, TriNav received a unique and permanent HCPCS code from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), C9797, which has been assigned to APC 5194 (Level 4 Endovascular Procedures) for calendar year 2025 with a payment rate of $17,957. This code can be used without restriction for any embolization or occlusion procedure consistent with the TriNav Instructions for Use and is reimbursed in the hospital outpatient and ambulatory surgery center settings. With the provision of this code, reimbursement for TriNav has continued uninterrupted from the launch year. The C9797 code brings significant benefit vs. previous CMS coverage as the new code is not restricted to use in conjunction with specific CPT codes, which was the case under transitional pass-through payments (“TPT”) status. Effective April 1, 2025, TriNav received a second unique and permanent HCPCS code from CMS, C8004, which has been assigned to APC 5193 (Level 3 Endovascular Procedures) for the calendar year 2025 with a payment rate of $11,341. This new code provides reimbursement clarity for mapping procedures conducted prior to TARE.

Our Customers & Stakeholders

We aim to interact closely with all our key stakeholders to ensure a patient’s experience is beneficial. We view our customers as including the interventional radiologists, IR technicians, medical oncologists, nursing support and the Value Analysis Committee ("VAC") staff, who either use our products or recommend the purchase of such products to hospitals and, most importantly, the patients they treat.

Our goal is to establish a high level of engagement and trust with the various clinicians and support individuals in the hospital as well as with patients. Additionally, we believe that many hospitals are under cost pressure and need education on, and assistance to support and embrace, the use of modern technology. We have reimbursement, clinical and technical support to ensure each clinician and support individual feels confident in using our technology.

Another crucial stakeholder group comprises advocacy organizations that have been instrumental in supporting the use of TriNav and our company on a broader scale. TriSalus has partnered with several patient advocacy groups dedicated to assisting a diverse spectrum of liver cancer patients, encompassing both primary and secondary liver cancer. We aim to enhance awareness among patient communities regarding the array of available treatment options, including participation in our technology and nelitolimod clinical trials.

Sales and Marketing

We have established a commercial infrastructure designed to drive TriNav adoption among interventional radiologists and oncologists. Our commercial strategy for TriNav targets hospitals through direct sales engagements with clinicians and the broader medical, hospital and technical staff. TriSalus utilizes a direct sales model to hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers nationwide. Our current sales focus is on targeting hospitals and major academic medical centers with the highest levels of TACE, TARE and other embolization procedures.

Our sales representatives, clinical specialists and sales leaders have substantial medical device sales experience and market our products directly to interventional radiologists who perform embolization procedures. We are focused on developing strong relationships with physicians and hospital in order to educate them on the use and benefits of our products. Similarly, our marketing team has a significant amount of domain expertise. Our sales and marketing team totals 43 professionals as of December 31, 2025.

The use of TriNav is consistent with the current steps an interventional radiologist utilizes to conduct TACE and TARE and other embolization procedures. Following instructions from one of our sales representatives on how best to manage optimal functioning of the SmartValve, we believe the TriNav catheter is intuitive, and relatively easy to use. We believe this provides value to our customers and makes our sales model a source of competitive advantage. A lower service burden means we can develop a cost-efficient sales model by optimizing a mix of clinical specialists and sales representatives. In the U.S., TriNav can be provided to hospitals on a consignment basis whereby title is transferred when the technology is used in clinical procedures. Other hospitals purchase TriNav directly and TriNav is sold for a predetermined set fee for each catheter via a predetermined contract or purchase order.

Industry and Competition

Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change as research provides a deeper understanding of the pathology of diseases and new technologies and treatments are developed. We believe our scientific knowledge, technology and development capabilities provide us with substantial competitive advantages, but we face potential competition from multiple sources, including large pharmaceutical, biotechnology, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

TriNav Competition

The primary competition for TriNav is the standard microcatheter, which is frequently used in minimally invasive procedures for delivering therapeutics or devices (e.g., Y90). However, standard microcatheters do not have the ability to modulate pressure and flow or to improve the T/N ratio, nor do they have clinical evidence or data that they can improve therapeutic delivery to liver and pancreatic tumors.

Microcatheters are manufactured by a wide range of medical device manufacturers. Besides the standard microcatheter, there are two other competitive products: Embolix’s Sniper and Merit Medical's Swift NINJA.

Some of our competitors are large, well-capitalized companies with significantly larger market shares and resources than we have. As a consequence, they are able to spend more money on product development, marketing, sales and other products. We also compete with smaller, niche players that have less resources and more limited influence in the market.

Growth Opportunities - TriNav Product Improvements

We are committed to advancing our technology to improve patient outcomes. Major areas of product enhancement underway at the Company includes incorporation of sensing and machine learning into our technology to improve patient outcomes while also exploring potential new applications outside of our current core focus on liver and pancreatic cancer. These include:

•Precision therapeutic delivery – By more accurately measuring both pressure and flow within blood vessels feeding tumors, we expect healthcare providers will be able to more efficiently and precisely overcome mechanical barriers in the tumor microenvironment.

•Reduced treatment toxicity – Fine-tuning treatment regimens based on real-time pressure and flow data may help minimize treatment toxicity by delivering therapeutic agents more precisely to the tumor while sparing healthy tissues. Current PEDD devices are able to significantly outperform conventional microcatheters in delivering more dose to the tumor while sparing normal tissue (improving the T/N Ratio), and we are focused on enhancing this capability.

Research and development efforts are currently underway on a variety of different technologies with plans for future product launches within the next several years.

Pancreatic Retrograde Venous Infusion Device

We are advancing our PRVI device, which is currently 510(k) cleared by the FDA and in a Phase 1 clinical trial for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Our PRVI approach seeks to address many of the key challenges associated with delivering therapeutics to pancreas tumors. In contrast to the liver, pancreatic arteries feeding tumors are small and tortuous, making targeted delivery challenging. Venous access affords anatomic advantages due to the presence of larger diameter vessels. Additionally, pancreatic tumors exhibit a dense, desmoplastic stroma that limits the delivery of therapeutics. The PEDD method is design to address the mechanical barriers. Certain cell types within the stroma construct an immunologically suppressed microenvironment that prevents the local immune system from clearing the tumor. We believe our PRVI device may address these challenges by:

•Modulating pressure and flow to overcome mechanical barriers;

•Embedding real-time pressure sensing capability important to ensure a pressure flow that stays within safe and appropriate pressure levels and that avoids hypoxia; and

•Enabling a therapeutic index that is efficacious while limiting toxicity compared to systemic dosing.

The PRVI device has not been commercialized and commercial sales are not anticipated before 2027.

Pre-clinical pancreatic cancer model experiments indicated that using our PRVI method of PEDD improved drug delivery 3.6-7.0-fold. We studied PRVI in an orthotopic murine model of PDAC and demonstrated that PRVI delivery of gemcitabine increased intra-tumoral drug concentrations and enhanced the subsequent tumor responses to treatment. PRVI infusion of gemcitabine resulted in more than 100-fold greater tumor concentrations compared with systemic delivery (127 vs 19 ng/mg; P .01) and lesser tumor volume compared with both systemic gemcitabine and saline via PRVI (274 vs 857 vs 629 mm3; P .01). The same mouse model was employed to assess the impact of PRVI on tumor uptake and response to oxaliplatin. It was found that PRVI administration of a 2mg dose of oxaliplatin resulted in a significant decrease in tumor size while preserving nerve conduction velocity and nerve tissue morphology as compared to standard delivery methods under histopathological analysis.

We believe our pancreatic infusion technology with PEDD offers a potential platform opportunity due to its ability to enable targeted controlled delivery of a broad range of therapeutics directly to the tumor microenvironment. By overcoming the vascular and stromal barriers that have historically limited effective drug penetration in pancreatic cancer, the system has the potential to enhance local drug concentration while minimizing systemic exposure. This approach is modality-agnostic supporting administration of small molecules, biologics, viral vectors, immunotherapies and combination regimens and can be adapted across multiple treatment paradigms. As a result, our goal is to scale this platform across a wide array of therapeutic delivery to improve patient outcomes.

Other Commercialization Growth Opportunities

•Expand TriNav Sales Organization in the U.S.: We sell TriNav through our direct sales organization in the U.S. Our sales team has in-depth knowledge of the markets in which we compete and in which we seek to compete. We have recently expanded our specialized sales organization across the U.S. to provide broader hospital coverage and increased time for the representative to expand utilization within hospital targets from which we expect to foster deep relationships with physicians and drive revenue growth. We intend to expand our commercial organization over the next several years to ensure full coverage of the embolization market and drive revenue growth.

•Develop Collaborations with Therapeutic Partners. The PEDD approach has been shown to be able to improve uptake into tumor tissue of a range of therapeutics in both human studies and in animal models. Immunotherapeutics, chemo- and radioembolics, chemotherapeutics and cell therapies have all been shown to have improved uptake when delivered by a TriNav vs. standard approaches. We may explore opportunities to partner with therapeutics companies at all stages of development and commercialization in collaborations designed to improve targeted delivery of therapies to patients in a manner that can improve outcomes in areas of high unmet medical need.

•Continue Partnering with Leading Academic Medical Centers. We will continue to progress our clinical evidence of the value of PEDD through TriSalus-sponsored and investigator-sponsored research. Currently we have multiple investigator-initiated trials at major medical centers exploring the benefit of TriNav and the PEDD method in TARE, TACE and uterine fibroid embolization. We intend to complete these trials while also planning and initiating additional trials that have the potential to further define the benefit that TriNav can bring to areas of unmet medical need.

Nelitolimod: Promising Therapeutic Opportunity

Strategic Acquisition of Nelitolimod

In July 2020, we acquired nelitolimod, a class C TLR9 agonist, from Dynavax Technologies Corporation (“Dynavax”). Prior to acquiring nelitolimod, we embarked on a comprehensive landscape assessment evaluating assets currently or formerly in clinical development that would fit the criteria for optimal immunomodulation of the tumor microenvironment ("TME") in the liver and pancreas. Our selection criteria included the identification of an immunotherapeutic with a potential mechanism of action to specifically address immunosuppressive mechanisms in the liver and/or pancreas; the potential to enable systemic checkpoint inhibition in patients with liver or pancreatic tumors to the extent observed in other indications; the ability to broadly reprogram the TME while addressing Myeloid Derived Suppressor Cells (a key cell type that suppresses the immune system in the liver and pancreas); and a therapeutic where locoregional delivery would be expected to improve outcomes.

We chose to focus on TLR agonists since they are well known to have broad TME modulating effects with induction of immunity at distal sites and the potential to turn “cold tumors”, such as those affecting the liver and pancreas, “hot”, meaning responsive to immunotherapeutics such as ICIs. Many TLR agonists have been in clinical development with varying results, most often using needle injection strategies which limit the ability to treat multiple or large tumors. TLR agonists are generally not safe to be administered intravenously due to concerns related to excessive immune cell activation.

We acquired nelitolimod from Dynavax based on Phase 2 study data that demonstrated improved responsiveness to pembrolizumab with acceptable tolerability in stage IV cutaneous melanoma. In particular, Dynavax conducted the Synergy-001/KEYNOTE 184 Phase 1b/2 study (the “Synergy study”) to assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination of intratumoral nelitolimod and intravenous (“IV”) pembrolizumab for cutaneous melanoma and head and neck cancer. In the Synergy study, nelitolimod + pembrolizumab was associated with a serious adverse event rate on par with that of pembrolizumab alone, and a response rate of 78% was achieved in treatment naïve patients. In the melanoma and head and neck carcinoma studies, nelitolimod in combination with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (“PD-1”) therapy produced response rates that are higher than those reported for anti-PD 1 therapy alone. See Note 10 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report for more information.

Since acquiring the worldwide rights to nelitolimod, we have initiated three Phase 1/1b Pressure Enabled Regional Immuno-oncology (“PERIO”) studies which are focused on four indications where we are testing the ability of the nelitolimod /PEDD therapeutic platform to enable systemic CPIs in the following Phase 1 clinical trials:

•Uveal melanoma with liver metastases (PERIO-01, NCT04935229);

•ICC and HCC (PERIO-02, NCT05220722); and

•Locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma (PERIO-03, NCT05607953).

Results of our three Phase 1 nelitolimod studies will be available in 2026 and we will begin discussions for a pharmaceutical partner for further clinical development in the most promising indication(s). Investigation for HCC is continuing through an IIT.

We believe our approach in combination with CPI therapy has the potential to extend and improve the lives of patients battling liver and pancreatic tumors.

Current Treatment and Limitations

Two critical barriers have historically hindered immunotherapy success in patients with intrahepatic and pancreatic malignancies: (1) delivery of immunotherapy agents into high-pressure liver tumors is inefficient with conventional approaches and (2) specific immunosuppression pathways hinder immunotherapy responsiveness. In the majority of liver and pancreatic cancers, the tumors are not infiltrated by T cells and the TME overall is suppressed. An accumulation of suppressive immune cells, such as MDSCs, further limit the ability of T cells to enter into tumors and remain in an activated state.

For immunostimulatory drugs like nelitolimod to enable CPIs and other forms of immunotherapy, successful delivery into tumors is necessary. Intratumoral pressure in the TME may result in subtherapeutic drug concentrations at the site of disease. With systemic IV infusion, it is difficult to achieve therapeutic levels within the tumor due to distribution of cardiac output and high intratumoral pressures, and off-target toxicity is common. Local needle injection, the traditional approach for TLR agonists since they typically cannot be administered systemically, is highly localized at the point of insertion, not uniformly distributed throughout the tissue (particularly in patients with large or multiple tumors), and physically impractical for most tumors, including liver and pancreas. Importantly, regional intravascular delivery with standard microcatheters does not address the intra-tumoral pressure barrier, while balloon catheters cause a cessation of forward blood flow, which may eliminate the ability to augment baseline intravascular pressure.

Nelitolimod mechanism of action

As a class C TLR9 agonist, nelitolimod has the capacity to stimulate a broad array of immune cells and induce numerous cytokines. In addition, nelitolimod may be able to reduce myeloid suppressor cells in the liver and pancreas. Based on published clinical and preclinical data, TLR9 agonists may also have beneficial effects when combined with chemotherapeutics and/or radiation.

Market Opportunity for Investigational Therapeutic Nelitolimod

Nelitolimod Market Opportunities

According to the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and our most up-to-date epidemiology, there are approximately 137 thousand new cases of primary and secondary liver cancers diagnosed annually in the U.S. alone, and more than 60 thousand cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed each year. Of these, more than 80 thousand may be addressable through our nelitolimod/PEDD platform for liver and pancreas. Additionally, there is a high global incidence in key targeted indications, such as HCC and ICC, providing an additional opportunity outside the U.S. The incidence of pancreatic cancer in the U.S. is more than 64 thousand annually with more than 90% of these being pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (“PDAC”).

PDAC is a prevalent, highly lethal cancer, with a five-year survival rate of 13% across all stages. Systemic first-line therapies for advanced pancreatic carcinoma currently provide short-term disease control. Both locally advanced and metastatic PDAC face similar challenges with respect to drug delivery and deep immunosuppression.

Both PDAC and liver cancers are areas of very high unmet medical need and represent large market opportunities for nelitolimod, and for our TriNav device portfolio.

We have initially focused on locally advanced PDAC due to the potential of the PRVI device to deliver nelitolimod into pancreatic tumors with the PRVI approach. Drug delivery to pancreatic tumors is more challenging than to the liver, given the more complicated arterial anatomy for the pancreas. We believe that the potential to administer an immunomodulatory drug, such as nelitolimod, into pancreatic tumors with PEDD creates a highly differentiated clinical approach. We are currently evaluating data from our Phase 1 clinical studies and determining which indication(s) we will progress into further clinical studies. A chosen indication would be one in which we believe there is evidence supportive of commercial success, and such progression would require us to raise additional capital.

Clinical Site Partnership

MD Anderson Cancer Center

In 2021, we entered into a five-year Alliance Program (the “MDACC Agreement”) with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (“MDACC”) to serve as the lead investigators for the PERIO-01, PERIO-02, and PERIO-03 studies. We agreed to pay MDACC $10 million in collaboration funding for MDACC to conduct preclinical and clinical studies as mutually agreed to by the parties. To date, we have paid an aggregate $9.4 million towards these studies. The term of the agreement was for the later of (i) five years or (ii) until the applicable studies are completed. Prior to the expiration of the term of the MDACC Agreement, either party may terminate the MDACC Agreement if the other party commits a material breach of the agreement and fails to cure such breach within 30 days of receiving notice of such breach. Effective February 25, 2025, we modified our payment terms and extended the MDACC Agreement for an additional year.

Nelitolimod Competition

We expect nelitolimod to compete primarily with a number of therapeutics that are now, or will soon be, approved for use in liver metastases, liver cancers and locally advanced PDAC. These therapeutics include a range of immunotherapies and chemotherapeutics, some already approved and some of which are currently in development.

Dynavax Asset Purchase Agreement

On July 31, 2020, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Dynavax pursuant to which we purchased from Dynavax (i) nelitolimod intellectual property and product know-how, together with any and all goodwill, rights to royalties, profits, compensation, license fees and all rights to obtain renewals, reissues and extensions of registrations, (ii) all permits related to nelitolimod, (iii) all regulatory documentation related to nelitolimod, (iv) the nelitolimod investigational new drug and (v) all clinical trial data associated with nelitolimod (the “Dynavax Agreement”).

Pursuant to the Dynavax Agreement, we made an upfront payment to Dynavax of $5.0 million, and on December 30, 2020, made an additional payment of $4.0 million to reimburse Dynavax for clinical trial expenses incurred. Dynavax may also receive certain development milestone consideration dependent on the results of (a) certain clinical studies, (b) the dosing of patients in clinical trials, (c) what phase of clinical trial nelitolimod reaches, and (d) regulatory approval. The development milestones are valued up to $170.0 million. Dynavax may also receive certain commercial milestone payments based on (a) first commercial sale and (b) net sales in a fiscal year. Such commercial milestone payments are valued up to $80.0 million. As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, we have made three milestone payments of $1.0 million each, totaling $3.0 million. No payments were made in the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024.

We also are obligated to pay Dynavax certain royalty payments equal to 10% of aggregate net sales of products containing the nelitolimod compound acquired during each fiscal year up to and including $1.0 billion and 12% for the portion of aggregate net sales during a fiscal year greater than $1.0 billion, subject to certain adjustments. Our royalty payment obligations shall expire on the latest to occur of: (i) expiration of the last-to-expire claim of an issued and unexpired patent relating to nelitolimod that claims such product (or compound contained therein) or the manufacture or use thereof in the applicable country of sale, or (ii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of such product in such country.

Manufacturing

We manufacture TriNav at our facility in Westminster, Colorado, and through a recent expansion of our clean room we have adequate capacity to meet anticipated commercial and clinical demands through the next several years. We are continually strengthening our supply chain and are currently qualifying additional third-party suppliers for select components of TriNav. These alternate third-party suppliers of TriNav components are subject to qualification and approval from the FDA.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture, testing, and storage of nelitolimod. In our experience, contract manufacturers (“CMOs”) are generally cost-efficient and reliable, and therefore, we currently have no plans to build our own manufacturing capabilities for nelitolimod. Because we rely on CMOs, we employ personnel with extensive technical, manufacturing, analytical, and quality experience to oversee contract manufacturing and testing activities and to compile manufacturing and quality information for our regulatory submissions. Manufacturing is subject to extensive regulations that impose various procedural and documentation requirements, and which govern record-keeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance, among other activities. Our systems and our contractors are required to comply with these regulations and we assess this compliance regularly through monitoring of performance and a formal audit program.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect our proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patents intended to cover our product candidates and technologies that are important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection, as well as know-how, trademarks, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. We internally developed our intellectual property related to TriNav and related technologies. We have sought and intend to continue to seek appropriate patent protection for our product candidates, as well as other proprietary technologies and their uses by filing patent applications in the U.S. and other select countries.

Patents

As of December 31, 2025, we owned at least 82 registered patents expiring between 2030 and 2040, with at least an additional 11 pending patent applications.

For our TriNav device, we are the sole owner of eight granted U.S. patents, three pending U.S. patent applications, 13 foreign patents (counting national validations in Europe) and two pending foreign patent applications in Canada and Europe relating to a dynamic reconfigurable microvalve protection device and the PEDD method for infusing an immunotherapy agent to a solid tumor and method for selective pressure-controlled therapeutic delivery. The eight granted U.S. patents expire between 2031 and 2038. The eight granted foreign patent expire in 2038. Any patents issuing from the pending patent applications (or in the case of priority applications, if issued from future non-provisional applications that we file) are expected to expire between 2030 and 2041, without accounting for potential terminal disclaimers or potentially available patent term adjustments or extensions.

For the TriSalus Infusion System, we are the sole owner of five granted U.S. patents, five pending U.S. patent applications, 14 granted foreign patents (counting national validations in Europe) and two pending foreign patent applications in Europe and Hong Kong relating to atraumatic occlusive system with compartment for measurement of vascular pressure change The six granted U.S. patents expire between 2034 to 2039. The 14 granted foreign patents expire between 2035 and 2040. Any patents issuing from the pending patent applications (or in the case of priority applications, if issued from future non-provisional applications that we file) are expected to expire between 2035 and 2041, without accounting for potential terminal disclaimers or potentially available patent term adjustments or extensions. Some patents and applications relating to the TriSalus Infusion System overlap with those identified for the TriNav device.

For nelitolimod, we are the sole owner of five pending U.S. patent applications, two pending Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT") patent applications, and 34 pending foreign patent applications relating to methods of using immunostimulatory sequence oligonucleotides and specifically nelitolimod. However, we jointly own with Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC two granted US and 12 granted foreign patents (counting national validations in Europe) that expire in 2036 and related to nelitolimod, which is a CPG-C type oligonucleotide, as discussed further below. We also jointly own a pending U.S. patent application with the Regents of the University of California and H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc.

Any patents issuing from the pending patent applications (if issued from future national phase applications that we file) are expected to expire between 2041 and 2043, without accounting for potential terminal disclaimers or potentially available patent term adjustments or extensions.

Successful approval of nelitolimod in the U.S., would provide an opportunity for five years of regulatory exclusivity in the U.S. We are studying nelitolimod in orphan indications and intend to apply for orphan drug designation which, if granted, would extend the exclusivity period for an additional two years.

Trade Secrets and Other Proprietary Information

We seek to protect our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and proprietary know-how, by requiring our employees, consultants and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of their employment or engagement. These agreements generally provide that all confidential information developed or made known during the course of the relationship with us be kept confidential and not be disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of our employees, the agreements also typically provide that all inventions resulting from work performed for us, utilizing our property or relating to our business and conceived or completed during employment shall be our exclusive property to the extent permitted by law. Where appropriate, agreements we obtain with our consultants also typically contain similar assignment of invention provisions. Further, we generally require confidentiality agreements from business partners and other third parties that receive our confidential information.

Trademarks

We also rely on 18 registered trademarks and trade designs to develop and maintain our competitive position. TriNav, SmartValve, and TRISALUS LIFE SCIENCES are registered trademarks of ours in the U.S, and we have pending applications for U.S. trademarks for TRISALUS, SMARTSENSE, TRIGUIDE and TRISALUS CLINICAL ESSENTIALS.

Government Regulation

We are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FD&C Act”) and the FDA’s implementing regulations set forth, among other things, requirements for the testing, development, including clinical trials, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, approval/clearance, labeling, storage, record-keeping, reporting, distribution, import, export, sale, advertising and promotion of our products and product candidates. Although the discussion below focuses on regulation in the U.S. because that is currently our primary focus, we may seek approval/clearance for, and market, our products in other countries in the future. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the U.S., although there can be important differences.

We expect the global regulatory environment will continue to evolve, which could impact the cost, the time needed to approve, and ultimately, our ability to maintain existing approvals or obtain future approvals for our products. Regulations of the FDA and other regulatory agencies in and outside the U.S. impose extensive compliance and monitoring obligations on our business. These agencies review our design and manufacturing practices, labeling, record keeping, and manufacturers’ required reports of adverse experiences and other information to identify potential problems with marketed products. We are also subject to periodic inspections for compliance with applicable manufacturing and quality system regulations, which govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the design, manufacture, packaging, and servicing of finished drugs and medical devices intended for human use. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory bodies, both within and outside the U.S. (including the Federal Trade Commission, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice, and various state attorneys general), monitor the promotion and advertising of our products. Any adverse regulatory action, depending on its magnitude, may limit our ability to effectively market and sell our products, limit our ability to obtain future pre-market approvals or result in a substantial modification to our business practices and operations.

Medical Device Development and Approval

Unless an exemption applies, each medical device commercially distributed in the U.S. requires either FDA clearance of a 510(k) premarket notification submission, granting of a de novo request, or premarket application (“PMA”) approval. Under the FD&C Act, medical devices are classified into one of three classes, Class I, Class II or Class III, depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of manufacturer and regulatory control needed to ensure its safety and effectiveness. Class I includes devices with the lowest risk to the patient and includes those devices for which safety and effectiveness can be assured by adherence to the FDA’s general controls for medical devices, which include compliance with the applicable portions of the Quality System Regulation (“QSR”), facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse medical events, and truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising, and promotional materials. Some Class I devices may require premarket notification to the FDA.

TriSalus has Class II devices that are moderate risk devices and are subject to the FDA’s general controls, and special controls as deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device. These special controls can include performance standards, post-market surveillance, patient registries and FDA guidance documents. While most Class I devices are exempt from the 510(k) premarket notification requirement, manufacturers of most Class II devices are required to submit to the FDA a premarket notification under Section 510(k) of the FD&C Act requesting permission to commercially distribute the device. The FDA’s permission to commercially distribute a device subject to a 510(k) premarket notification is generally known as 510(k) clearance. Under the 510(k) process, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification demonstrating that the device is “substantially equivalent” to either a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976, the date upon which the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 were enacted, or another commercially available device that was cleared to through the 510(k) or de novo process.

Devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risks, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or some implantable devices, or devices that have a new intended use, or use advanced technology that is not substantially equivalent to that of a legally marketed device, are placed in Class III, requiring approval of a PMA. For a device that is Class III by default (because it is a novel device that was not previously classified and has no predicate), the device manufacturer may request that FDA reclassify the device into Class II or Class I via a de novo request.

510(k) Marketing Clearance. To obtain 510(k) clearance by the FDA, a premarket notification submission must be submitted to the FDA demonstrating that the proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device. A predicate device is a legally marketed device that is not subject to premarket approval, i.e., a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976, and for which a PMA is not required, a device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class II or I (e.g., via the de novo classification process), or a device that was previously cleared through the 510(k) process. The FDA’s 510(k) review process usually takes from three to six months, but may take longer. The FDA may require additional information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, it will grant 510(k) clearance to market the device.

After a device receives 510(k) marketing clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change or modification in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) marketing clearance or, depending on the modification, a de novo request or PMA approval. The FDA requires each manufacturer to determine whether the proposed change requires submission of a 510(k), de novo or a PMA in the first instance, but the FDA can review that decision and disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination, the FDA can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or request the recall of the modified device until FDA has cleared or approved a 510(k), de novo or PMA for the change. Also, in these circumstances, the manufacturer may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.

De Novo Process. If a previously unclassified new medical device does not qualify for the 510(k) pre-market notification process because no predicate device to which it is substantially equivalent can be identified, the device is automatically classified into Class III. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a new route to market for low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification procedure. This procedure allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down-classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk, rather than requiring the submission and approval of a PMA. If the manufacturer seeks reclassification into Class II, the manufacturer must include a draft proposal for special controls that are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. The FDA may reject the reclassification petition if it identifies a legally marketed predicate device that would be appropriate for a 510(k) or determines that the device is not low to moderate risk or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed. If the FDA agrees with the down-classification, the de novo applicant will then receive authorization to market the device, and a classification regulation will be established for the device type. The device can then be used as a predicate device for future 510(k) submissions by the manufacturer or a competitor.

Premarket Approval Process. Class III devices require submission through the PMA process before they can be marketed. The PMA process is more demanding than the 510(k) premarket notification process. In a PMA, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the device is safe and effective, and the PMA must be supported by extensive data, including data from preclinical studies and human clinical trials. The PMA must also contain, among other things, a full description of the device and its components, a full description of the methods, facilities and controls used for manufacturing, and proposed labeling. Following receipt of a PMA submission, the FDA determines whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If the FDA accepts the application for review, it has 180 days under the FD&C Act to complete its review of a PMA, although in practice, the FDA’s review often takes significantly longer and can take up to several years. An advisory panel of experts from outside the FDA may be convened to review and evaluate the application and provide recommendations to the FDA as to the approvability of the device. The FDA may or may not accept the panel’s recommendation. In addition, the FDA will generally conduct a preapproval inspection of the applicant or its third-party manufacturers’ or suppliers’ manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the QSR.

The FDA will approve the new device for commercial distribution if it determines that the data and information in the PMA application constitute valid scientific evidence and that there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its intended use(s). The FDA may approve a PMA application with post-approval conditions intended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution, and collection of long-term follow-up data from patients in the clinical study that supported PMA approval or requirements to conduct additional clinical studies post-approval. The FDA may condition PMA approval on some form of post-market surveillance when deemed necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and efficacy data for the device in a larger population or for a longer period of use. Failure to comply with the conditions of approval can result in material adverse enforcement action, including withdrawal of the approval.

Certain changes to an approved device, such as changes in manufacturing facilities, methods, or quality control procedures, or changes in the design performance specifications, which affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, require submission of a PMA supplement. A PMA supplement may not require as extensive clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel. Certain other changes to an approved device require the submission of a new PMA, such as when the design change causes a different intended use, mode of operation, and technical basis of operation, or when the design change is so significant that a new generation of the device will be developed, and the data that were submitted with the original PMA are not applicable for the change in demonstrating a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.

Clinical Trials. Clinical trials are almost always required to support de novo or a PMA and are sometimes required to support a 510(k) submission. All clinical investigations of investigational devices to determine safety and effectiveness must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption (“IDE”) regulations which govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion of the investigational device, and specify an array of recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. If the device presents a “significant risk” to human health, as defined by the FDA, the FDA requires the device sponsor to submit an IDE application to the FDA, which must become effective prior to commencing human clinical trials.

Clinical studies must be approved by, and conducted under the oversight of, an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) for each clinical site. The IRB is responsible for the initial and continuing review of the IDE and may pose additional requirements for the conduct of the trial. If an IDE application is approved by the FDA and one or more IRBs, human clinical trials may begin at a specific number of investigational sites with a specific number of patients, as approved by the FDA.

During a clinical trial, the sponsor is required to comply with the applicable FDA requirements, including, for example, trial monitoring, selecting clinical investigators and providing them with the investigational plan, ensuring IRB review, adverse event reporting, record keeping, and prohibitions on the promotion of investigational devices or on making safety or effectiveness claims for them. The clinical investigators in the clinical study are also subject to FDA regulations and must obtain patient informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan and study protocol, control the disposition of the investigational device, and comply with all reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Additionally, after a trial begins, we, the FDA, or the IRB could suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to study subjects outweigh the anticipated benefits.

Drug Development and Approval

Under the FD&C Act, FDA approval of an NDA (or BLA, for biologics) is required before any new drug can be marketed in the U.S. NDAs require extensive studies and submission of a large amount of data by the applicant.

Preclinical Testing. Before testing any compound in human patients in the U.S., a company must generate extensive preclinical data. Preclinical testing generally includes laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as toxicological and pharmacological studies in several animal species to assess the toxicity and dosing of the product, some of which may require compliance with the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) regulations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act. Some nonclinical testing can happen during the clinical trials.

IND Application. Human clinical trials in the U.S. cannot commence until an investigational new drug (“IND”) application is submitted and becomes effective. A company must submit preclinical testing results to the FDA as part of the IND, and the FDA must evaluate whether there is an adequate basis for testing the drug in initial clinical studies in human volunteers. Unless the FDA raises concerns, the IND becomes effective 30 days following its receipt by the FDA, and the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. TriSalus opened an IND in 2021, under which it launched three (3) Phase 1 studies. TriSalus also obtained three additional INDs when it licensed nelitolimod from Dynavax.

Clinical Trials. Clinical trials must be conducted by qualified investigators, and are subject to extensive regulations, including compliance with the FDA’s Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”) requirements, which establish standards for conducting, recording data from, and reporting the results of, clinical trials, and the well-being of study participants. Clinical trials are subject to the FDA’s Bioresearch Monitoring (“BIMO”) program, a comprehensive program of on-site inspections, data audits, and remote regulatory assessments. Either before or after human clinical trials commence, the FDA may stop a clinical trial by placing it on “clinical hold” because of concerns about the safety of the product being tested or for other reasons.

Clinical trials are conducted under protocols reviewed by the FDA, that detail the study objectives, parameters for monitoring safety, and the efficacy criteria, if any, to be evaluated., Each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by , an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) for each clinical site. Companies sponsors, investigators, and IRBs must comply with, as applicable, regulations and guidelines for obtaining informed consent from the study patients, following the protocol and investigational plan, adequately monitoring the clinical trial, and timely reporting of adverse events (“AEs”). Foreign studies conducted under an IND must meet the same or comparable requirements as those being conducted in the U.S. Data from a foreign study not conducted under an IND may be submitted in support of an NDA if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP and U.S. regulations and the FDA is able to validate the data.

A company or study sponsor is required to publicly post specified details about certain clinical trials and l results on government or independent websites (e.g., http://clinicaltrials.gov). Human clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, although the phases may overlap, be combined, or be subdivided. In some cases, particularly in the development of therapies to treat orphan or rare disease or diseases with unmet medical need, development is limited to one or two phases.

•Phase 1 clinical trials involve the initial administration of the investigational drug to humans, typically to a small group of healthy human subjects, but occasionally to a group of patients with the targeted disease or disorder to primarily establish safety before proceeding to additional phase of drug development.

•Phase 2 clinical trials generally are controlled studies that involve a relatively small sample of the intended patient population, and are designed to develop initial data regarding the product’s effectiveness, to determine dose response and the optimal dose range, and to gather additional information relating to safety and potential AEs.

•Phase 3 clinical trials are conducted to gather the additional information about safety and effectiveness necessary to evaluate the drug’s overall risk-benefit profile and to provide a basis for physician labeling. Generally, Phase 3 clinical development programs consist of expanded, multi-site, large-scale studies of patients with the target disease or disorder to obtain statistical evidence of the efficacy and safety of the drug at the proposed dosing regimen. Phase 3 data often form the core basis on which the FDA evaluates a drug’s safety and effectiveness when considering the product application.

Success in early-stage clinical trials does not ensure success in later-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from clinical activities are not always conclusive and may be subject to alternative interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.

NDA Submission and Review. An NDA is submitted under Section 505(b) of the FD&C Act, and includes, among other things, preclinical and clinical study data sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed drug is safe and effective for its proposed uses, that production methods are adequate to ensure its identity, strength, quality, and purity of the drug, and that proposed labeling is appropriate and complete A 505(b)(1) NDA contains results of the full set of preclinical studies and clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the applicant to characterize and evaluate the product candidate. A 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act provides an alternate regulatory pathway to obtain FDA approval that permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference.

We plan to seek FDA approval of nelitolimod delivered via PEDD through the submission of an 505(b)(1) NDA as part of a combination regimen with other therapeutics. A combination regimen requires data demonstrating the contribution of each drug in the regimen to the treatment of the disease under study. Approval will require us to produce data to confirm nelitolimod’s or any other therapeutic contribution improves the efficacy of the therapeutic regimen. FDA precedent indicates that these data may be obtained from a number of sources, including, a comparator in a controlled trial, prior FDA approvals, historic data from other clinical trials or meta-analysis of clinical practice or “real world” data.

In addition to a combined therapy, the inclusion of a drug (nelitolimod) and a cleared device component (TriNav) in the platform is likely to be considered a “combination product” under FDA regulations. We expect that the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (“CDER”) will have primary jurisdiction for review of the NDA, and that FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health will be consulted during the NDA review process. As part of a combination product, we may be required to produce data supporting TriNav or PEDD’s contribution to the efficacy of the regimen in the targeted indications beyond the original data used in support of 510(k) clearance. The same is true for our PRVI device currently being studied in combination with nelitolimod in the PERIO-03 trial. For the PRVI device to become part of a combination product, we may be required to produce data supporting PRVI or PEDD’s contribution to the efficacy of the regimen in the targeted indications beyond the original data used in support of 510(k) clearance of the PRVI device.

An NDA submission to the FDA generally requires payment of a substantial user fee, however a drug that has received an Orphan Drug Designation is not subject to this user fee. Moreover, under section 736(d)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act, a small business submitting its first human drug application to the Agency without another approved human drug application introduced or delivered into interstate commerce is eligible for a waiver. The FDA reviews applications to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the manufacturing controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity. The FDA may occasionally convene an advisory committee to seek insights and recommendations on issues relevant to approval of the application, although the FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee when making decisions.

FDA accepts (or rejects) an NDA submission — which occurs within 60 days after submission of the NDA — with a non-priority review goal of ten months. FDA’s goal for the review of an application granted priority review is six months after the 60-day acceptance period.

The review process can be somewhat or significantly extended, however, by FDA requests for additional information, studies, or clarification. Upon completion of its review and manufacturing inspection, , the FDA either issues an approval letter or a complete response letter (“CRL”) outlining the deficiencies in the submission. A CRL may require additional information or additional clinical data. Even with submission of additional information and data, FDA may interpret the data differently from the sponsor and decide that the NDA still does not meet the standards for approval.

Drug development and regulatory approval often takes a number of years, involves the expenditure of substantial resources, and depends on a number of factors, including the severity of the disease in question, the availability of alternative treatments, and the risks and benefits of the candidate as demonstrated in clinical trials. Even upon approval, the FDA may require post-approval commitments, including the completion within a specified time period of additional clinical studies, which often are referred to as “Phase 4” or “post-marketing” studies which could affect the commercial success of a drug.

Post-Approval Regulation

Drug and medical device products are subject to continuing regulation following approval. Failure to meet ongoing regulatory requirements or safety or manufacturing problems may cause the FDA to to take actions that would limit or suspend marketing. Post-approval changes in indications, labeling, manufacturing processes or facilities may require a sponsor to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical or clinical studies and the submission of a supplemental NDA. Changes to the product’s approved labeling could include the addition of new warnings and contraindications, or the implementation of other risk management measures, if new safety information develops.

Good Manufacturing Practices. Companies engaged in manufacturing drug products or their components must comply with applicable current Good Manufacturing Practices ("cGMP") requirements and product-specific regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies. Compliance with cGMP includes adhering to requirements relating to organization and training of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, quality control and quality assurance, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, and records and reports. The FDA regulates and inspects equipment, facilities, and processes used in manufacturing pharmaceutical products prior to approval and may conduct periodic visits post-approval. If, after receiving approval, a company makes a material change in manufacturing equipment, location, or process (all of which are, to some degree, incorporated in the NDA), additional regulatory review and approval may be required.

Failure to comply with applicable cGMP requirements and conditions of product approval may lead the FDA to take enforcement action or seek sanctions, including fines, issuance of warning letters, civil penalties, injunctions, suspension of manufacturing operations, operating restrictions, withdrawal of FDA approval, seizure or recall of products, and criminal prosecution. Although we periodically monitor the FDA compliance of our third-party manufacturers, we cannot be certain that our present or future third-party manufacturers will consistently comply with cGMP and other applicable FDA regulatory requirements.

FDA also has manufacturing and safety regulations for devices that apply to the Company. In addition to cGMP, the FDA requires that devices or drug-device combination products comply with the QSR, which sets forth manufacturing quality standards for medical devices. The FDA also requires that we comply with certain device safety reporting requirements for our devices.

Advertising and Promotion. The FDA and other federal regulatory agencies closely regulate the marketing and promotion of drugs and medical devices through, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, advertising and promotion to healthcare professionals, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and effectiveness that are consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe drugs for “off-label” uses (that is, uses not approved by the FDA and not described in the product’s labeling) because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. A manufacturer may not promote a drug or device for off-label use, but under certain conditions may engage in non-promotional, balanced, scientific communication regarding its drugs or devices. In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical or device products, state and federal fraud and abuse laws have been applied to restrict certain marketing practices. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements and restrictions in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity and enforcement action by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes a drug or medical device.

RLD Patents. In an NDA, a sponsor must identify patents that claim the drug substance or drug product or a method of using the drug. When the drug is approved, those patents are among the information about the product that is listed in the FDA publication Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations which is referred to as the Orange Book. Following a drug’s approval, a sponsor wishing to submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA” or “generic”) NDA or 505(b)(2) application seeking to rely on the originally approved product as the reference-listed drug (“RLD”) for its ANDA or 505(b)(2) must make one of several certifications regarding each listed patent. A “Paragraph I” certification is the sponsor’s statement that patent information has not been filed for the RLD. A “Paragraph II” certification is the sponsor’s statement that the RLD’s patents have expired. A “Paragraph III” certification is the sponsor’s statement that it will wait for the patent to expire before obtaining approval for its product. A “Paragraph IV” certification is an assertion that the patent does not block approval of the later product, either because the patent is invalid or unenforceable or because the patent, even if valid, is not infringed by the new product.

Regulatory Exclusivities. The Hatch-Waxman Act provides periods of regulatory exclusivity for products that would serve as RLDs for an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application. If a product is a “new chemical entity”, commonly referred to as an “NCE”, which generally indicates 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 any ANDA or 505(b)(2) application for a drug with the same active moiety.

A product that is not an NCE may qualify for a three-year period of exclusivity if the NDA contains new clinical data, other than bioavailability studies, derived from studies conducted by or for the sponsor, which 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 until three years after approval of the RLD. The exclusivity is limited to the conditions of approval that required submission of the clinical data.

A Paragraph IV certification filing triggers certain notice requirements for the applicant to notify the NDA or patent holder. 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 is filed during the fifth year of exclusivity, the regulatory stay extends until 7.5 years after the RLD approval.

Patent Term Restoration. A portion of the patent term lost during product development and FDA review of an NDA may be restored if approval of the application is the first permitted commercial marketing of a drug containing the active ingredient. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of the IND or the date of patent grant (whichever is later) and the date of submission of the NDA, plus the time between the date of submission of the NDA and the date of FDA approval of the product. The maximum period of restoration is five years, and the patent cannot be extended to more than 14 years from the date of FDA approval of the product. Only one patent claiming each approved product is eligible for restoration and the patent holder must apply for restoration within 60 days of approval. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in consultation with the FDA reviews and approves the application for patent term restoration.

Other Exclusivities

Pediatric Exclusivity. Section 505A of the FD&C Act provides for six months of additional exclusivity or patent protection if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data does not need to show that the product is effective in the pediatric population studied. Rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or Orange Book listed patent protection that cover the drug are extended by six months. This exclusivity effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application owing to regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. When any product is approved, we will evaluate seeking pediatric exclusivity as appropriate.

Orphan Drug Exclusivity. The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives for the development of drugs intended to treat rare diseases or conditions, which generally are diseases or conditions affecting less than 200 thousand individuals in the U.S. If a sponsor demonstrates that a drug product qualifies for orphan drug designation, the FDA grants orphan drug designation to the product for that use. The benefits of orphan drug designation include research and development tax credits and exemption from user fees. A drug that is approved for the orphan drug designated indication generally is granted seven years of orphan drug exclusivity (to run concurrently with any other granted exclusivities). During that period, the FDA generally may not approve any other application for the same product for the same indication, although there are exceptions, most notably when the later product is shown to be clinically superior to the product with exclusivity. The FDA can revoke a product’s orphan drug exclusivity under certain circumstances, including when the product sponsor is unable to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the product to meet patient needs. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition.

Expedited Development and Review Programs. The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track Designation, Priority Review Designation, Accelerated Approval Program and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for drug development and the review of product candidates. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will be lengthened. Generally, product candidates that are eligible for these programs are those for serious or life- threatening conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments. These designations do not affect the standards for approval, however, the FDA will attempt to facilitate early and frequent meetings with a sponsor and generally seek to expedite the NDA for a promising drug. of a Fast Track Designation product candidate and expedite review of the application for a Priority Review Designation product candidate.

U.S. Healthcare Reform

In the U.S., there have been and continue to be a number of healthcare-related legislative initiatives that have significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “Affordable Care Act”) was passed in March 2010, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and continues to significantly impact the pharmaceutical industry.

There have been judicial, congressional and executive branch challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the individual mandate was repealed by Congress. In addition, there have been a number of health reform initiatives by the Biden administration that have impacted the Affordable Care Act. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to legal challenges and additional health reform measures in the future.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, in August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law which, among other things, led to aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional congressional action is taken.

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the U.S. with respect to prescription-pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. For example, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, the IRA, among other things, (1) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare and (2) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions began to take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon reimbursement prices of the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. On January 17, 2025, HHS selected fifteen additional products covered under Part D for price negotiation in 2025. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare drug price negotiation program. Further, the Biden administration released an additional executive order on October 14, 2022, directing HHS to submit a report within 90 days on how the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation can be further leveraged to test new models for lowering drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. In response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework. Additionally, in April 2025, an executive order was signed directing the Secretary of HHS to take appropriate steps to, among other things, modify certain provisions of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, develop and implement a payment model to reduce the price of high-cost prescription drugs and biological products covered by Medicare, accelerate approval of generic and biosimilar products, and facilitate the ability of states to import pharmaceuticals from other countries, and in May 2025, an executive order was signed, among other things, directing the Secretary of HHS to propose rules that impose “most-favored-nation” pricing and take other measures to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. It is currently unclear whether and to what extent these measures will be implemented and what impact any such implementation would have on our business. Further, there can be no assurance that the current administration or future administrations will not pursue different or additional measures, such as those intended to more closely align U.S. drug prices with international drug prices (often referred to as “reference” or “international price index” drug pricing). Future price controls or other changes in pricing regulation or negative publicity related to the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates, which could render our product candidates, if approved, commercially unviable and materially adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms.

It is possible that other healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, which may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product, particularly given the recent change in administration. The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions may include, for example, directives to reduce agency workforce, rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending and eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establishing an AI task force and developing a strategic plan, and directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and price plan transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of our products and any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval. Sales of any of our products and product candidates, if approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered by third-party payors, including government healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and private payors, such as commercial health insurers and managed care organizations. Third-party payors determine which drugs they will cover and the amount of reimbursement they will provide for a covered drug. In the U.S., there is no uniform system among payors for making coverage and reimbursement decisions. In addition, the process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for our products we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costly studies required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Even if we conduct pharmacoeconomic studies, our products and product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective by payors. Further, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved.

Furthermore, the healthcare industry in the U.S. has experienced a trend toward cost containment as government and private insurers seek to control healthcare costs by imposing lower payment rates and negotiating reduced contract rates with service providers. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the procedures using our products will be reimbursed at a cost-effective level. Nor can we be certain that third-party payors using a methodology that sets amounts based on the type of procedure performed, such as those utilized by government programs and in many privately managed care systems, will view the cost of our products to be justified so as to incorporate such costs into the overall cost of the procedure. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to achieve profitability. Moreover, we are unable to predict what changes will be made to the reimbursement methodologies used by third-party payors in the future. In December 2023, CMS granted a New Technology HCPCS code for procedures involving TriNav. This code, C9797, became effective on January 1, 2024, and may be reported by hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgical centers. There can be no assurance that continuing reimbursement will be available at similar reimbursement rates or at all.

Additional legislative changes, regulatory changes and judicial challenges related to the Affordable Care Act remain possible, as discussed above under the subheading “U.S. Healthcare Reform.” In addition, there likely will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators, and third-party payors to contain healthcare costs. Thus, even if we obtain favorable coverage and reimbursement status for our products and any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws

Our business is subject to healthcare fraud and abuse regulation and enforcement by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. These laws include, but are not limited to, the following:

•The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibiting, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Affordable Care Act, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate in order to commit a violation.

•The federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act, which can be enforced by private individuals on behalf of the government through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, and civil monetary penalty laws prohibit individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment of government funds, or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government.

•The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations (collectively, “HIPAA”), prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors. HIPAA also prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

•HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”) and its implementing regulations, imposes obligations on “covered entities,” including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their respective “business associates” and their subcontractors that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Medical device manufacturers are generally not considered covered entities under HIPAA, but may become subject to HIPAA regulations as business associates with they handle protected health information.

•The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. The regulations differ by state but may require the reporting of certain marketing costs or the reporting of gifts and payments to individual health care providers. Other states require the Company to be licensed or registered where it or its sales representatives conduct sales. In addition, several states require pharmaceutical or device companies to implement compliance programs or marketing codes.

•The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, implemented as the Open Payments program, and its implementing regulations, requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to CMS information related to direct or indirect payments and other transfers of value to physicians or other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held in the company by physicians and their immediate family members.

Because federal and state health care laws and regulations related to compliance are broad and available statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors are narrow, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to legal challenge and enforcement actions. In the event governmental authorities 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, they may impose sanctions under these laws, which are potentially significant and may include civil monetary penalties, damages, exclusion of an entity or individual from participation in government health care programs, criminal fines and imprisonment, additional reporting requirements if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other settlement to resolve allegations of violations of these laws, as well as the potential curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 prohibits corporations and their intermediaries from engaging in certain activities to obtain or retain business or to influence a person working in an official capacity. It is illegal to pay, offer to pay or authorize the payment of anything of value to any official of another country, government staff member, political party or political candidate in an attempt to obtain or retain business or to otherwise influence a person working in that capacity.

Facilities

Our principal office is located in Westminster, Colorado, where we lease approximately 21 thousand square feet of office, manufacturing and warehouse space pursuant to a lease that expires on December 31, 2031. The lease includes one extension option for five years. We have not yet determined if we will exercise the extension option. We also lease office facilities in Bannockburn, Illinois. During 2025, we terminated our lease for the laboratory space at Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island. We believe our facilities are adequate to meet our current needs, although we may seek to negotiate new leases or evaluate additional or alternate space for our operations. We believe appropriate alternative space will be readily available on commercially reasonable terms.

Our Team

As of December 31, 2025, we had approximately 102 full-time employees,

None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under collective bargaining agreement. We have not experienced any material work stoppages and we consider our relationship with our employees to be good, healthy and transparent. We actively engage with managers to collect feedback and ideas on how to improve our working environment.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purpose of our equity and cash incentive plans is to attract, retain, and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of TriSalus by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in September 2020. Our principal executive offices are located at 6272 W. 91st Ave., Westminster, Colorado 80031 and our telephone number is (888) 321-5212. Our corporate website address is www.trisaluslifesci.com. We intend to announce material information to the public through filings with the SEC, the investor relations page on our website, press releases, public conference calls and public webcasts. Information contained on or accessible through our website is not a part of this Annual Report, and the inclusion of our website address in this Annual Report is an inactive textual reference only. For additional information, see Item 7- Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2025.

We and our subsidiaries own or have rights to trademarks, trade names and service marks that they use in connection with the operation of their business. Other trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this prospectus are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, in some cases, the trademarks, trade names and service marks referred to in this prospectus are listed without the applicable ®, ™ and SM symbols.

TriSalus Life Sciences, Inc. (TLSI) Business

Item 1. Business

Overview

Background

Table of Contents

Overcoming Barriers to Effective Drug Delivery with PEDD

Table of Contents

Treatment of Liver Tumors with Transarterial Radioembolization ("TARE")

Treatment of Liver Tumors with Transarterial Chemoembolization ("TACE")

PEDD Clinical Studies

Table of Contents

Real-world Evidence

Table of Contents

TriNav Market Opportunity

Table of Contents

Reimbursement

Our Customers & Stakeholders

Sales and Marketing

Table of Contents

Industry and Competition

TriNav Competition

Growth Opportunities - TriNav Product Improvements

Pancreatic Retrograde Venous Infusion Device

Table of Contents

Other Commercialization Growth Opportunities

Table of Contents

Nelitolimod: Promising Therapeutic Opportunity

Strategic Acquisition of Nelitolimod

•ICC and HCC (PERIO-02, NCT05220722); and

Table of Contents

Current Treatment and Limitations

Market Opportunity for Investigational Therapeutic Nelitolimod

Nelitolimod Market Opportunities

Table of Contents

Clinical Site Partnership

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Nelitolimod Competition

Dynavax Asset Purchase Agreement

Manufacturing

Table of Contents

Intellectual Property

Patents

Trade Secrets and Other Proprietary Information

Table of Contents

Trademarks

Government Regulation

Medical Device Development and Approval

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Drug Development and Approval

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Post-Approval Regulation

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Other Exclusivities

U.S. Healthcare Reform

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Coverage and Reimbursement

Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws

Table of Contents

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Facilities

Table of Contents

Our Team

Corporate Information

Table of Contents