Entrada Therapeutics, Inc. (TRDA) Business

Verbatim Item 1 Business section from Entrada Therapeutics, Inc.'s latest 10-K. Filing date: 2026-02-26. Accession: 0001689375-26-000011.

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: 37546-203571.

Back to TRDA company profile

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company aiming to transform the lives of patients by establishing a new class of medicines that engage intracellular targets that have long been considered inaccessible. Through proprietary, versatile and modular approaches, we are advancing a robust development portfolio of genetic medicines for the potential treatment of neuromuscular and inherited retinal diseases, among others. In 2026, we expect to progress our ENTR-601-44 and ENTR-601-45 clinical trials, an EU filing for the ENTR-601-50 clinical trial, and regulatory submissions for ENTR-601-51. In addition, our VX-670 partnership with Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated (“Vertex”) continues to progress, with dosing completion anticipated in mid-2026. We anticipate reporting on the results of two cohorts of patient data from our ENTR-601-44 program, and one from our ENTR-601-45 program during 2026.

Clinical-Stage Development Pipeline:

Entrada continues to advance multiple clinical programs in people living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (“DMD”) in the United Kingdom (“UK”), European Union (“EU”) and United States (“U.S.”). In 2026, we expect to have four clinical-stage programs in its DMD franchise (ENTR-601-44, ENTR-601-45, ENTR-601-50 and ENTR-601-51). When combined, we estimate that there are over 11,500 patients in the U.S. and Europe that carry mutations amenable to Entrada's current exon skipping programs. Complementing the ongoing clinical progress of the DMD franchise is the myotonic dystrophy type 1 (“DM1”) partnership with Vertex (“VX-670”). Each of these programs utilize the same endosomal escape vehicle, and as such, we anticipate initial data readouts from any one of the candidate clinical trials to provide critical insights for the rest.

ELEVATE-44-201: The Company completed dosing of Cohort 1 of the global Phase 1/2 multiple ascending dose (“MAD”) portion of the clinical study of ENTR-601-44 in ambulatory patients living with DMD who are amenable to exon 44 skipping, and those patients transitioned to the 6 dose open label portion of the trial. Dosing every 6 weeks of all 8 patients is ongoing in this Phase 2 portion of the study. In February 2026, an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) reviewed the data to date from the eight patients enrolled in Cohort 1 and recommended initiation of Cohort 2 at the increased dose of 12 mg/kg without protocol modification. The Company is on track to report data from Cohort 1 (6 mg/kg) in the second quarter of 2026, data from Cohort 2 (12 mg/kg) by year-end, and data from Cohort 3 (up to 18 mg/kg) to follow if needed. We expect to see double digit dystrophin production in the first patient cohort and, based on a combination of non-clinical and healthy normal volunteer data, a multi-fold increase in dystrophin as we dose up in the second and third cohorts. We intend to open an expansion cohort later in the year to increase the number of participants treated in the ELEVATE-44-201 study, as this study has been designed to support an accelerated approval in the U.S. Additionally, in December 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation to ENTR-601-44.

ELEVATE-44-102: The Company believes this clinical trial, in the underserved adult patient population, would be best to initiate at the highest advisable starting dose in patients with advanced disease. Following a review of safety, PK and PD data from the ELEVATE-44-201 study in Q2 2026, we may have an opportunity to re-engage with the FDA to discuss increasing the planned doses in this clinical trial. As such, the Company will provide an update on clinical study design and timing following interactions with the FDA.

ELEVATE-45-201: The Company initiated patient dosing in the global Phase 1/2 MAD portion of the clinical study of ENTR-601-45 in ambulatory patients living with DMD who are amenable to exon 45 skipping. The Company is on track to report data from Cohort 1 (5 mg/kg) in mid-2026, with data from Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 (up to 10 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg) to follow. The proposed ELEVATE-45-201 clinical trial design and dosing regimen is similar to ELEVATE-44-201, incorporating a MAD Phase 1 portion, a 6 dose open label Phase 2 portion and an expansion cohort. We expect ENTR-601-45 to be both best in class and to be the first PMO-conjugate to generate clinically meaningful data in a population where only low single digit competitive dystrophin production has been observed to date.

ELEVATE-50-201: The Company received regulatory authorization from the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) and Research Ethics Committee to initiate a Phase 1/2 MAD clinical study of ENTR-601-50 in ambulatory patients living with DMD who are amenable to exon 50 skipping. The Company expects to submit regulatory applications and obtain authorization in the EU for ENTR-601-50 by year-end 2026.

ENTR-601-51: The Company expects to submit global regulatory applications to initiate clinical trials for ENTR-601-51 in 2026. If these trials are allowed to proceed, this will become our fourth clinical stage DMD program, and is applicable to the largest sub-population of exon skipping amenable patients.

VX-670: Vertex continues to enroll and dose the MAD portion of the global Phase 1/2 clinical trial of VX-670 in people living with DM1, which will assess both safety and efficacy (splice correction). Vertex has announced that it is on track to complete enrollment and dosing in the trial in mid-2026.

Expanding Preclinical Pipeline:

The Company has advanced two ocular programs into lead optimization for the potential treatment of inherited retinal diseases. Both programs are novel oligonucleotide-based therapeutics with the potential to address areas of high unmet need. In December 2025, Entrada announced its first ocular clinical candidate, ENTR-801, for the potential treatment of Usher syndrome type 2A (“USH2A”). The Company plans to announce a second clinical candidate in ocular diseases in the second half of 2026 and continues to explore novel targets to address both rare and more common retinal conditions. From a strategic point of view, progress in a new therapeutic area enables portfolio diversification in the form of tissue type, route of administration and regulatory pathway. At the same time, however, as in our neuromuscular franchise, initial targets are selected based on well-understood biology, significant unmet need, translational clarity and the potential to differentiate based on our proprietary technologies and capabilities.

ENTR-801: The Company’s first ocular candidate is an optimized, proprietary oligonucleotide-based therapy for the potential treatment of a subgroup of patients with USH2A, who are amenable to exon 13 skipping. The clinical candidate was designed to restore functional usherin protein production with the goal of preserving photoreceptors (the light-sensing cells in the eye) to stabilize the overall retinal architecture and preserve function. ENTR-801 was selected from a library of 200 sequences based on its robust exon skipping and usherin protein production, as well as initial safety data in multiple animal models.

USH2A is an inherited eye disease caused by changes in the USH2A gene. In some people, mutations in exon 13 prevent the body from producing usherin, a protein that is essential for the health of photoreceptors. Without usherin, photoreceptors gradually degenerate, leading to progressive vision loss that often begins in early adulthood and can progress to legal blindness by mid-adulthood. There are currently no approved therapies that address the underlying cause of Usher syndrome. In the U.S. and Europe, we estimate that approximately 14,000-15,000 people are living with USH2A who may be amenable to exon 13 skipping.

We continue to believe that the robust supporting data and ongoing progress of our growing portfolio of clinical and preclinical candidates has the potential to make a significant difference in the lives of patients.

Platform

Approximately 75% of all disease-causing targets are located inside cells. Intracellular therapeutics are designed to correct disease-causing dysfunction inside cells, addressing targets at the level of DNA, RNA or protein. In order to do so, these therapeutics need to first get through the cell’s membrane, which is a phospholipid bilayer, and then escape from the cell’s transportation and sorting vehicle, known as the early endosome, in order to reach and engage with their intended targets. Small molecules can permeate cell membranes but tend to be rapidly cleared by the body before they reach the intended tissue and can be associated with off-target effects. These limitations often necessitate high therapeutic doses and can be associated with less-than-optimal therapeutic activity. Biological therapeutics are generally potent and specific with respect to their intracellular targets of interest but limited in their ability to reach such targets, often lacking the ability to efficiently penetrate the cell membrane and then escape from the early endosome.

We believe our EEV Platform can enable the efficient intracellular delivery of highly targeted and potent therapeutics throughout the body. The cornerstone of our platform, our proprietary EEV peptides are based upon small cyclic peptides of approximately 10 amino acid residues or fewer. EEV peptides bind with low affinity, at normal serum pH levels, directly to the phospholipid bilayer of all cells and trigger the natural process of endocytosis. In our preclinical studies, we have observed, based on mass balance analysis, that greater than 90% of EEV-conjugated material is taken up by the tissues of the body. Once inside the cell, these studies indicate that the EEV-conjugated material rapidly escapes from the early endosome. Because of the low-pH conditions in the early endosome, the binding affinity of the EEV to the inner endosome wall increases, resulting in the successful formation and budding of unstable vesicles which then collapse and release their contents into the cell cytosol. In our preclinical studies, we observed that approximately 50% of the EEV-

conjugated material escaped the endosome to reach the intracellular disease target as compared to the 2% observed in prior studies of current biologics. While these preclinical studies were not designed as head-to-head comparisons to current biologics, these data generally compare favorably to historical published data regarding the percentage, of current biologics that have been observed to reach their designed intracellular disease target. We leverage a variety of organelle targeting moieties to ensure that, where necessary, the therapeutic reaches the right sub-compartment inside the cell.

We believe our EEV Platform can offer meaningful advantages over existing therapeutic approaches, including broad potential therapeutic index, potential utility across multiple modalities, and potential applicability to a wide range of diseases. EEVs can be conjugated to oligonucleotides or proteins to enhance therapeutic index in a dose dependent manner via enhanced intracellular target exposure and reduced immunosurveillance.

Lead Neuromuscular Programs

We are initially focused on the development of EEV therapeutics for rare neuromuscular diseases, and DMD in particular. DMD is a monogenic X-linked disease caused by mutations in the DMD gene, which encodes for the protein dystrophin. Dystrophin is essential to maintaining the structural integrity and normal function of muscle cells for walking, breathing and cardiac function. In patients with Duchenne, mutations in the DMD gene can lead to certain exons being misread, resulting in a failure to produce sufficient functional dystrophin. The reduction or absence of functional

dystrophin leads to damage to muscle cell membranes, resulting in muscle cell death and progressive loss of muscle function.

The symptoms of Duchenne typically manifest in the first few years of life. Patients experience progressive muscle weakness and muscle wasting and have difficulty standing up, climbing stairs, running, breathing and performing daily functions. As the disease progresses, the severity of damage to skeletal and cardiac muscles results in most patients experiencing total loss of ambulation in the pre-teenage or early teenage years. Progressive loss of upper extremity function is often observed in the mid-to-late teens followed by paralysis, respiratory and/or cardiac failure, resulting in early mortality in the third or fourth decade of life.

We estimate that DMD occurs in approximately one in every 3,500 to 5,000 live male births and that the patient population is approximately 41,000 patients in the aggregate in the U.S. and Europe. Approximately 80% of patients have mutations amenable to exon skipping in the nucleus.

Corticosteroids are the current standard of care. However, chronic use of corticosteroids, particularly in pediatric populations, is challenging due to side effects including growth impairment, immune suppression, obesity and other endocrine-related disorders. There are four FDA-approved PMO-based oligonucleotide skipping therapies, each addressing a specific mutation: casimersen (exon 45), eteplirsen (exon 51), golodirsen (exon 53) and viltolarsen (exon 53). These products have all been approved using the accelerated approval pathway on the basis of dystrophin production. These currently approved exon skipping therapeutics have demonstrated a modest improvement in dystrophin levels ranging from approximately 1-6%. However, the FDA-approved labels for all four drugs state that continued approval may be contingent upon the verification of a clinical benefit in confirmatory clinical trials. None of the products are approved by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) due to insufficient evidence of clinical benefit. A fifth drug, ataluren, was conditionally approved outside of the U.S. in certain territories for nonsense mutations in ambulatory patients with DMD aged five years and older. These therapies require weekly intravenous infusions which is suboptimal from a patient perspective. More recently, a histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) givinostat, which works as a supportive care treatment by targeting pathogenic processes to reduce inflammation and loss of muscle, was approved by the FDA for the treatment of boys ages 6 years and up with DMD.

Our DMD Strategy

We are developing therapeutic candidates to address the genetic basis, at the exon-specific level, of DMD. In our neuromuscular disease programs, we link EEV peptides to small strands of nucleic acids called oligonucleotides, including phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligomers (“PMOs”). We are developing EEV-PMOs that promote the skipping of these DMD-associated mutations.

Entrada optimizes both the EEV delivery vehicle and the active conjugate to create what we believe will be best-in-class medicines.

Based on preclinical and clinical data observed to date, we believe that our EEV-PMO exon-skipping therapy may enable the production of functional dystrophin to slow, stop or even reverse disease progression. The graphic below summarizes both the epidemiology of disease, by mutation status as well as our program status across the world.

ENTR-601-44

Preclinical studies suggest the potential for significant patient benefit with our first exon skipping clinical candidate ENTR-601-44. Data in the humanized DMD mouse model and non-human primate (“NHP”) model at levels we believe to be clinically relevant revealed both significant and durable levels of exon skipping extending to at least 12 weeks. Additionally, in vitro data suggest much higher levels of target engagement in patient cells than in healthy cells. In healthy cells, exon skipping mechanism creates an out of frame mutation and the mRNA transcript is broken down very quickly via nonsense mediated decay. In the Duchenne patient, the goal is to bring an out-of-frame mutation in-frame, resulting in mRNA transcript that is substantially more stable, and enabling durable and robust translation to exon skipping and dystrophin production.

While exon skipping in the humanized mouse model is an in vivo validation, we believe the ability to demonstrate both exon skipping and dystrophin restoration in the del45hDMD.mdx mouse model is also critically important. As shown below, mice were dosed with 15, 30 or 45 mg/kg, resulting in dose dependent restoration of dystrophin to near wild type levels at the highest dose.

Importantly, not only have we demonstrated functional target engagement in both in vivo and in vitro models but we have also shown uptake in satellite cells. We believe we are the first company to demonstrate evidence of delivery to satellite cells in preclinical models. Muscle satellite cells are a pool of quiescent muscle stem cells which are activated upon injury to help repair or regenerate myofibers. Satellite stem cells are responsible for regenerating and repairing muscles; The ability to access the satellite cells is an important differentiator for EEV therapies. We believe this is a highly compelling finding, as generating dystrophin in and protecting these skeletal muscle progenitor cells may enhance their ability to regenerate damaged muscle fibers and thereby contribute to a rapid, deeper and more durable clinical response.

The graphic below shows an PMO co-localizes in satellite cells in a D2-mdx mouse model with the immunofluorescence image taken 12 weeks post third dose (doses 6 weeks apart). Pax7 (Paired Box 7) is a transcription factor highly expressed in muscle satellite cells responsible for their activation, proliferation and differentiation. The images below demonstrated co-localization of both the Pax7 and PMO in the nuclei (DAPI - 4'6-diamiddino-2-phenylindole stain) of the satellite cells and newly regenerated centrally nucleated fibers.

Healthy Normal Volunteer Trial

On June 24, 2024, we announced positive preliminary data from our Phase 1 clinical trial of ENTR-601-44. The data announced were based upon data collected as of that date, were aggregated based upon the placebo and study drug groups and did not include urinary biomarkers for the 6 mg/kg cohort. The study has since been completed with no adverse findings noted in the urinary biomarkers for the 6 mg/kg cohort.

The primary objective of the Phase 1 clinical trial was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of a single dose of ENTR-601-44. The trial also evaluated pharmacokinetics and target engagement, as measured by exon skipping in the skeletal muscle. These data were featured in a poster presentation at the 29th Annual Congress of the World Muscle Society in October 2024.

The trial included a total of 32 healthy male volunteers across four cohorts, with each cohort consisting of six participants receiving ENTR-601-44 and two participants receiving a placebo control. The doses administered across the cohorts were 0.75 mg/kg, 1.5 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg. Key findings included clinical safety up to 6 mg/kg, with the potential for best-in-class pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in patients.

There were no serious adverse events, no drug-related adverse events and no clinically significant changes or trends noted in vital signs, electrocardiograms, physical exams or laboratory assessments observed in the trial.

•No adverse events (“AEs”) related to study drug

•Most common AE was headache (n=7; 5 mild and 2 moderate)

•No clinically significant findings with lab values, ECG or vital signs

•No adverse findings or clinically relevant changes to biomarkers of renal toxicity at highest dose of 6 mg/kg

The study demonstrated target engagement as measured by exon skipping on a ng/g of tissue adjusted basis supporting the importance of endosomal escape to therapeutic index optimization. Muscle concentrations and exon skipping were assessed using a needle muscle biopsy taken from biceps brachii 72 hours (±4 hours) post-dose of ENTR-601-44. Dose-dependent skeletal muscle concentration was observed: muscle concentration was detected in all six subjects in the 6 mg/kg dose cohort (mean of 53.8 ng/g, range 40 ng/g-73.5 ng/g) and mean target engagement as measured by exon skipping was 0.44% (range 0.3-0.65%). Robust target engagement with statistically significant exon skipping observed versus placebo: exon skipping was statistically significant compared to the placebo control (p0.005) in the 6 mg/kg dose cohort.

High levels of target engagement relative to muscle concentration, even at very low doses, underscore the importance of endosomal escape and support the potential of this candidate to deliver rapid, significant and durable benefits at relatively low doses.

Furthermore we believe that the pharmacokinetic data gathered in this study may imply the potential for a dose range where clinical activity is not accompanied by a proportional risk of increasing toxic liability. We believe this would be a unique finding relative to the other PMO/PPMO constructs.

•Plasma stability of the drug itself means that there is significant, extended, and dose-dependent exposure to the muscle and thus the therapeutic target. As dose increases, there is a great opportunity to see an increase in efficacy

•The renal excretion of the final metabolite also increases but in a non-linear fashion. For every doubling of the dose we see more than a doubling of the percentage of metabolite excreted. Furthermore, this difference increases as the dose goes up. We believe a potential explanation for this observation may be the saturation of renal re-uptake mechanisms at an extremely low dose

Potential Implications of Healthy Normal Volunteer Results, In the Context of Supporting Non-clinical Data

In summary, we have demonstrated that ENTR-601-44 drug exposure to target increases in a dose-dependent manner, that this drug exposure is three times higher than would be predicted by non-human primate models and, critically, any increase of final metabolite exposure in the only organ of concern (kidney) appears to be limited, at least in the dose range tested. In other words, the therapeutic index grows as the dose increases. The full extent of this relationship is illustrated in the three-panel graphic below.

In the leftmost panel, the dose-dependent relationship associated with both muscle concentration and the concomitant levels of exon skipping in the NHP is depicted. In the center panel, a comparison of the dose-dependent muscle concentration between the healthy normal volunteer single ascending dose trial and the NHP experiment is depicted. Note that a 10 mg/kg dose in the NHP resulted in the same level of muscle exposure as a 3 mg/kg dose in the human. This implies that our starting dose in ELEVATE-44 trial of 6 mg/kg and our second dose level of up to 12 mg/kg are approximately the same as the non-human primate 20 mg/kg and 40 mg/kg respectively. This translational interpretation forms the basis of our expectation that a dramatic non-linear PK/PD response should be expected as we increase the dose of ENTR-601-44 in the ongoing multi-ascending dose trial.

The center panel compares the human and non-human primate muscle concentrations of the candidate drug.

The rightmost panel illustrates the dose-dependent non-linear increase in the urinary disposition of the final PMO metabolite. In the healthy normal volunteer trial we observed that for each doubling of the dose there was more than a doubling of final metabolite excretion. We believe the most apparent explanation is that renal re-uptake receptors may be saturated. Most importantly, that saturation appears to happen at doses where no treatment related adverse events have been noted (prior table above).

In conclusion, we expected to see a multifold increase in target tissue exposure without a concomitant increase in off-target tissue exposure implying an increasing therapeutic index as dose increases.

ELEVATE-44-201

The Company completed dosing of Cohort 1 of the global Phase 1/2 multiple ascending dose (MAD) portion of the clinical study of ENTR-601-44 in ambulatory patients living with DMD who are amenable to exon 44 skipping, and transitioned to the 6 dose open label portion of the trial. Dosing every 6 weeks of all eight patients is ongoing in the Phase 2 portion of the study.

While the trial is double blind placebo controlled, which means that the Company does not yet have insight into the results of the first cohort, an independent data monitoring committee reviewed initial data from all eight patients enrolled and cleared continuation of the trial without amendment or adjustment. We have also observed a generally favorable safety profile in our healthy normal volunteer trial.

In February 2026, an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) reviewed the data to date from the eight patients enrolled in Cohort 1 and recommended initiation of Cohort 2 at the increased dose of 12 mg/kg without protocol modification. The Company is on track to report data from Cohort 1 (6 mg/kg) in the second quarter of 2026, when we expect to see double digit dystrophin and data from Cohort 2 (12 mg/kg) by year-end where we expect to see multi-fold higher and best in class dystrophin. Data from Cohort 3 (up to 18 mg/kg) would follow in 2027 if needed. The complete ELEVATE-44-201 Phase 1/2 trial design is depicted below. ELEVATE-44-201 is designed to support a submission for accelerated approval from the FDA and form the basis of a global registrational program.

ELEVATE-44-102

The Company believes this clinical trial, in the underserved adult patient population, would be best to initiate at the highest advisable starting dose in patients with advanced disease. Following a review of safety, PK and PD data from the ELEVATE-44-201 study in Q2 2026, we may have an opportunity to re-engage with the FDA to discuss increasing the planned doses in this clinical trial. As such, the Company will provide an update on clinical study design and timing following interactions with the FDA.

ENTR-601-45

The decision to initiate the ELEVATE-45 multiple-ascending dose trial was based in part on the clinical trial ENTR-601-44-101 described above, and in part on the strength of preclinical pharmacodynamic data indicating robust exon skipping, dystrophin production and functional correction in the del44hDMD.mdx mouse model. As shown below, active and vehicle treated del44hDMD.mdx mice, n=5 per cohort, were dosed with ENTR-60-45 every 6 weeks for a total of three doses (Q6W x 3 doses); saline treated mice (n=10, Q6W x 3 doses) were used as a control. Exon skipping (as measured via Droplet Digital polymerase chain reaction - ddPCR) and dystrophin production significantly increased 6 weeks after the third dose of ENTR-601-45 (gastrocnemius muscle shown). In the figure below biomarkers were measured 5 weeks post 3rd dose and functional response was evaluated 6 weeks post third dose.

Data are shown as mean ± SD; *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001, ****p ≤ 0.0001; Data presented at the 2024 World Muscle Society conference.

Furthermore, in the eccentric force contractions (“ECC”) challenge to the gastronemius muscle, a dose dependent increase in resistance to membrane damage was observed following the tenth contraction, which was maintained until at least 8 weeks after the third Q6W dose of ENTR-601-45.

Data shown across 10 ECC contractions normalized into a percentage of the initial force before any ECC and as the percentage of force retained after the 10th contraction.

Taken together, we believe that these preclinical data suggest the potential for therapeutic benefit at clinically relevant doses.

ELEVATE-45-201

The Company initiated patient dosing in the global Phase 1/2 MAD portion of the clinical study of ENTR-601-45 in ambulatory patients living with DMD who are amenable to exon 45 skipping. The Company is on track to report data from Cohort 1 (5 mg/kg) in mid-2026, with data from Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 (up to 10 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg) to follow. The proposed ELEVATE-45-201 clinical trial design and dosing regimen is similar to ELEVATE-44-201, including a MAD Phase 1 portion, a 6 dose open label Phase 2 portion and an expansion cohort. We expect that ENTR-601-45 has the potential to be both best-in-class and to be the first PMO-conjugate to generate clinically meaningful data in a population where only low single digit competitive dystrophin production has been observed to date.

ENTR-601-50 and ENTR-601-51

ELEVATE-50-201

The Company received regulatory authorization from the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) and Research Ethics Committee to initiate a Phase 1/2 MAD clinical study of ENTR-601-50 in ambulatory patients living with DMD who are amenable to exon 50 skipping. The Company expects to submit regulatory applications and obtain authorization in the EU for ENTR-601-50 by year-end 2026.

Robust dose-dependent exon 50 skipping and dystrophin production has been demonstrated in the del51hDMD.mdx mouse model after a single dose of ENTR-601-50, which supports the potential for clinically relevant dystrophin restoration in patients. Perhaps most importantly, the biomarker data correlated with near full correction to normal function as measured by percent force retained after 10 muscle contractions.

Similarly, robust dose-dependent exon 51 pharmacodynamics in both del52hDMD.mdx and hDMD mouse models support potential for high and persistent dystrophin restoration in patients. As with ENTR-601-44 and ENTR-601-45, we believe that these preclinical data suggest the potential for therapeutic benefit at clinically relevant doses. We expect to submit global regulatory filings for ENTR-601-51 in 2026.

VX-670 (Partnered)

We are supporting the development of VX-670, in partnership with Vertex for patients with DM1. DM1 is a rare disease caused by a mutation driven alteration of normal RNA structure manifesting as an increase in the number of CTG triplet repeats found in the 3’ non-coding region of the DM1 protein kinase (“DMPK”) gene. The resulting transcripts, which contain an expanded CUG tract, aggregate in discrete foci in the nuclei of DM patient cells. The excessive number of CUG repeats impart toxic activity, referred to as a toxic gain-of-function. Multiple key proteins are misprocessed, and this contributes to the multi-systemic nature of the disease, which includes generalized limb weakness, respiratory muscle impairment, cardiac abnormalities, fatigue, gastrointestinal complications, cataracts, incontinence and excessive daytime sleepiness.

DM1 is commonly estimated to affect approximately 110,000 people in the U.S. and Europe. The disease is typically categorized based on age of onset and severity of symptoms into various phenotypes: 75% classical (adult-onset in the second to fourth decade of life); 10% childhood; and 15% congenital. All forms of DM1, except the late-onset form, are associated with high levels of disease burden and in the most severe cases can be associated with premature mortality. Life expectancy ranges from 45 years to 60 years. Seventy percent of early mortality is caused by cardiorespiratory complications. Respiratory failure due to muscle weakness (especially diaphragmatic weakness) causes at least 40% of early mortality, and cardiac abnormalities account for approximately 30%. The clinical course of DM1 is usually slowly progressive, but may become extremely disabling, especially when more generalized limb weakness and respiratory muscle impairment develops. Systemic manifestations such as fatigue, gastrointestinal (GI) complications, cataracts, incontinence and excessive daytime sleepiness greatly impact a patient’s quality of life. As a result, DM1 leads to physical impairment, activity limitations and decreased participation in social activities and work.

There are currently no approved therapies to treat DM1 and treatment is focused largely on symptom management, which is tailored to the system affected and can therefore range from diet modification and physical therapy to surgery and ventilatory support. Therefore, there remains a high unmet medical need for new disease modifying therapies.

VX-670 is intended to address the underlying cause of the disease by targeting the extra CUG triplet repeats responsible for the downstream misprocessing of proteins important to cell growth, metabolism and function. VX-670 is designed to block the triplet repeats and correct the mis-splicing and aberrant expression of downstream transcripts in order to restore tissue function. Our preclinical studies have resulted in in vitro and in vivo data where we have observed splicing correction across multiple transcripts, durable DMPK mRNA knockdown, reduction of foci, rapid phenotypic correction, and tolerability in murine models of DM1 which exhibit expanded CTG and CUG repeats. VX-670 is comprised of a PMO conjugated to an EEV (the same EEV used in Entrada's DMD programs), which we would expect to sterically block CUG

repeats and relieve or prevent the sequestration MBNL1 while leaving DMPK mRNA unaffected and leaving healthy levels of DMPK intact.

We entered into a Strategic Collaboration and License Agreement, which was amended in October 2023 (the “Vertex Agreement”), with Vertex pursuant to which we granted Vertex an exclusive worldwide license to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize VX-670, as well as any additional EEV-based therapeutic candidates that may be identified by the Company for the potential treatment of DM1 in the course of the parties’ global research collaboration. The Vertex Agreement provides for a four-year global research collaboration under which Vertex will fund our continued preclinical development of VX-670, as well as the option to fund additional DM1-related research activities with a goal of identifying other EEV-based therapeutic product candidates for the potential treatment of DM1. Other than our efforts under this research collaboration, Vertex will be responsible for global development, manufacturing and commercialization of the licensed products.

Under the terms of the Vertex Agreement, we initially received $250.0 million from the Vertex Agreement comprised of an upfront payment of $223.7 million and an equity investment of $26.3 million in our common stock at $16.26 per share. In 2023, we achieved a milestone pursuant to the Vertex Agreement related to preclinical IND-enabling Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”) toxicology studies of VX-670 that triggered a $17.5 million milestone payment. In 2024, we achieved a milestone related to the clinical advancement of VX-670, which triggered a $75.0 million payment.

Vertex continues to enroll and dose the MAD portion of the global Phase 1/2 clinical trial of VX-670 in people living with DM1, which will assess both safety and efficacy (splice correction). Vertex has announced that they are on track to complete enrollment and dosing in the trial in mid- 2026.

Beyond Neuromuscular Disease

Ocular Disease

High unmet need continues to exist across a wide range of ocular diseases including macular dystrophies, photoreceptor diseases, optic neuropathies, among others. Many of these are of genetic origin and potentially addressable via RNA based therapeutics including exon skipping approaches. Despite the benefits of both local delivery and immune privilege many of these diseases have proven to be difficult to treat, as evidenced by a number of clinical failures. The retina is a complex structure consisting of multiple layers of tissue and a range of different cell types. A consistent challenge for developers has been the distribution and uptake of therapeutic candidates broadly, throughout the various layers and cell types across the retina.

The Company has advanced one ocular program through candidate nomination and a second ocular program into lead optimization for the potential treatment of inherited retinal diseases. Both programs are novel oligonucleotide-based therapeutics with the potential to address areas of high unmet need. In December 2025, Entrada announced its first ocular clinical candidate, ENTR-801, for the potential treatment of Usher syndrome type 2A (“USH2A”). The Company plans to announce a second clinical candidate in ocular diseases in the second half of 2026 and continues to explore novel targets to address both rare and more common retinal conditions. From a strategic point of view, progress in a new therapeutic area enables portfolio diversification in the form of tissue type, route of administration and regulatory pathway. At the same time, however, as in our neuromuscular franchise, initial targets are selected based on well-understood biology, significant unmet need, translational clarity and the potential to differentiate based on our proprietary technologies and capabilities.

ENTR-801

The Company’s first ocular candidate is an optimized, proprietary oligonucleotide-based therapy for the potential treatment of a subgroup of patients with USH2A, who are amenable to exon 13 skipping. The clinical candidate was designed to restore functional usherin protein production with the goal of preserving photoreceptors (the light-sensing cells in the eye) to stabilize the overall retinal architecture and preserve function. ENTR-801 was selected from a library of 200 sequences based on its robust exon skipping and usherin protein production, as well as initial safety in multiple animal models.

of Usher syndrome and very few in clinical development. In the U.S. and Europe, we estimate that approximately 14,000-15,000 people are living with USH2A who may be amenable to exon 13 skipping.

The data package to support candidate selection is robust and includes what we believe to be best in class exon skipping data in human retinal explants, and iPSC derived retinal organoids. This in vitro and ex vivo data was further complemented by in vivo data in mice, rabbits and non-human primates. Rabbit was established as the most sensitive species, which is typical for retinal diseases, and in this case ENTR-801 was well-tolerated based on in-life observations and confirmed by histopathology.

Following a single injection, ENTR-801 achieved the prespecified target engagement goal of ≥ 25% and usherin protein production lasting 90 days in humanized USH2A mice as a single IVT dose of ENTR-801 has been observed to achieve the exon skipping target that is expected to be clinically relevant. Protein generation is measurable for at least 90 days, suggesting the potential for dosing every 2-3 months.

We expect to announce a second clinical candidate in ocular diseases in the second half of 2026 for which we also anticipate initiating IND-enabling studies and will announce clinical strategies in 2026. We continue to believe that the robust supporting data and ongoing progress of our growing portfolio of clinical and preclinical candidates has the potential to make a significant difference in the lives of patients.

Additional Preclinical Development and Discovery Programs

We have leveraged the modularity of our EEV Platform to develop opportunities as diverse as EEV-lipid nanoparticle (“EEV-LNP”) enabled CRISPR-Cas delivery for gene editing, EEV-LNP based delivery of mRNA, antibody and peptide drug conjugates, therapeutic opportunities for central nervous system (“CNS”) and peripheral nervous system (“PNS”) disorders, conjugates for enhanced therapeutic effect in immunology, metabolic disease and oncology. We regularly explore strategic opportunities to develop potential therapies for patients with devastating diseases.

Enzyme/protein related programs: EEV peptides can be linked to an enzyme critical to maintaining specific steps in a cell’s metabolic processes. Patients lacking a given enzyme will fail to produce proteins needed to maintain the viability of cells in the body or will suffer a buildup of toxic byproducts, either of which can result in disease and potentially death. We have generated a number of EEV-enzyme conjugates, including PTI-501 for MNGIE, a fatal mitochondrial disease, for which we have completed IND-enabling studies and licensed to Pierrepont Therapeutics, Inc. in 2023. NHP pharmacokinetic and acute and chronic toxicology studies indicated both a long circulating half-life and a favorable tolerability profile, which may serve as a foundation upon which our ERT programs can later build.

Ultimately, we believe that achieving a significant increase in intracellular target exposure has the potential to translate into substantial improvements to the efficacy, safety, tolerability, manufacturability and cost of future medicines.

Our Strategy

We aim to transform the lives of patients and become the world’s foremost intracellular therapeutics company. To achieve this, the key pillars of our strategy include:

•Rapidly advance therapeutic candidates into and through clinical development in patients with neuromuscular disease. Our DMD franchise is comprised of exon-skipping EEV-PMO candidates, ENTR-601-44, -45, -50 and -51, that aim to restore functional dystrophin production. Our four-year research and development collaboration with Vertex includes both the ongoing clinical development of VX-670 for patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 and research into new EEV-based candidates.

•Leverage our growing capabilities in genetic medicine and protein design to advance a broad development portfolio of therapeutic candidates across multiple devastating diseases. We believe our expanded capabilities can enable us to advance therapeutic candidates for the treatment of additional neuromuscular and non-neuromuscular diseases, beginning with the development of ENTR-801 and the selection of a second candidate in ocular disease, for which the biophysical properties, therapeutic approaches, and development strategies involve regulating gene and protein expression. We are experimenting with combinations of different platform elements to enhance the therapeutic index and half-life of potential candidates and to enable new mechanisms of action.

•Selectively evaluate strategic partnerships to maximize the therapeutic potential of our platform and programs. We aim to improve patients’ lives and plan to enable strategic partnerships with the goal of expanding our therapeutic footprint, and to accelerate the development of certain programs.

Our Team and Culture

Entrada was founded based on exciting science that has the potential to transform the treatment of serious diseases. We are a dedicated team of experts and leaders in both disease biology and therapeutic development, working with urgency to make positive differences in the lives of patients and their families. We have a shared passion for involving patients and caregivers so that we may better understand the patient experience in order to develop therapies that more effectively reflect their perspectives and priorities.

Our management team brings a depth of experience and knowledge base in research, drug discovery and development and commercialization. The team is led by Dipal Doshi, our Chief Executive Officer, who brings over 20 years of leadership experience within life sciences companies; Nathan Dowden, our President and Chief Operating Officer,

who has three decades of experience leading corporate strategy, portfolio management, business planning and operations; Natarajan Sethuraman, Ph.D., our President of Research and Development, who is an expert in large molecule therapeutic development and delivery platforms with over 30 years of experience across pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies; Kory Wentworth, our Chief Financial Officer, who has over 20 years of global biopharmaceutical and public accounting experience, and our General Counsel, Jared Cohen Ph.D., J.D., who has 20 years of both external and in-house experience at a range of mature and early stage biopharmaceutical companies. Our leadership team also includes Karla MacDonald, our Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Kerry Robert, M.S., our Senior Vice President, People, who has 15 years of experience building leading talent organizations in biotechnology and technology companies, and Kevin Healy, Ph.D., our Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, who has extensive expertise in the development and commercialization of therapies for serious and rare diseases and has led or participated in more than 30 formal meetings with the FDA, EMA, and other global health authorities.

As of February 19, 2026, our organization was comprised of 152 talented individuals with significant experience across discovery, preclinical research, manufacturing, clinical development and operations. We are supported by leading scientific and clinical experts in the fields of peptide chemistry, oligonucleotide and protein optimization, disease specific pathophysiology and clinical development.

Competition

The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries generally, and the neuromuscular disease field specifically, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, the expertise of our team, and our development experience and scientific knowledge in the field of muscle diseases, oligonucleotide therapeutics and manufacturing provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any therapeutic candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Currently, patients with DMD are treated with corticosteroids to manage the inflammatory component of the disease. EMFLAZA (deflazacort) is an FDA-approved corticosteroid marketed by PTC Therapeutics, Inc. (“PTC”) and AGAMREE (vamorolone) is a novel alternative steroid marketed by Catalyst Pharmaceuticals. Duvyzat (givinostat) is an oral medication marketed by ITF Therapeutics for patients six years of age and older. Duvyzat is a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor that works by targeting pathogenic processes to reduce inflammation and loss of muscle. There are four FDA-approved exon skipping drugs: EXONDYS 51 (eteplirsen), VYONDYS 53 (golodirsen), and AMONDYS 45 (casimersen), which are PMOs approved for the treatment of patients with DMD who are amenable to exon 51, exon 53 and exon 45 skipping, respectively, and are marketed by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sarepta”), and VILTEPSO (vitolarsen), a PMO approved for the treatment of patients with DMD who are amenable to exon 53 skipping, which is marketed by Nippon Shinyaku Co. Ltd (“Nippon”). Sarepta also markets Elevidys (delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl), a gene therapy for the treatment of DMD for ambulatory individuals 4 years of age and older.

Companies focused on developing treatments for DMD that target dystrophin mechanisms, as does our DMD program, include Nippon, which is in a Phase 2 clinical trial for patients amenable to exon 44 skipping in Japan, PTC with ataluren, a small molecule targeting nonsense mutations in a Phase 3 clinical trial, Avidity Biosciences, Inc. (“Avidity”), which was recently purchased by Novartis (close anticipated in Q1 2026) is in a Phase 2 clinical trial with antibody oligonucleotide conjugates for exon 44 ("del-zota"), and has similar programs for patients amenable to exon 45, and exon 51 skipping in preclinical development, Wave Life Sciences Ltd., which is clinically evaluating WVE-N531, a splicing clinical candidate that is designed to target exon 53 within the dystrophin gene, Dyne Therapeutics, Inc. (“Dyne”), which is pursuing antibody fragment-oligonucleotide conjugates for exons 44, 45, 51 (clinical candidate DYNE-251), and 53, and BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., which is in clinical development with BMN 351, an antisense oligonucleotide therapy for exon 51. In addition, several companies are developing gene therapies to treat DMD, including Solid Biosciences Inc. (SGT-003), and REGENXBIO (RGX-202). We are also aware of several companies targeting gene editing and non-dystrophin mechanisms for the treatment of DMD.

We expect to face competition alongside our partner from existing products and products in development for each of our therapeutic candidates. There are currently no approved therapies to treat the underlying cause of DM1. Therapeutic candidates currently in development to treat DM1 include: tideglusib, a GSK3-ß inhibitor in late-stage clinical development by AMO Pharma Ltd. for the congenital phenotype of DM1; "Del-desiran", an antibody linked siRNA in clinical development by Avidity; Zeleciment Basivarsen, an antibody fragment conjugated to an ASO targeting DM1 protein kinase knockdown in clinical development by Dyne; EDODM1, a linear peptide conjugated to a PMO targeting CUG

repeats in clinical development by PepGen, Inc.; a small molecule targeting GTG repeats in preclinical development by Design Therapeutics, Inc.; and small molecules interacting with RNA in preclinical development by Expansion Therapeutics, Inc.

We also expect to face competition from several products in clinical and preclinical development for Usher syndrome. The most advanced is ultevursen, which is an exon 13 skipping PMO in Phase 2b development from Sepul Bio., a business unit of Laboratories Théa. Nacuity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has completed a Phase 1/2 clinical trial with NPI-001, which is a small molecule which targets oxidative stress. Reforgene has cleared an IND for RM-101, which is a subretinal injection mini-gene AAV-snRNA targeting exon 13 skipping. There are also ASO and mini-gene approaches reported in discovery from several companies.

Many of our competitors, either independently or with strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we are in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approval for treatments and achieving widespread market acceptance. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our commercial potential could be substantially limited if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, safer, less toxic, more convenient or less expensive than any products we may develop. In geographies that are critical to our commercial success, competitors may also obtain regulatory approvals before us, resulting in our competitors building a strong market position in advance of the entry of our products. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payers seeking to encourage the use of other drugs. The key competitive factors affecting the success of any products we may develop are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price and availability of reimbursement.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms, program candidates, therapeutic candidates and components thereof, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture that we believe are important to our business, including by obtaining, maintaining, defending and enforcing patent and other intellectual property rights for the foregoing in the U.S. and in foreign jurisdictions. We also rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our confidential information and know-how and other aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Our future commercial success depends in part on our ability to:

•obtain, maintain, enforce and defend patent and other intellectual property rights for our important technology, inventions and know-how; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and other confidential information;

•obtain and maintain licenses to use and exploit intellectual property owned or controlled by third parties;

•operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating any valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties; and

•defend against challenges and assertions by third parties challenging the validity or enforceability of our intellectual property rights, or our rights in our intellectual property, or asserting that the operation of our business infringes, misappropriates or otherwise violates their intellectual property rights.

Our portfolio consists of owned and exclusively licensed patents and applications. As of February 19, 2026, there are 81 distinct patent families (45 families with non-provisional applications and 36 families with pending provisional applications) covering compositions of matter, manufacturing and uses related to our business. Among these patent families, we have 266 pending applications (including PCT, provisional and non-provisional applications) in the U.S. and Europe, as well as other countries of strategic value; and 88 granted patents in the U.S., Europe, China, India, Japan, and Hong Kong (including a total of 45 member state validations of three European patents). Of these pending applications and granted patents, the licensed patent applications are pending in U.S., Europe, China, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan; and licensed patents are granted in the U.S., Europe, China, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.

Our owned and licensed patent estate covers various aspects of our programs and technology, including various embodiments of our EEV Platform; proprietary enzyme, peptide, oligonucleotide and CRISPR conjugates; methods of treatment; and aspects of manufacturing. The portfolio includes patents covering certain embodiments of the EEV Platform that don’t relate to our lead therapeutic candidates with granted patents in the U.S. (3), India, Japan, China, Hong Kong and Europe (including 37 European validation states). We also have a granted patent in Russia for ENTR-601-44 and a granted patent in Russia covering ENTR-601-45. The extent to which any other patents, if and when granted, will cover our therapeutic candidates is uncertain. Any U.S. or foreign patents issued from national stage filings of our PCT patent applications and any U.S. patents issued from non-provisional applications we have filed or may file in connection with our provisional patent applications would be scheduled to expire on various dates from 2036 through 2045, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity and other governmental fees.

Patent Prosecution

A PCT patent application is not eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we file one or more national stage patent applications in the jurisdictions in which we seek patent protection and do so within prescribed timelines of the PCT patent application’s priority date. These prescribed timelines are generally 30 months, 31 months or 32 months, depending on the jurisdiction. If we do not timely file any national stage patent applications, we may lose our priority date and any potential patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such PCT patent application.

Moreover, a provisional patent application is not eligible to become an issued patent. A provisional patent application may serve as a priority filing for a non-provisional patent application we file within 12 months of such provisional patent application. If we do not timely file non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our existing provisional patent applications and any potential patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications.

While we intend to timely file additional provisional patent applications, as well as national stage and non-provisional patent applications relating to our provisional applications or PCT patent applications, we cannot predict whether any of our patent applications will result in the issuance of patents. If we do not successfully obtain patent protection, or if the scope of the patent protection we or our licensors obtain with respect to our therapeutic candidates or technology is insufficient, we will be unable to use patent protection to prevent others from using our technology or from developing or commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours or other similar competing products and technologies. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing or otherwise commercializing any of our technology, inventions and improvements, either directly or indirectly, will depend in part on our success in obtaining, maintaining, defending and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions and improvements.

The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. The protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of patent term adjustments and regulatory-related patent term extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular jurisdiction, and the validity and enforceability of the patent. Patent laws and related enforcement in various jurisdictions outside of the U.S. are uncertain and may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. Changes in the patent laws and rules, whether by legislation, judicial decisions or regulatory interpretation, in the U.S. and other jurisdictions may have uncertain affects that could improve or diminish our ability to protect our inventions and obtain, maintain, defend and enforce our patent rights, and could therefore affect the value of our business in uncertain ways.

The area of patent and other intellectual property rights in biotechnology is evolving and has many risks and uncertainties, and third parties may have blocking patents and other intellectual property that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our platform and therapeutic candidates and practicing our proprietary technology. Our patent rights may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, invalidated or ruled unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop third parties from marketing and commercializing related platforms or therapeutic candidates or limit the term of patents that cover our platform and any therapeutic candidates. In addition, the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with protection or competitive advantages against third parties with similar technology, and third parties may independently develop similar technologies.

Moreover, because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that before any of our therapeutic candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any competitive advantage provided

by the patent. For more information on this and other risks related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms and therapeutic candidates and intellectual property rights related to the foregoing, please see the section titled “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Patent Term

The term of individual patents depends upon the laws of the jurisdictions in which they are obtained. In most jurisdictions in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the filing date of a PCT patent application or, if a PCT application is not filed, the earliest date of filing of the first non-provisional patent application to which the patent claims priority. However, the term of U.S. patents may be extended or adjusted for delays incurred due to compliance with FDA requirements or by delays encountered during prosecution that are caused by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). For example, in the U.S., a patent claiming a new chemical entity or biologic product, its method of use or its method of manufacture may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”) for up to five years beyond the normal expiration date of the patent. Patent term extension cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date in the U.S. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought and within 60 days of FDA approval of the product. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. During the period of extension, if granted, the scope of exclusivity is limited to the approved product for approved uses. Some foreign jurisdictions, including Europe and Japan, have analogous patent term extension provisions, which allow for extension of the term of a patent that covers a drug approved by the applicable foreign regulatory agency. In the future, if and when any therapeutic candidates we may develop receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those therapeutic candidates. Moreover, we intend to seek patent term adjustments and extensions for any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where such adjustments and extensions are available. However, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the USPTO and the FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such adjustments and extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such adjustments and extensions.

Trade Secrets

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trade secrets, know-how, unpatented technology and other proprietary information to strengthen our competitive position. We currently, and may continue in the future continue to, rely on third parties to assist us in developing and manufacturing our products. Accordingly, we must, at times, share trade secrets, know-how, unpatented technology and other proprietary information, including those related to our platform, with them. We may in the future also enter into research and development collaborations with third parties that may require us to share trade secrets, know-how, unpatented technology and other proprietary information under the terms of research and development partnerships or similar agreements. Nonetheless, we take steps to protect and preserve our trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information and prevent the unauthorized disclosure of the foregoing, including by entering into non-disclosure and invention assignment agreements with parties who have access to our trade secrets or other confidential and proprietary information, such as employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, contract research and manufacturing organizations, sponsored researchers and other advisors, at the commencement of their employment, consulting or other relationships with us. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, to guard against any misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information by third parties.

Despite these efforts, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary information. In addition, we cannot provide any assurances that all of the foregoing non-disclosure and invention assignment agreements have been duly executed, and any of the counterparties to such agreements may breach them and disclose our trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information. Although we have confidence in the measures we take to protect and preserve our trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information, they may be inadequate, our agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for such breaches. Moreover, to the extent that our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators and advisors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to our rights in any know-how or inventions arising out of such work. For more information, please see the section titled “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

License Agreement with The Ohio State University

On May 12, 2017, we entered into an option agreement with Ohio State Innovation Foundation (“OSIF”), an affiliate of The Ohio State University (“OSU”) responsible for the commercialization of technology developed at or created by or for OSU, in which the Company obtained an option (“OSIF Option Agreement”) to license all patents and patent applications involving technologies using cell-penetrating peptides arising out of or related to specified invention disclosures or through a sponsored research agreement executed with OSU on the same date (“OSU SRA”). On September 26, 2018, we exercised our option pursuant to the terms of the OSIF Option Agreement, and on December 14, 2018, we entered into a license agreement (“OSIF License Agreement”) for an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license under these patents and patent rights, and a non-exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license under certain related know-how, to develop, commercialize or otherwise exploit products based on these cell-penetrating technologies for the treatment, prevention and diagnosis of any and all diseases or conditions. In addition, the OSIF License Agreement grants a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid, royalty-free, sublicensable, exclusive license to any rights held by OSIF, OSU or its affiliates covering specifically identified cell-penetrating platform technology.

The term of the OSIF License Agreement will continue until the later of (a) the expiration of the last to expire of the exclusively licensed patent rights, or (b) the end of our obligation to pay royalties under the OSIF License Agreement. Such obligation ends, on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis, on the later of (1) expiration of the last to expire of the valid claims of the exclusively licensed patent rights covering such licensed product in such country, or (2) ten (10) years after the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country. The last to expire exclusively licensed patent rights and valid claim of such exclusively licensed patent rights are estimated to expire by 2042, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions. Upon expiration of the OSIF License Agreement at the end of the royalty term, the Company will maintain all license rights as a perpetual and fully paid-up license. Both parties have the right to terminate under certain enumerated circumstances. At our option, we may terminate the OSIF License Agreement for any reason with ninety (90) days’ written notice, or if OSIF is in material breach, after providing thirty (30) days’ notice of termination. OSIF may terminate the agreement at its option immediately upon delivery of written notice if any specified events occur, including failure by the Company to make payments due under the agreement and if the Company is in material breach, in each case pursuant to specified cure periods.

We have typical diligence obligations under the OSIF License Agreement, including the obligation to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize at least one licensed product. We may also be obligated to pay aggregate milestone payments of up to $7,950,000, tiered royalties on sales at low single digit percentages, a license maintenance fee of $25,000 per year beginning in 2021 and continuing until the first year in which commercial sales of a licensed product pursuant to the agreement commence. After such commercialization, we are required to make minimum annual payments of $125,000. In addition, in the event of a sublicense, under certain circumstances we may be required to pay up to 15% of non-royalty sublicensing consideration.

Commercialization

Excluding PTI-501 and VX-670, we intend to retain significant development and commercial rights to our potential therapeutic candidates and, if marketing approval is obtained, to commercialize our therapeutic candidates on our own, or potentially with a partner, in the U.S. and other regions. We currently have no sales, marketing, or commercial product distribution capabilities. We intend to build the necessary infrastructure and capabilities over time for the U.S., and potentially other regions, following further advancement of our therapeutic candidates. We believe that such a focused sales and marketing organization will be able to address the key specialists in treating the patient populations for which our therapeutic candidates are being developed. Clinical data, the size of the addressable patient population, and the size of the commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs may all influence or alter our commercialization plans. The responsibilities of the marketing organization would include developing educational initiatives with respect to approved products and establishing relationships with researchers and practitioners in relevant fields of medicine.

Manufacturing and Supply

We do not own or operate our own manufacturing facilities. We currently rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”), and suppliers for EEV peptides, including linkers, and nucleotides that comprise ENTR-601-44, ENTR 601-45, ENTR-601-50, ENTR-601-51, ENTR-801, VX-670, our other potential therapeutic candidates, and the conjugation of these components, and we expect to continue to do so to support our IND-enabling studies and our clinical trials and commercial activities. However, we may seek to establish our own manufacturing facility for IND-enabling studies, clinical studies and long-term commercial supply. As we scale manufacturing, we intend to continue to expand and strengthen our network of CMOs. We believe there are multiple sources for all of the materials required for the manufacture of our therapeutic candidates, as well as multiple CMOs who could assemble the aforementioned components that comprise our potential therapeutic candidates.

Manufacturing is subject to extensive regulations that impose procedural and documentation requirements. These regulations govern record keeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance. Our CMOs are required to comply with these regulations and are assessed through regular monitoring and formal audits. Our third-party manufacturers are required to manufacture any therapeutic candidates we develop under current Good Manufacturing Practice (“CGMP”), requirements and other applicable laws and regulations.

We have personnel with extensive technical, manufacturing, analytical and quality experience to oversee all contracted manufacturing and testing activities.

Government Regulation

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

Licensure and Regulation of Drugs and Biologics in the U.S.

In the U.S., where we are initially focusing our product development, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and biologics under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”), and their implementing regulations. Both drugs and biologics are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Our therapeutic candidates are early-stage and have not been approved by the FDA for marketing in the U.S. Based on our novel therapeutic approach and the broad potential applicability of our EEV Platform to deliver a variety of therapeutic modalities into cells, we are developing therapeutic candidates that would be regulated under the FDCA, and/or the PHSA, and their implementing regulations, as drugs or biologics, depending on the modality of each product candidate. The failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, including preclinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process, or post-approval process, may subject an applicant to delays in the conduct of the study, regulatory review and approval and/or administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the FDA’s refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical testing, refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension, or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, warning letters, adverse publicity, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines and civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA or the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and other governmental entities, including state agencies.

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug or biologic in the U.S. generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps: preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies all performed in accordance with the FDA’s Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”) regulations, as applicable; completion of the manufacture, under CGMP conditions, of the drug substance and drug product that the sponsor intends to use in human clinical trials along with required analytical and stability testing; submission to the FDA of an IND, for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; approval by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”), representing each clinical trial site before each clinical trial site may be initiated; performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials, in accordance with current Good Clinical Practices (“GCP”), and any additional nonclinical studies required to establish the safety, efficacy, potency and purity of the product candidate for each

proposed indication; preparation and submission to the FDA of a new drug application (“NDA”), or a Biologics License Application (“BLA”), for a biologic product, requesting marketing for one or more proposed indications, including submission of detailed information on the manufacture and composition of the product in clinical development and proposed labelling; review of the product by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable; satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities, including those of third parties, at which the product, or components thereof, are produced to assess compliance with CGMP and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity; satisfactory completion of any FDA audits of the preclinical studies and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GLP, as applicable, and GCP, and the integrity of clinical data in support of the NDA or BLA; payment of user fees under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”); securing FDA approval of the NDA or BLA; and compliance with any post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), and any post-approval studies or other post-marketing commitments required by the FDA.

Preclinical Studies and IND Application

Before testing any therapeutic product candidate in humans, the product candidate must undergo preclinical testing. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate the potential for efficacy and toxicity in animal studies. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application.

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in a clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the product or conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns before the clinical trials can begin or recommence.

As a result, submission of the IND may result in the FDA not allowing the trials to commence or allowing the trial to commence on the terms originally specified by the sponsor in the IND. If the FDA raises concerns or questions either during this initial 30-day period, or at any time during the IND review process, it may choose to impose a partial or complete clinical hold. Clinical holds may be imposed by the FDA when there is concern for patient safety, and may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical, preclinical and/or chemistry, manufacturing and controls or where there is non-compliance with regulatory requirements. This order issued by the FDA would delay either a proposed clinical trial or cause suspension of an ongoing trial, until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed and the FDA has notified the company that investigations may proceed. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during drug development, and the FDA must grant permission, either explicitly or implicitly by not objecting, before each clinical trial can begin.

Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA or BLA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients with the disease or condition to be treated under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical trials. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign trials are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for clinical trials in the U.S.

Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB (or foreign equivalent, such as an independent ethics committee) either centrally or individually at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. The IRB will consider, among other things, clinical trial design, patient informed consent, ethical factors, the safety of human subjects, and the possible liability of the institution. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. The FDA, IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a finding that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with GCP requirements or that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP rules and the requirements for informed consent.

Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board (“DSMB”), or data monitoring committee (“DMC”). This group may recommend continuation of the trial as planned, changes in trial conduct, or cessation of the trial at designated check points based on certain available data from the trial to which only the DSMB/DMC has access. Finally, certain clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules may be subject to review and approval of an Institutional Biosafety Committee (“IBC”), in accordance with NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (“NIH Guidelines”). An IBC is a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding for recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may be required after approval.

•Phase 1 clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population to test the product candidate for safety, including adverse effects, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and pharmacodynamics in healthy subjects or patients.

•Phase 2 clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials.

•Phase 3 clinical trials typically proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are generally undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a therapeutic.

In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA or BLA for a product but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and to document a clinical benefit for products approved under accelerated approval regulations. If the FDA approves a product while a company has ongoing clinical trials that were not necessary for approval, a company may be able to use the data from these clinical trials to meet all or part of any Phase 4 clinical trial requirement or to request a change in the product labeling. The failure to exercise due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

Information about applicable clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (“PREA”), an NDA, BLA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDCA requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a product

that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“PSP”), within sixty days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The sponsor and the FDA must reach agreement on the PSP. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational products for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or treatment IND application.

Expanded access may be appropriate when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; patient enrollment in a clinical trial is not possible; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere with initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product. There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, as required by the 21st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”), a sponsor must make its policy regarding evaluating and responding to expanded access requests publicly available.

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

Compliance with CGMP Requirements

Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with CGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products like biologics whose attributes cannot be precisely defined.

Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs and biologics, and those supplying products, ingredients, and components of them, must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Both domestic and foreign manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Any product manufactured by or imported from a facility that has not registered, whether foreign or domestic, is deemed misbranded under the FDCA. Establishments may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with CGMPs and other laws. Noncompliance with such requirements can lead to adverse findings by the FDA during these inspections; in instances of significant or continued noncompliance, such adverse findings can serve as the basis for additional regulatory action by the FDA, including but not limited to warning and “untitled” letters.

Review and Approval of an NDA or BLA

The results of product candidate development, preclinical testing and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product. The NDA or BLA must contain extensive manufacturing information and detailed information on the composition of the product and proposed labeling as well as payment of a user fee. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs and BLAs are subject to an application user fee. The sponsor of an approved NDA or BLA is also subject to an annual program fee. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.

The FDA has 60 days after submission of the application to conduct an initial review to determine whether to accept it for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission has been accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the application. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months for a priority review of the application. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs and BLAs. The review process may be significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or if the applicant otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

The FDA reviews an NDA or BLA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity. On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities and any FDA audits of preclinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. If the application is not approved, the FDA will issue a complete response letter, which will contain the conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the application, and when possible, will outline recommended actions the sponsor might take to obtain approval of the application. Sponsors that receive a complete response letter have one year to submit to the FDA information that represents a complete response to the issues identified by the FDA. The FDA will then re-review the application, taking into consideration the response. Failure to respond to a complete response letter will serve as a withdrawal of an application. The FDA will not approve an application until issues identified in any complete response letters have been addressed.

The FDA may also refer the application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. In particular, the FDA may refer applications for novel products or products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee.

Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indication(s) for use of the product. It may also require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, the FDA may call for post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, to further assess the product’s efficacy and/or safety after approval. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including a REMS program, to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals and elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and Priority Review

The FDA provides programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new products that are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are referred to as fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, and priority review designation. These designations are not mutually exclusive, and a product candidate may qualify for one or more of these programs. While these programs are intended to expedite product development and approval, they do not alter the standards for FDA approval.

The FDA may designate a product for fast track designation if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For products with fast track designation, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA, the product is potentially eligible for accelerated approval and priority review, if relevant criteria are met, and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a product with fast track designation application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a product with fast track designation may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a fast track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the fast track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving senior managers in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner. Breakthrough designation may be rescinded if a product no longer meets the qualifying criteria.

The FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting adverse reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months. Priority review designation may be rescinded if a product no longer meets the qualifying criteria.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval where the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate clinical benefit of a product. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long, and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”) the FDA is permitted to require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product granted accelerated approval. Sponsors are also required to send updates to the FDA every 180 days on the status of such studies, including progress toward enrollment targets, and the FDA must promptly post this information publicly. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the sponsor fails to conduct such studies in a timely manner and send the necessary updates to the FDA, or if a confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period.

Orphan Drug Designation

Orphan drug designation in the U.S. is designed to encourage sponsors to develop products intended for treatment of rare diseases or conditions. In the U.S., a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. or that affects 200,000 or more individuals in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the biologic for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the U.S.

Orphan drug designation qualifies a company for tax credits and market exclusivity for seven years following the date of the product’s marketing approval if granted by the FDA. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the product must then go through the review and approval process like any other product.

A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first drug. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation.

If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. If a product designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

The period of exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA and applies only to the indication for which the product has been designated. The FDA may approve a second application for the same product for a different use or a second application for a clinically superior version of the product for the same use. The FDA cannot, however, approve the same product made by another manufacturer for the same indication during the market exclusivity period unless it has the consent of the sponsor, or the sponsor is unable to provide sufficient quantities.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the U.S. and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including orphan exclusivity, for all formulations, dosage forms, and indications of the active moiety and, for drugs, patent terms. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA or BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that in accordance with an FDA-issued written request from the FDA for such data, provided that at the time pediatric exclusivity is granted there is not less than nine months of term remaining. The data do not need to show the product to be 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 that cover the product are extended by six months.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Extension and Marketing Exclusivity

In the U.S., a patent claiming a new biologic product, its method of use or its method of manufacture may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent extension of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. Assuming grant of the patent for which the extension is sought, the restoration period for a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the IND and the submission date of the NDA or BLA, plus the time between the submission date of the NDA or BLA and the ultimate approval date, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date in the U.S. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension in consultation with the FDA.

Marketing exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”), which was signed into law in March 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”). The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. A biosimilar is a biological product that is highly similar to an existing FDA-licensed “reference product.” The FDA has issued multiple guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars. Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity and potency. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and (for products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of approval of the reference product. The FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law. Since the passage of the BPCIA, many states have passed laws or amendments to laws, including laws governing pharmacy practices, which are state regulated, to regulate the use of biosimilars.

Post-Approval Regulation

If regulatory approval for marketing of a product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post-approval regulatory requirements as well as any post-approval requirements that the FDA have imposed as part of the approval process. The sponsor will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information, and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including CGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers, and applicable product tracking and tracing requirements. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with CGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.

A biological product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official lot release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products.

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

•restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product;

•complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;

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

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

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

•injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses or patient populations that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information (known as “off-label” use). In the U.S., healthcare professionals are generally permitted to prescribe drugs for such off-label uses because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose rigorous restrictions on manufacturers’ communications, prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

If a company, including any agent of the company or anyone speaking on behalf of the company, is found to have promoted off-label uses, the company may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the DOJ, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against

companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced, passed in Congress and signed into law that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing, and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations, guidance, and policies are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect the manner in which pharmaceutical products are regulated and marketed.

Federal and State Data Privacy and Security Laws

Under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information (“PHI”), used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 or HITECH, and their regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that are applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal administrative, civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Accordingly, state attorneys general have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.

Additionally, California and numerous other states have recently enacted, or have proposed enacting, comprehensive consumer privacy laws that grant rights to data subjects and place increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. These laws mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the U.S. and may increase our potential liability as well as adversely affect our business.

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

Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of Medicinal Products Outside the U.S.

In order to market any product outside of the U.S., a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, an applicant will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. For example, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the EU generally follows the same lines as in the U.S. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the EU.

Clinical Trial Approval

In April 2014, the EU adopted the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which came into effect on January 31, 2022 and repealed the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The Clinical Trials Regulation overhauled the previous system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the Clinical Trials Regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point through the Clinical Trials Information System (“CTIS”); a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts (Part I contains scientific and medicinal product documentation and Part II contains the national and patient-level documentation). Part I is assessed by a coordinated review by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned) of a draft report prepared by a reporting Member State. Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure continues to be governed by the national law of the applicable EU Member State, however, overall related timelines are defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation. Parties conducting clinical trials in the EU must, as in the U.S., make publicly available certain clinical trial information through CTIS.

PRIME Designation in the EU

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of therapeutic candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority MEdicines (“PRIME”) scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Eligible products must target conditions for which there is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EU or, if there is, the new medicine will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods of therapy or improving existing ones. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of therapeutic candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and the possibility of accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated EMA contact and a rapporteur from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) or the Committee for Advanced Therapies (“CAT”), as applicable, are appointed early in the PRIME scheme, facilitating increased understanding of the product at the EMA’s committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies. Where, during the course of development, a medicine no longer meets the eligibility criteria, support under the PRIME scheme may be withdrawn.

Marketing Authorization

To obtain a marketing authorization for a product under the EU regulatory system, an applicant must submit an MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the EU Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the EU. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the EU, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”), covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, class waiver or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The Paediatric Committee of the EMA (“PDCO”), may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine for children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine for children is not needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. Products that are granted a marketing authorization with the results of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP (even where such results are negative) may be eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all EU Member States and in the additional countries of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) (i.e.

Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products (gene therapy, somatic cell therapy and tissue-engineered medicines) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU.

Under the centralized procedure in the EU, the CHMP established at the EMA is responsible for conducting an initial assessment of a product. The maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, the EMA provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, which makes the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation. Accelerated evaluation may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the viewpoint of public health and, in particular, of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EEA, this national marketing authorization can be recognized in other Member States through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national marketing authorization in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the decentralized procedure.

Regulatory Data Protection in the EU

In the EU, innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete and independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC. Data exclusivity prevents applicants for authorization of generics or biosimilars of these innovative products from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic (abbreviated) or biosimilar authorization for a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted and authorized, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete and independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provide that a product can be designated as an orphan medicinal product by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the EU when the application is made, or (2) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the EU and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the EU would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment in its development. For either of these conditions, the applicant must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the EU or, if such method exists, the drug product would be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

An orphan designation provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance and access to the centralized procedure for marketing authorization. Marketing authorization for an orphan medicinal product leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity being granted following marketing authorization of the orphan medicinal product.

During this market exclusivity period, the EMA, the European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU Member States may only grant a marketing authorization to a “similar medicinal product” for the same therapeutic indication if: (i) a second applicant can establish that its product, although similar to the authorized orphan product, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the marketing authorization holder for the authorized orphan product consents to a second medicinal product application; or (iii) the marketing authorization holder for the authorized orphan product cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation because, for example, the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

Patent Term Extensions in the EU and Other Jurisdictions

Patent term extensions through supplementary protection certificates (“SPCs”) are available in the EU. The rules and requirements for obtaining a SPC are similar to those in the U.S. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of market exclusivity for a product. In certain circumstances, these periods may be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained (see “Marketing Authorization” above). Although SPCs are available throughout the EU, sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the EU.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

A marketing authorization has an initial validity for five years, in principle, and it may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA (for a centrally authorized product) or by the competent authority of the authorizing EU Member State (for a nationally authorized product). To that end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least nine months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the applicable Member State competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal period. Any authorization that is not followed by the placement of the product on the EU market (for a centrally authorized product) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State (for a nationally authorized product) within three years after authorization, or if the product is removed from the market for three consecutive years, ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Regulatory Requirements After Marketing Authorization

Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product, and must adhere in strict compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive (EU) 2017/1572, and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. These include compliance with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed. In addition, the manufacturing of authorized products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s GMP requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the EU, which mandate the methods, facilities and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of medicinal products to assure their safety and identity.

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

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

All of the aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA.

Reform of the Regulatory Framework in the EU

The European Commission introduced legislative proposals in April 2023 that, if implemented, will replace the current regulatory framework in the EU for all medicines (including those for rare diseases and for children). In April 2024, the European Parliament adopted its position on the legislative proposals and, in June 2025, the Council of the European Union adopted its position. A common position on the text has been agreed upon on December 11, 2025, in the context of subsequent inter-institutional trilogue negotiations. The proposed revisions remain to be adopted, and are not expected to become applicable before 2028.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the UK

The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020.

Following the end of the Brexit transition period on January 1, 2021 and the implementation of the Windsor Framework on January 1, 2025, the UK is not generally subject to EU laws in respect of medicines. The EU laws that have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation remain applicable in the UK. However, new legislation such as the Clinical Trials Regulation is not applicable in the UK. As of January 1, 2021, the MHRA is the UK's standalone medicines and medical devices regulator. As a result of the Northern Ireland Protocol, different rules applied in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales, and Scotland (together, “Great Britain”) for a period following Brexit, which continued to follow the EU regulatory regime. However, on January 1, 2025 a new arrangement called the “Windsor Framework” came into effect and reintegrated Northern Ireland under the regulatory authority of the MHRA with respect to medicinal products. The Windsor Framework removes EU licensing processes and EU labeling and serialization requirements in relation to Northern Ireland and introduces a UK-wide licensing process for medicines. In particular, the MHRA is now responsible for approving medicinal products placed on the UK market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA no longer has a role in UK marketing authorizations. A single UK-wide marketing authorization will be granted by the MHRA for medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK. In addition, the new arrangements require, for packs placed on the UK market on or after January 1, 2025, a “UK Only” label, indicating they are not for sale in the EU.

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

In addition, once we begin to conduct business in the UK, we will be subject to stringent data protection laws that are in effect in the UK. As of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law, referred to as the UK GDPR. The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the EU’s data protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.

General Data Protection Regulation

Once we begin processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, our activities will be subject to the GDPR. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to ensuring an appropriate legal basis and/or condition applies to the processing of personal data, the processing of sensitive date (such as health data), where required by law obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, conducting data protection impact assessments for high risk processing and taking

certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, including the U.S. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices to ensure full compliance.

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any therapeutic candidates for which we may seek regulatory approval by the FDA or other government authorities. In the U.S. and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payers to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use any therapeutic candidates we may develop unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of such therapeutic candidates. Even if any therapeutic candidates we may develop are approved, sales of such therapeutic candidates will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payers, including government health programs in the U.S. such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, such therapeutic candidates. The process for determining whether a payer will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payer will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payers are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payers may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. For more information, please see the section titled “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Therapeutic Candidates” included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, therapeutic candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payer not to cover any therapeutic candidates we may develop could reduce physician utilization of such therapeutic candidates once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payer’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payer’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payers will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payer to payer. Third-party reimbursement and coverage may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. In addition, any companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to any companion diagnostics.

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

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

In the EU, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so-called health technology assessments) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the EU

provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the EU have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States, and parallel trade (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced Member States), can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products, if approved in those countries.

Healthcare Law and Regulation

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business that may constrain the financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, as well as sell, market and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing authorization. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, and transparency laws and regulations related to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare providers. If our operations are found to be in violation of any such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and responsible individuals may be subject to imprisonment. For more information, please see the section titled “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business Operations and Industry” included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Healthcare Reform

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the U.S. For more information, please see the section titled “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business Operations and Industry” included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payers of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect:

•the demand for any of our product candidates, if approved;

•the ability to set a price that we believe is fair for any of our product candidates, if approved;

•our ability to generate revenues and achieve or maintain profitability;

•the level of taxes that we are required to pay; and

•the availability of capital.

We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare drugs and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates or additional pricing pressures. Individual states in the U.S. have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Human Capital Resources

As of February 19, 2026, we had 152 full-time employees, including a total of 64 employees with doctoral degrees or above. Of these full-time employees, 116 employees are engaged in research and development. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees. The principal purposes of our equity and cash incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel, whether existing employees or new hires, through the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards. We believe that this increases value to our stockholders and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

We have, since our inception, worked to create a high-performing, inclusive and diverse workforce, which is a core element of our operating culture. We have deliberately sought to secure top talent with a diversity of thought, experiences and backgrounds who are committed to making a difference in the lives of patients, their families and caregivers. We believe that, by embracing differences, we have a unique advantage in challenging the status quo to apply innovative thinking to long-existing medical challenges. As of February 19, 2026, our workforce was self-reportedly approximately 60% women and approximately 45% Asian, Hispanic, Latino, Black or African American, and women or minorities made up 50% of our senior leadership, reflecting the workforce we strive to create throughout the company.

As the success of our business is fundamentally connected to the well-being of our employees, we are committed to their health, safety and wellness. We provide our employees and their families with access to convenient health and wellness programs, including benefits that provide protection and security giving them peace of mind concerning events that may require time away from work or that impact their financial well-being; and that offer choices where possible so they can customize their benefits to meet their needs and the needs of their families.

Available Information

We maintain an internet website at www.entradatx.com and make available free of charge through our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including exhibits and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. You can review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. In addition, we regularly use our website to post information regarding our business, product development programs and governance, and we encourage investors to use our website, particularly the information in the section entitled “Investor Relations,” as a source of information about us.

The information that is contained in or can be accessed through our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report and should not be considered to be a part of this Annual Report. Our website address is included in this Annual Report as an inactive technical reference only.

Note Regarding Trademarks

We have applied for various trademarks that we use in connection with the operation of our business. This Annual Report may also contain trademarks, service marks and trade names of third parties, which are the property of their respective owners. Our use or display of third parties’ trademarks, service marks, trade names or products in this Annual Report is not intended to, and does not imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship by us. Solely for convenience, the trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report may appear without the ®, TM or SM symbols, but the omission of such references is not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or that the applicable owner of these trademarks, service marks and trade names will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, its rights.

Entrada Therapeutics, Inc. (TRDA) Business

Item 1. Business

Overview

Table of Contents

Platform

Table of Contents

Lead Neuromuscular Programs

Table of Contents

Our DMD Strategy

Table of Contents

ENTR-601-44

Table of Contents

Healthy Normal Volunteer Trial

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Potential Implications of Healthy Normal Volunteer Results, In the Context of Supporting Non-clinical Data

Table of Contents

ELEVATE-44-201

Table of Contents

ELEVATE-44-102

ENTR-601-45

Table of Contents

ELEVATE-45-201

ENTR-601-50 and ENTR-601-51

ELEVATE-50-201

Table of Contents

VX-670 (Partnered)

Table of Contents

Beyond Neuromuscular Disease

Ocular Disease

ENTR-801

Table of Contents

of Usher syndrome and very few in clinical development. In the U.S. and Europe, we estimate that approximately 14,000-15,000 people are living with USH2A who may be amenable to exon 13 skipping.

Additional Preclinical Development and Discovery Programs

Table of Contents

Our Strategy

Our Team and Culture

Table of Contents

Competition

Table of Contents

Intellectual Property

Table of Contents

Patent Prosecution

Table of Contents

Patent Term

Trade Secrets

Table of Contents

License Agreement with The Ohio State University

Commercialization

Table of Contents

Manufacturing and Supply

Government Regulation

Table of Contents

Preclinical Studies and IND Application

Table of Contents

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may be required after approval.

Table of Contents

Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use

Compliance with CGMP Requirements

Table of Contents

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and Priority Review

Table of Contents

Accelerated Approval Pathway

Table of Contents

Orphan Drug Designation

Pediatric Exclusivity

Table of Contents

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Extension and Marketing Exclusivity

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

Table of Contents

Post-Approval Regulation

Table of Contents

Federal and State Data Privacy and Security Laws

Table of Contents

Clinical Trial Approval

PRIME Designation in the EU

Marketing Authorization

Table of Contents

Regulatory Data Protection in the EU

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity