ANAPTYSBIO INC

Previous wording

If our other ongoing or future clinical trials of any of our product candidates, including rosnilimab, ANB032, ANB033 or ANB101, are unsuccessful, whether for one of the reasons mentioned above or otherwise, our product candidates may be delayed in development or fail entirely, which would have a material adverse impact on our business.

Current wording

If our other ongoing or future clinical trials of any of our product candidates, including, rosnilimab and ANB032 , ANB033 or ANB101, are unsuccessful, whether for one of the reasons mentioned above or otherwise, our product candidates may be delayed in development or fail entirely, which would have a material adverse impact on our business.

Previous wording

Our ability to continue to develop our product candidates, and to have the potential to achieve and sustain profitability, depends on the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities permitting us to conduct human clinical trials and, if our product candidates are safe and effective, obtaining approval from the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities to market them and subsequently successfully commercializing them, either alone or with our collaborators. The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing and distribution of drug and biologic products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities. Before commencing clinical trials in the United States for any other product candidate, we must submit an IND to the FDA; foreign regulatory authorities enforce similar requirements for initiation of clinical trials in other countries. An IND or foreign equivalent requires extensive preclinical studies, and there is no guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will allow clinical trials to proceed based on the IND or equivalent submission. For example, although we have initiated toxicology studies for our product candidates, the FDA in the United States, or other foreign regulatory authorities, as applicable, may not allow our clinical trials to proceed in the regulatory authority’s jurisdiction if we are unable to show safety margins acceptable to the particular regulatory authority in appropriate animal species in our preclinical toxicology studies.

Current wording

Our ability to continue to develop our product candidates, and to have the potential to achieve and sustain profitability, depends on the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities permitting us to conduct human clinical trials and, if our product candidates are safe and effective, obtaining approval from the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities to market them and subsequently successfully commercializing them, either alone or with our collaborators. The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing and distribution of drug and biologic products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities. Before commencing clinical trials in the United States for any product candidate, we must submit an IND to the FDA; foreign regulatory authorities enforce similar requirements for initiation of clinical trials in other countries. An IND or foreign equivalent requires extensive preclinical studies, and there is no guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will allow clinical trials to proceed based on the IND or equivalent submission. For example, although we have initiated toxicology studies for our product candidates, the FDA in the United States, or other foreign regulatory authorities, as applicable, may not allow our clinical trials to proceed in the regulatory authority’s jurisdiction if we are unable to show safety margins acceptable to the particular regulatory authority in appropriate animal species in our preclinical toxicology studies.

Previous wording

Even if we or our collaborators initiate and complete clinical trials for our product candidates, these product candidates will not be permitted to be marketed in the United States until approval of a BLA from the FDA is received, and will not be permitted to be marketed in other countries without marketing approval from foreign regulatory authorities. Obtaining approval of a BLA or other marketing approvals is often a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process over which the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion. Other than submitting and receiving acceptance for initiation of our previous and current clinical trials in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, we have had only limited discussions with the FDA and no discussions with foreign regulatory authorities regarding the development plans for any of our product candidates or the designs of any of our later-stage clinical studies. We thus may not have the full benefit of the FDA’s or foreign regulatory authorities’ current thinking on clinical trial designs or product development for our target indications. For example, although we believe our Phase 3 trials for imsidolimab for GPP, GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2, with GEMINI-1 having demonstrated evidence of efficacy and safety in GPP patients, will be sufficient to obtain BLA approval, the FDA may determine that we will need additional clinical trials in order to obtain approval of a BLA.

Current wording

Even if we or our collaborators initiate and complete clinical trials for our product candidates, these product candidates will not be permitted to be marketed in the United States until approval of a BLA from the FDA is received, and will not be permitted to be marketed in other countries without marketing approval from foreign regulatory authorities. Obtaining approval of a BLA or other marketing approvals is often a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process over which the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion. Other than submitting and receiving acceptance for initiation of our previous and current clinical trials in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, we have had only limited discussions with the FDA and no discussions with foreign regulatory authorities regarding the development plans for any of our product candidates or the designs of any of our later-stage clinical studies. We thus may not have the full benefit of the FDA’s or foreign regulatory authorities’ current thinking on clinical trial designs or product development for our target indications. For example, although we believe our Phase 3 trials for imsidolimab for GPP, GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 have demonstrated evidence of efficacy and safety in GPP patients to be sufficient to obtain BLA approval, the FDA may determine that we will need additional clinical trials in order to obtain approval of a BLA.

Previous wording

We have recently commenced Phase 2 clinical development of rosnilimab and ANB032, and have no history of commercializing biotechnology products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.

Current wording

We are currently in Phase 2 clinical development of rosnilimab and ANB032, and have no history of commercializing biotechnology products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.

Previous wording

•poor effectiveness or unacceptable side effects of our product candidates during clinical trials;

Current wording

•poor effectiveness of our product candidates during clinical trials;

Previous wording

•serious and unexpected drug-related side effects experienced by participants in our planned clinical trials or by individuals using drugs similar to our product candidates;

Current wording

•serious and unexpected, or otherwise unacceptable, drug-related side effects experienced by participants in our planned clinical trials or by individuals using drugs similar to our product candidates;

Previous wording

For our PD-1 agonist antibody program, our competitors include other PD-1 agonist antibodies peresolimab (Eli Lilly) in Phase 2b development for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, JNJ-67484703 (Janssen) in Phase 2 development for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, GS-0151 (Gilead) in Phase 1b development for rheumatoid arthritis, and a PD-1 agonist antibody (Boehringer Ingelheim) in Phase 1 development. Our commercial-stage competitors in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis include monoclonal antibodies targeting anti-TNF (Humira; Abbvie), IL-6 (Actemra; Roche and Kevzara; Regeneron), CD-80/86 (Orencia; BMS), CD-20 (Rituxan; Roche), and janus kinase inhibitors (Rinvoq; AbbVie, Olumiant; Eli Lilly, and Xeljanz; Pfizer). Commercial-stage competitors in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis include monoclonal antibodies targeting anti-TNF (Humira; Abbvie and Remicade; Johnson & Johnson), anti-α4β7 (Entyvio; Takeda), anti-IL-23 (Stelara; Johnson & Johnson and Omvoh; Eli Lilly) and S1P inhibitors (Zeposia; Bristol Myers Squibb and Velsipity; Pfizer) and janus kinase inhibitors (Rinvoq; AbbVie, and Xeljanz; Pfizer) as well as monoclonal antibodies targeting anti-TL1A (PRA023; Merck, RVT-3101; Roche and TEV’574; Teva/Sanofi) in Phase 2 and 3 development.

Current wording

For our PD-1 agonist antibody program, our competitors include other PD-1 agonist antibodies peresolimab (Eli Lilly) in Phase 2b development for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, JNJ-67484703 (Janssen) in Phase 2 development for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, GS-0151 (Gilead) in Phase 1b development for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and a PD-1 agonist antibody (Boehringer Ingelheim) in Phase 1 development. Our commercial-stage competitors in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis include monoclonal antibodies targeting anti-TNF (Humira; Abbvie), IL-6 (Actemra; Roche and Kevzara; Regeneron), CD-80/86 (Orencia; BMS), CD-20 (Rituxan; Roche), and janus kinase inhibitors (Rinvoq; AbbVie, Olumiant; Eli Lilly, and Xeljanz; Pfizer). Commercial-stage competitors in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis include monoclonal antibodies targeting anti-TNF (Humira; Abbvie and Remicade; Johnson & Johnson), anti-α4β7 (Entyvio; Takeda), anti-IL-23 (Stelara; Johnson & Johnson and Omvoh; Eli Lilly) and S1P inhibitors (Zeposia; Bristol Myers Squibb and Velsipity; Pfizer) and janus kinase inhibitors (Rinvoq; AbbVie, and Xeljanz; Pfizer) as well as monoclonal antibodies targeting anti-TL1A (PRA023; Merck, RVT-3101; Roche and TEV’574; Teva/Sanofi) in Phase 2 and 3 development.

Previous wording

For our BTLA agonist antibody program, our competitors include another BTLA agonist antibody, GS-0272 (Gilead) in Phase 1b development for SLE and rheumatoid arthritis. Commercial-stage competitors in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis include topical and oral corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors (Protopic; LEO Pharma and Elidel; Bausch Health), monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-4/13 (Dupixent; Regeneron/Sanofi), IL-13 (Adbry; LEO Pharma and Ebglyss; Lilly), IL-31 (nemolizumab; Galderma) and janus kinase inhibitors (Rinvoq; AbbVie and abrocitinib; Pfizer) as well as monoclonal antibodies targeting OX-40/OX40L (rocatinlimab; Amgen and amlitelimab; Sanofi) in Phase 3 development.

Current wording

For our BTLA agonist antibody program, our competitors include another BTLA agonist antibody, GS-0272 (Gilead) in Phase 1b development for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Commercial-stage competitors in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis include topical and oral corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors (Protopic; LEO Pharma and Elidel; Bausch Health), monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-4/13 (Dupixent; Regeneron/Sanofi), IL-13 (Adbry; LEO Pharma and Ebglyss; Eli Lilly), IL-31 (nemolizumab; Galderma) and janus kinase inhibitors (Rinvoq; AbbVie and abrocitinib; Pfizer) as well as monoclonal antibodies targeting OX-40/OX40L (rocatinlimab; Amgen and amlitelimab; Sanofi) in Phase 3 development and CD200R (ucenprubart; Eli Lilly).

Previous wording

For our anti-CD122 antagonist antibody program, our clinical competitors include other anti-CD122 antagonist antibodies, auremolimab (Incyte), in Phase 1 development for vitiligo and FB-102 (Forte Bioscience) in Phase 1 development, and three anti-IL-15 monoclonal antibodies, AMG 714 (Amgen), currently in Phase 2 development for the treatment of vitiligo, CALY-002 (Calypso, which Novartis has agreed to acquire), currently in Phase 1b development for the treatment of celiac disease and eosinophilic esophagitis, and TEV-‘408 (Teva), currently in Phase 1b development for the treatment of celiac disease.

Current wording

For our anti-CD122 antagonist antibody program, our clinical competitors include other anti-CD122 antagonist antibodies, auremolimab (Incyte), in Phase 1 development for the treatment of vitiligo and FB-102 (Forte Bioscience) in Phase 1 development, and three anti-IL-15 monoclonal antibodies, AMG 714 (Amgen), currently in Phase 2 development for the treatment of vitiligo, CALY-002 (Calypso, which Novartis has agreed to acquire), currently in Phase 1b development for the treatment of celiac disease and eosinophilic esophagitis, and TEV-‘408 (Teva), currently in Phase 1b development for the treatment of celiac disease.

Previous wording

For our anti-BDCA2 program, our competitors include another anti-BDCA2 antibody, litifilimab (Biogen) in Phase 3 development for SLE and CLE, and an anti-ILT7 antibody, daxdilimab (Amgen) in Phase 2 development for alopecia areata, dermatomyositis or anti-synthetase inflammatory myositis, and discoid lupus erythematosus.

Current wording

For our anti-BDCA2 program, our competitors include another anti-BDCA2 antibody, litifilimab (Biogen) in Phase 3 development for SLE and CLE, and an anti-ILT7 antibody, daxdilimab (Amgen) in Phase 2 development for dermatomyositis or anti-synthetase inflammatory myositis, and discoid lupus erythematosus.

Previous wording

We currently do not have a marketing or sales team for the marketing, sales and distribution of any of our product candidates that are able to obtain regulatory approval. In order to commercialize any product candidates, we must build on a territory-by-territory basis marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. If our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we may decide to establish an internal sales or marketing team with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates, which will be expensive and time-consuming and will require significant attention of our executive officers to manage. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of any of our product candidates that we obtain approval to market. With respect to the commercialization of all or certain of our product candidates, we may choose to collaborate, either globally or on a territory-by-territory basis, with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval, or any such commercialization may experience delays or limitations. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

Current wording

We currently do not have a marketing or sales team for the marketing, sales and distribution of any of our product candidates that are able to obtain regulatory approval. In order to commercialize any product candidates, we must build on a territory-by-territory basis marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. If our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we may decide to establish an internal sales or marketing team with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates, which will be expensive and time-consuming and will require significant attention of our executive team to manage. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of any of our product candidates that we obtain approval to market. With respect to the commercialization of all or certain of our product candidates, we may choose to collaborate, either globally or on a territory-by-territory basis, with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval, or any such commercialization may experience delays or limitations. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

Previous wording

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses in every year except fiscal year 2014. For the three months ended March 31, 2024, we had $7.2 million in collaboration revenue and a net loss of $43.9 million. For the three months ended March 31, 2023, we had $1.4 million in collaboration revenue and a net loss of $44.3 million. As of March 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $658.0 million.

Current wording

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses in every year except fiscal year 2014. For the six months ended June 30, 2024, we had $18.2 million in collaboration revenue and a net loss of $90.6 million. For the six months ended June 30, 2023, we had $4.8 million in collaboration revenue and a net loss of $84.1 million. As of June 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $704.7 million.

Previous wording

We have financed our operations primarily through our initial public offering of common stock in January 2017, our follow-on public offerings of common stock in October 2017 and September 2018, our Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement, and our Zejula Royalty Monetization Agreement. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development. Rosnilimab and ANB032 are in Phase 2 clinical development and we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before any of our active product candidates are ready for commercialization. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future, and the net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter. Our revenue has been historically derived from amortization of upfront payments, research and development funding, milestone and royalty payments under collaboration and license agreements with our collaborators. Our ability to generate future product revenue from our current or future product candidates depends on a number of additional factors, including our ability (or as applicable our collaborators’ ability) to:

Current wording

We have financed our operations primarily through our initial public offering of common stock in January 2017, our follow-on public offerings of common stock in October 2017 and September 2018, our Jemperli Royalty Monetization Agreement and Jemperli Amendment, and our Zejula Royalty Monetization Agreement. We have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development. Rosnilimab and ANB032 are in Phase 2 clinical development and we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before any of our active product candidates are ready for commercialization. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future, and the net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter. Our revenue has been historically derived from amortization of upfront payments, research and development funding, and milestone and royalty payments under collaboration and license agreements with our collaborators. Our ability to generate future product revenue from our current or future product candidates depends on a number of additional factors, including our ability (or as applicable our collaborators’ ability) to:

Previous wording

We outsource the manufacture of our product candidates. We do not currently have the infrastructure or internal capability to manufacture supplies of our product candidates for use in development and commercialization. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of our product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, our business would be harmed, and we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the clinical trial, we may be required to manufacture additional supplies of our product candidates to the extent our estimates of the amounts required prove inaccurate, we suffer unexpected losses of product candidate supplies, or we are required to have fresh product candidate supplies manufactured to satisfy regulatory requirements or specifications. Any significant delay or discontinuation in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, due to the need to replace a contract manufacturer or other third-party manufacturer, could considerably harm our business and ability to generate revenue and delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Current wording

We outsource the manufacture of our product candidates. We do not currently have the infrastructure or internal capability to manufacture supplies of our product candidates for use in development and commercialization. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of our product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, our business would be harmed, and we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the clinical trial, we may be required to manufacture additional supplies of our product candidates to the extent our estimates of the amounts required prove inaccurate, we suffer unexpected losses of product candidate supplies, or we are required to have fresh product candidate supplies manufactured to satisfy regulatory requirements or specifications. Any significant delay or discontinuation in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, due to the need to replace a contract manufacturer or other third-party manufacturer or otherwise, could considerably harm our business and ability to generate revenue and delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Previous wording

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, because CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors often follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree. However, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us or our collaborators to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

Current wording

Medicaid Services (“CMS”), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, because CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors often follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree. However, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us or our collaborators to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

Previous wording

We are a “smaller reporting company,” meaning that we are not an investment company, an asset-backed issuer, or a majority-owned subsidiary of a parent company that is not a “smaller reporting company,” and have either: (i) a public float of less than $250 million or (ii) annual revenues of less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and (A) no public float or (B) a public float of less than $700 million. As a “smaller reporting company,” we are subject to reduced disclosure obligations in our SEC filings compared to other issuers, including with respect to disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. Until such time as we cease to be a “smaller reporting company,” such reduced disclosure in our SEC filings may make it harder for investors to analyze our operating results and financial prospects.

Current wording

We are a “smaller reporting company,” meaning that we are not an investment company, an asset-backed issuer, or a majority-owned subsidiary of a parent company that is not a “smaller reporting company,” and have either: (i) a public float of less than $250 million as of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter or (ii) annual revenues of less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and (A) no public float or (B) a public float of less than $700 million as of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter. As a “smaller reporting company,” we are subject to reduced disclosure obligations in our SEC filings compared to other issuers, including with respect to disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. Until such time as we cease to be a “smaller reporting company,” such reduced disclosure in our SEC filings may make it harder for investors to analyze our operating results and financial prospects.