0001850767
false
FY
0001850767
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
2022-06-30
0001850767
2023-02-15
0001850767
2022-12-31
0001850767
2021-12-31
0001850767
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:CommonStockMember
2020-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember
2020-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:SubscriptionReceivableMember
2020-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember
2020-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember
2020-12-31
0001850767
2020-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:CommonStockMember
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember
2021-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:SubscriptionReceivableMember
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:CommonStockMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:SubscriptionReceivableMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:CommonStockMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:SubscriptionReceivableMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:CommonStockMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:SubscriptionReceivableMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:ComputerEquipmentMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:DandOInsuranceAgreementMember
2022-05-20
0001850767
ACUT:DandOInsuranceAgreementMember
2022-05-18
2022-05-20
0001850767
ACUT:StemPrintERMember
2022-11-09
2022-11-09
0001850767
ACUT:CommercialTestMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:LicensedProductMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:USMarketApprovalMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:WarrantMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:WarrantMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:IncentivePlanMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:IncentivePlanMember
srt:MaximumMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:EmployeesDirectorsAndNonEmployeesMember
ACUT:IncentivePlanMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:EmployeesDirectorsAndNonEmployeesMember
ACUT:IncentivePlanMember
srt:MinimumMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:EmployeesDirectorsAndNonEmployeesMember
ACUT:IncentivePlanMember
srt:MaximumMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:EmployeesDirectorsAndNonEmployeesMember
ACUT:IncentivePlanMember
srt:MaximumMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:GeneralAndAdministrativeExpenseMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:GeneralAndAdministrativeExpenseMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:PerforamanceBasedOptionsMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:TimeBasedOptionsMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:TimeBasedOptionsMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:PerforamanceBasedOptionsMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:IncentivePlanMember
ACUT:NonEmployeeMember
2022-03-31
0001850767
ACUT:IncentivePlanMember
ACUT:NonEmployeeMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:IncentivePlanMember
ACUT:NonEmployeeMember
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:WarrantMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:WarrantMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:WarrantMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:PerforamanceBasedOptionsMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
2019-12-31
0001850767
2020-01-01
2020-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:TimeBasedOptionsMember
2021-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:TimeBasedOptionsMember
2021-01-01
2021-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:PerforamanceBasedOptionsMember
2021-12-31
0001850767
srt:MinimumMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
srt:MaximumMember
2022-01-01
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:WarrantMember
2021-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:TizianaMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:TizianaMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:TizianaMember
2021-12-31
0001850767
ACUT:GabrieleCerroneMember
2022-01-01
2022-01-31
0001850767
ACUT:GabrieleCerroneMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:DomesticCountryMember
2022-12-31
0001850767
us-gaap:StateAndLocalJurisdictionMember
2022-12-31
iso4217:USD
xbrli:shares
iso4217:USD
xbrli:shares
iso4217:GBP
xbrli:pure
Item
1. Business
Company
Overview
We
are a clinical stage diagnostics company dedicated to improving quality of life and outcomes for the more than 18 million people worldwide
who are diagnosed with cancer each year. Our plan is to develop and commercialize a suite of novel genomic tests that support decision
making along the entire continuum of oncology care. Our focus will be the commercialization of our proprietary genomic test, StemPrintER,
for patients with early stage breast cancer, and we estimate this market opportunity represents more than $1.3 billion in annual revenue.
Our
primary product candidate is StemPrintER, a 20-gene prognostic assay intended to predict the risk of distant recurrence (“DR”)
in luminal (ER+/HER2-negative) breast cancer patients. The assay was developed to measure the “stemness” of tumors, or how
much a tumor behaves like stem cells which could indicate how likely a cancer is to recur or be resistant to standard treatments, ultimately
impacting how patients are managed by their multi-disciplinary care team. StemPrintER has been validated in several clinical cohorts
and studies, the largest of which are a consecutive series of approximately 2,400 patients from the European Institute of Oncology (“IEO”)
and approximately 800 patients from the TransATAC study. In the IEO cohort, StemPrintER High Risk patients (“SPRS High”)
were 1.85 times more likely to have a distant recurrence compared to Low Risk (“SPRS Low”) patients (Figure 1) and in the
TransATAC cohort, SPRS High patients were 4.27 times more likely to experience a distant recurrence compared to SPRS Low Risk patients
(Figure 2). Together, these data confirm that StemPrintER is highly prognostic for outcomes in patients with breast cancer and indicate
the potential utility of the test in the oncology clinic.
Beyond
our initial plans for StemPrintER, we believe there is significant opportunity to expand our product portfolio. First, given the broad
applicability of tumor “stemness”, which has been evaluated in a multitude of different cancers, we believe the StemPrint
platform will have meaningful clinical utility beyond breast cancer. As such, we will seek to validate and commercialize StemPrint for
a variety of different tumor types. In addition, we plan to offer ancillary commodity testing (e.g., hereditary genetic testing, somatic
mutation testing) that augments our proprietary assays and provides additional information and value to patients and physicians throughout
the patient care continuum.
We
hold licensing rights for the MSC test, which is designed to help determine whether lung nodules identified by LDCT screening are benign
or malignant.
Company
History and Acquisition
AccuStem
Sciences Limited was created in connection with its demerger (spin-off) from Tiziana Life Sciences plc (“Tiziana”) and AccuStem
Sciences Limited (“Old AccuStem”) was incorporated in England and Wales on June 5, 2020 as a private company. The demerger
was conditional upon, among other things, court approval of a Tiziana capital reduction, which was approved by special resolution of
Tiziana’s stockholders on October 2, 2020. The court sanctioned the related Tiziana capital reduction on October 27, 2020, and
the demerger became effective on October 30, 2020.
The
demerger agreement provided for the transfer by Tiziana to us of the entire issued share capital of StemPrintER Sciences, the Tiziana
entity to which Tiziana contributed all of the assets and intellectual property relating to the StemPrint project and $1,353,373 (£1,000,000)
in cash.
For
the purposes of the demerger, Tiziana first transferred the assets relating to the StemPrint project (primarily the benefit of the License
from IEO/University of Milan and an outsourced research program) to a separate company, StemPrintER Sciences, together with $1,353,373
(£1,000,000) in cash. As a result of this step, StemPrintER Sciences became an operating entity. In the next step, Tiziana transferred
StemPrintER Sciences’ shares to us in return for shares to Tiziana’s stockholders, on a one for one basis, and Tiziana declared
a dividend in specie to its stockholders of those shares.
Tiziana
has and will continue to provide certain limited management and administrative services to us following the completion of the demerger
pursuant to the terms of the shared services agreement entered into with us on January 1, 2021. Pursuant to the terms of the shared services
agreement, Tiziana agreed to provide various administrative, financial, legal, tax, insurance, facility, information technology and other
services to us at a price based on a mutually agreed to cost allocation. The shared services agreement had an initial term through December
2021 and has been renewed automatically thereafter for successive three month terms. The parties may mutually terminate the shared services
agreement at any time. In addition, we can terminate the shared services agreement upon 30 days prior written notice. Both parties may
terminate the agreement upon the failure of the other party to perform its respective material obligations.
On
December 1, 2021 AccuStem Sciences Inc., a Delaware corporation (“New AccuStem”), became the successor issuer to Old AccuStem,
pursuant to Rule 12g-3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such succession occurred
following the effectiveness, on December 1, 2021 (the “Effective Time”), of a United Kingdom court-approved scheme of arrangement
(the “Scheme of Arrangement”) in which (i) every 20 ordinary shares, £0.01 par value per share, of Old AccuStem (the
“Old AccuStem Ordinary Shares”) were exchanged for one share of common stock, $0.001 par value per share, of New AccuStem
(the “New AccuStem Common Stock”) and (ii) every 10 ADS representing two Old AccuStem Ordinary Shares were exchanged for
one New AccuStem Common Stock, which resulted in New AccuStem becoming the holding company of Old AccuStem. On December 30, 2021, we
completed the dissolution of Old AccuStem.
Emerging
Growth Company Status
We
qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the U.S. Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. An emerging growth
company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting and other requirements that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies.
This includes an exemption from the auditor attestation requirement in the assessment of our internal control over financial reporting
pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We may take advantage of this exemption for up to five years or such earlier time that we are no
longer an emerging growth company. We will cease to be an emerging growth company if we have more than $1.07 billion in total annual
gross revenue, have more than $700.0 million in market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates or issue more than $1.0 billion
of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these provisions that allow
for reduced reporting and other requirements.
StemPrintER
and Market Opportunity in Breast Cancer
Each
year, more than two million women are diagnosed with breast cancer worldwide. Endocrine receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers constitute
the majority of breast cancer cases (~75%) and display remarkable variability in clinical behavior. This heterogeneity makes prognosis
and therapy response often challenging to predict using the standard clinicopathological features of the tumor. Although the overall
prognosis for this group of patients is good, a significant proportion (~20%) of these patients will experience distant recurrence in
the first ten years post-surgery. For ER+ patients who also have a negative HER2 status (HER2-), the standard of care is endocrine therapy
with the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy in those patients considered to be at risk of recurrence according to clinicopathological
parameters. However, it has become apparent that these parameters are often insufficient to predict risk of recurrence in ER+/HER2- breast
cancer patients, and, as a consequence, a significant proportion of these patients are either over- or under-treated. We anticipate StemPrintER
will be used in conjunction with clinical evaluation to identify a patient’s risk of recurrence to help physicians optimize treatment
planning throughout the care continuum.
We
believe StemPrintER has a novel biological basis in the stem cell biology and interrogates the intrinsic content and aggressiveness of
cancer stem cells of the primary tumor. The assay uses a reliable real-time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction
(qRT-PCR), formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) platform for testing. StemPrintER was developed and clinically validated in a retrospective
analysis using a consecutive series of approximately 2,400 patients with breast cancer from the IEO. Subsequently, StemPrintER was independently
validated using a cohort of approximately 800 ER+/HER2- postmenopausal patients from the prospective, randomized TransATAC trial.
Our
plan is to commercialize StemPrintER across all clinical subtypes of early stage breast cancer representing an estimated population of
798,000 patients, and translating to a serviceable market opportunity of more than $1.3 billion.
StemPrintER
Scientific Background
The
development and validation of multi-gene assays that interrogate the underlying biology of tumors for accurate prognostication of individual
cancer patients has represented an expanding area of research for more than a decade. The theory that all tumors arise from cancer stem
cells, and the increasing recognition of their relevance to tumor heterogeneity and disease course suggests that the knowledge of the
“degree of stemness” of a breast cancer, or how much a tumor behaves like stem cells, might substantially advance individualized
patient management. Research has shown that a “high stemness” signature in cancer is a primary rationale for disease recurrence
given cancer stem cells are highly adaptable and able to grow indefinitely. StemPrintER was developed to be a novel genomic predictor
of patient outcomes based on a cluster of 20 stem cell genes whose expression levels would be capable of stratifying patients into two
distinct groups: those at very low risk of cancer recurrence and those at an increased risk of their cancer returning. This information
is intended to inform treatment planning at various timepoints throughout the patient care continuum.
Our
initial research focused on genes that could discriminate mammary stem cells from progeny cells in normal breast tissue. Only those genes
that were expressed at higher levels in mammary stem cells versus progeny were selected. Selection criteria were based on the premise
that cancer stem cells might display traits reminiscent of those present in normal mammary stem cells and, since cancer stem cells are
rare, the selection of overexpressed genes (mammary stem cells versus progeny) afforded a higher likelihood of scoring differences, with
respect to under-expressed genes.
Based
on existing published research, several of the 20 stem cell genes display evident connection to metastatic dissemination through their
role in matrix degradation, migration, invasion and engraftment (e.g., MMP1, SNF, MIEN1, PHLDA2, EPB41L5). For other genes in the signature
(RACGAP1, H2AFZ, H2AFJ, APOBEC3B, CENPW, TOP2A CDK1) it was considered possible, or even probable, that they were significant in the
establishment of cancer stem cell phenotypes and might be linked to involvement in genomic instability. A final set of genes, whose putative
role in metastasis is less obvious, includes those involved in: (a) metabolism reprogramming and mitochondrial physiology (MRPS23, NDUFB10,
Phb); (b) mRNA ribonucleoparticle biogenesis, mRNA transcription, splicing and export, and RNA processing and degradation events (ALYREF,
EXOSC4); and (c) survival/escape from apoptosis, which is connected to resistance to hormonal and/or chemotherapy through hijacking of
signaling pathways, such as TGF-beta and pi3k-AKT-mTOR (NOL3, LY6E, EIF4EBP1). Evidence for a mechanistic link between the 20 genes and
the cancer stem cell phenotype comes from the observation that these genes are frequently overexpressed in breast cancer, sometimes as
a consequence of gene amplification.
StemPrintER
Clinical Research History
Through
a validation study analyzing a large prospective, randomized cohort of breast cancer patients with high-quality follow-up, and a series
of retrospective studies based on the use of fresh tumor samples and gene expression profiles from additional breast cancer patients,
it has been established that StemPrintER predicts the individual likelihood of developing distant metastases in luminal (ER+/HER2-) and
triple negative breast cancers. Of note, our genomic predictor comprises a set of genes that do not belong (with one exception) to any
other genomic tool or molecular classifier described for triple negative or luminal breast cancers. We accordingly believe that the result
of our research is the development of a unique tool capable of probing into the “degree of stemness”, and hence into the
clinical outcome, of breast cancers.
The
largest validation study for StemPrintER involved the retrospective analysis of nearly 2,400 breast tumor samples collected through the
IEO clinical network. In this published study, StemPrint and StemPrintER were highly prognostic for early and late recurrences in luminal
(ER+/HER2-) and triple negative (ER-/PR-/HER2-) breast cancer patients, independent of standard clinical characteristics.
In
the TransATAC cohort of ER+/HER2- post-menopausal breast cancer patients, a team of scientists from the IEO conducted an independent
validation of StemPrintER using banked study samples in collaboration with the Royal Marsden Hospital and Queen Mary University in London.
The likelihood ratio x2 (LRx2) and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to assess prognostic information provided by StemPrintER
and OncotypeDX. Comparative analyses were made for DR risk over the entire 10-year follow-up period, as well as in the early (0-5 years)
or late (5-10 years) interval. Our study results showed that StemPrintER was highly prognostic for recurrence risk (Hazard Ration (High
Risk vs. Low Risk)= 4.27 (95% CI: 2.67-6.84), p<0.0001). Additionally, StemPrintER outperformed Oncotype DX RS in 10-year DR risk
prediction in all patients, as well as in N0 and N1-3 patients.
Commercialization
of the StemPrint Platform and StemPrintER
From
a clinical standpoint, although future studies are warranted to increase the level of clinical evidence of the reliability and applicability
of the 20-gene test, the recent independent validation using the TransATAC cohort demonstrates the immediate relevance of StemPrintER
for the clinical management of breast cancer patients, in particular for those with ER+/HER2- disease. These luminal patients represent
the majority (~75%) of newly-diagnosed cases and display high molecular heterogeneity and variability in their clinical behavior. Accordingly,
ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients can greatly benefit from accurate stratification of their risk of recurrence for the development of
an optimal treatment plan.
Historically
in breast cancer, multi-gene assays have been used to inform the role of systemic therapy following surgery. While we believe that StemPrintER
may have the same ability, especially in identifying patients with excellent long-term prognosis who would not derive significant benefit
from adjuvant chemotherapy, we plan to focus on answering alternative clinical questions not addressed by current commercially-available
products. We will devote our resources to obtaining established cohorts of patients and running prospective clinical trials that may
demonstrate a broader utility for StemPrintER.
In
order to commercialize a proprietary genomic classifier, it must meet two important benchmarks- the test must have sufficient data to
be used in the clinical management of patients and have enough peer reviewed publications to obtain reimbursement from CMS and other
payers. As of February 2022, with our second validation publication in the European Journal of Cancer, we believe StemPrintER has met
the minimum threshold to enable commercialization. Thus, we plan to launch StemPrintER once we have achieved several key milestones.
First we will identify or build a laboratory (“commercial laboratory”) that will be responsible for processing, testing and
reporting StemPrintER results for all commercial samples. Further, we plan to transfer StemPrintER from the laboratories in which they
were developed to the commercial laboratory. Finally, once testing is established in the commercial laboratory, we will seek to obtain
U.S. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”) certification so that we are able to report results for
clinical use and to seek reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We anticipate that it will take at least
18 months to complete these milestones. Once those tasks are complete, we plan to initially launch StemPrintER in the US and then expand
to other markets as we evaluate clinical need and revenue opportunity. See “ - IEO/University of Milan License Agreement”
for information regarding the License which could impact our ability to implement our plans.
To
augment the value proposition of StemPrintER, we also plan to offer additional “commodity” testing (e.g., IHC receptor testing,
hereditary genetic testing). These additional tests should create significant value for our customers while leveraging existing laboratory
equipment and processes for economy of scale and providing additional revenue opportunities to the Company.
Given
the broad applicability of tumor “stemness”, which has been evaluated in a multitude of different cancers, we believe the
StemPrint platform will have meaningful clinical utility beyond breast cancer. As such, we will seek to validate and commercialize StemPrint
in a variety of different tumor types. Each tumor type, where applicable, would also include ancillary testing to boost our value proposition
to customers.
Reimbursement
Strategy
Our
revenue is expected to be derived from different sources including standard private third-party and government medical insurance coverage
and reimbursement models. Prior to full commercial scaling, we expect to focus our sales efforts on a small number of early adopting
sites to establish ordering history with payers, effective logistics and additional clinical utility, subject to successful validation
trials and approvals under the CLIA certification or upon the obtaining of a CE mark for the test, which serves as proof of conformity
with European health, safety and environmental production standards.
Competition
Genetic
and genomic testing play an important and continually evolving role in the oncology space. In breast cancer, there are several companies
that offer genomic testing that might be competitive with StemPrintER.
Breast
Cancer
Breast
Cancer Index (Hologic) is an assay that is designed to predict the likelihood of late breast cancer recurrence and determine the need
for extended endocrine therapy (an additional five years of endocrine therapy beyond the standard five years). The test is for pre- and
post-menopausal patients with ER+/HER2- disease and up to three positive lymph nodes.
EndoPredict
(Myriad) is a CE-marked assay that is designed to predict the likelihood of metastases developing within ten years of an initial breast
cancer diagnosis. The test is for pre- and post-menopausal patients with early stage ER+/HER2- breast cancer and up to three positive
lymph nodes.
MammaPrint
(Agendia) is an FDA-cleared, CE-marked assay that is designed to assess the risk of distant recurrence within 5 years and whether a person
would benefit from chemotherapy. The test is for pre- and post-menopausal patients with stage 1 or 2 breast cancer, with a tumor size
of 5 centimeters or less, and LN-negative or LN-positive disease (up to three positive nodes). The test can be used irrespective of ER
and HER2 status.
OncotypeDX
is a CE-marked assay that is designed to assess the risk of distant metastasis and to predict the need for chemotherapy in patients with
ER+/HER2- breast cancer. The test can be used in pre- and post-menopausal patients with up to three positive lymph nodes.
Prosigna
(Veracyte) is a CE-marked assay designed to provide information on breast cancer subtype and to predict distant recurrence-free survival
at ten years. The test is for postmenopausal patients with early-stage ER+/HER2- breast cancer that is LN-negative or LN-positive (up
to 3 positive nodes).
Pan
Cancer
The
“commodity” testing that we plan to offer (e.g., IHC receptor testing, somatic mutation testing, hereditary genetic testing)
has numerous competitors in industry (e.g., Ambry, Color Health, Foundation Medicine, Guardant, Invitae, Laboratory Corporation of America,
Natera, Neogenomics, Quest Diagnostics, Tempus) and academic and hospital settings.
Government
Regulation
U.S.
health regulatory overview
The
following provides an overview of key aspects of laboratory service and medical device regulation within the U.S. It should be noted
this overview does not address every facet of regulation at the federal and state level, but only those that would generally be most
relevant to the activities described in this registration statement.
Federal
and state clinical laboratory licensing requirements
The
CLIA governs the operations of all clinical laboratories operating in or returning results to individuals in the U.S. CLIA is administered
by The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (‘CMS’), in partnership with state health departments. A clinical laboratory
is defined as a laboratory that performs testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis,
prevention or treatment of disease, or the assessment of health. Clinical laboratories must hold a certificate applicable to the type
of laboratory examinations they perform and must demonstrate compliance with regulations addressing, among other things, personnel qualification
and training, record keeping, quality control, and proficiency testing, all of which are intended to ensure the timeliness, reliability,
and accuracy of clinical laboratory testing services. CLIA requires that laboratories demonstrate or verify the analytical validity of
all tests they perform. Where a clinical laboratory analyses specimens based on a proprietary test method (i.e., a laboratory developed
test, ‘LDT’), the laboratory must, among other things, document the accuracy, precision, specificity, sensitivity of, and
establish a reference range for, such test.
CMS
provides for exemption from CLIA for states that develop clinical laboratory standards that are at least as stringent as federal requirements.
Both New York and Washington State are exempt from CLIA. The NYS Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program requires all independent clinical
laboratories operating in, or testing specimens from, NYS to obtain a laboratory permit prior to commencing operations, and all clinical
laboratories performing LDTs to submit test validation documentation demonstrating the tests’ analytical and clinical validity.
Failure
to comply with CLIA certification and state clinical laboratory licensure requirements may result in a range of enforcement actions,
including certificate or license suspension, limitation, or revocation, directed plan of action, onsite monitoring, civil monetary penalties,
criminal sanctions, and revocation of the laboratory’s approval to receive Medicare and Medicaid payment for its services, as well
as significant adverse publicity.
Food
and Drug Administration
The
FDA regulates, among other medical products, “medical devices” which include certain articles intended for use in the diagnosis,
prevention, cure, mitigation, or treatment of disease or intended to effect the structure or function of the body. Whether a product
is intended for use as a medical device is generally determined, in the first instance, based on the manufacturer’s product labelling,
which includes the label affixed to the product, materials distributed with the product, and promotional communications concerning the
product.
Devices
classified as Class I (low risk), generally may be marketed without FDA pre-market review, but are subject to “general controls”,
including establishment registration, device listing, record keeping, medical device reporting, and quality system regulations, including
design controls. Devices classified as Class II (moderate risk), may, in addition to general controls, also be subject to “special
controls” (e.g., performance standards / manufacturing standards, post-market surveillance, patient registries, special labelling
requirements, pre-market data requirements and guidelines), and also generally must obtain 510(k) premarket clearance or DeNovo authorization
from FDA. Class III (high risk) devices must, in addition to general controls, obtain FDA pre-market approval through the submission
of a pre- market approval application that contains evidence, including data from adequate and well- controlled clinical studies, demonstrating
that the device is safe and effective for its intended use. In general, devices that require FDA pre-market clearance or DeNovo authorization
may not be commercially distributed or promoted prior to obtaining such authorization, although they may be distributed and used for
the purpose of developing the clinical data necessary to support FDA marketing applications, subject to certain limitations. Post-market
changes to a cleared / authorized or approved device also may be subject to prior review by FDA, depending on the scope of the change
and its potential impact on device safety and effectiveness.
It
should also be emphasized that this pre-market review process is only one facet of FDA’s regulation. For example, FDA regulates
product labelling, including promotional claims; the manufacturing of medical devices, including their design, under FDA quality system
requirements; clinical trials with new or modified products; and post-market monitoring for, reporting of, and action related to, safety
concerns. Failure to comply with applicable pre and post-market device requirements can result in a determination by FDA that a device
is “adulterated” (Section 501) or “misbranded” (Section 502) in violation of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetics Act. The statute provides for a number of penalties, including seizure, injunction, criminal, and civil monetary penalties,
for the sale or distribution of adulterated or misbranded devices. In general, prior to undertaking enforcement action, FDA will notify
a regulated entity of a violation or suspected 36 violation through a communication, such as a “Warning Letter” or “Untitled
Letter”. If FDA identifies violations during inspection of a manufacturer’s facility, the agency will issue a Form 483 listing
the identified violation and directing the manufacturer to make the necessary corrections.
FDA
regulation of software
Commercially
distributed software applications that meet the definition of a medical device may be subject to FDA pre-market authorization, depending
on their classification and software function. These include both applications that are components of a hardware medical device and certain
“standalone” software. In 2017, FDA issued final guidance adopting international principles established by the International
Medical Device Regulators Forum for the clinical evaluation of software as a medical device (“SaMD”), which refers to software
that is intended to be used for one or more medical purposes that perform these purposes without being part of a hardware medical device.
In 2019, FDA issued a guidance that provides guidance on FDA’s oversight of device software functions including mobile medical
apps that meet the definition of a device. While the guidance is not binding on either FDA or regulated industry, FDA intends to consider
the principles in developing regulatory approaches for SaMD as well as for digital health technologies.
FDA
regulation of LDTs
FDA
regulates a category of medical devices, called in vitro diagnostic medical devices, or IVDs, that are used in the collection, preparation,
and examination of specimens from the human body. IVDs include reagents, instruments, and systems that are intended for use in diagnosis
of disease or other conditions, including the state of health, in order to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevention disease or its sequelae.
FDA historically has taken the position that tests developed in-house by a clinical laboratory and used to analyze patient specimens
meet the definition of an IVD and fall within the agency’s regulatory jurisdiction. At the same time, FDA historically has for
the most part exercised “enforcement discretion,” i.e., has not required clinical laboratories performing LDTs to comply
with IVD device requirements. In the past, FDA has signaled intent to modify its enforcement discretion policy with regard to LDT regulation,
and in 2014 proposed a regulatory framework for LDTs, which it abandoned before implementation in 2016. The U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) has determined that LDTs do not require a premarket review with FDA, but rather an applicant may voluntarily
submit a premarket notification or premarket approval (or an Emergency Use Authorization in the case of COVID-19 tests) for their LDT.
It is possible that Congress will enact legislation directing FDA to regulate LDTs.
On
June 24, 2021, the U.S. Congress continued its effort to establish a new, risk-based framework for the review and approval of LDTs that
would accelerate innovation and improve the quality of testing, reintroduced a revised version of the Verifying Accurate Leading-edge
IVCT Development (VALID) Act. In its initial construction, the VALID Act may have a significant impact on clinical laboratories as they
will need to comply with several new requirements, including:
|
● |
Registration
and listing with FDA; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Quality
requirements; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Investigational
studies; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Premarket
review and approval or clearance; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Adverse
event reporting; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
Corrections
and removals. |
While
the VALID Act outlines a framework for these elements (among others), the law, if enacted, would direct FDA over the following years
to promulgate regulations and issue guidance documents, giving clinical laboratories and others the opportunity to participate in shaping
the new IVCT regulatory program.
The
U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Protection Laws
Within
the U.S., the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), has authority to regulate advertising for most medical devices and for
laboratory services. In addition, various state consumer protection laws exist which can similarly regulate claims that are being made
by entities with respect to what benefits their products or services can provide to consumers. In some instances, FTC or U.S. states
have taken action with respect to medical products based on claims being made with respect to, e.g., their benefits to patients, seeking
various penalties, such as injunctions and substantial fines. Activities have focused more, to date, on products that are sold directly
to consumers, such as dietary supplements, as opposed to prescription products ordered by physicians, although the possibility exists
that FTC or other consumer protection bodies could take steps to regulate claims with respect to IVDs or LDTs.
Fraud
and Abuse
The
significant U.S. fraud and abuse laws include the:
|
● |
Anti-Kickback
Statute: the federal U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S. Code § 1320a–7b(b) imposes criminal penalties on persons and
entities for, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration (including any
kickback, bribe or rebate), directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral
of an individual for, or the purchase, lease or order of a good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made under a
government healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. |
|
|
|
|
● |
False
Claims Act: the U.S. federal false claims and civil monetary penalties laws, including the federal civil U.S. False Claims Act (31
USC. §§ 3729 – 3733), impose criminal and civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions
against individuals or entities for, among other things knowingly presenting or False Claims Act: the U.S. federal false claims and
civil monetary penalties laws, including the federal civil U.S. False Claims Act (31 USC. §§ 3729 – 3733), impose
criminal and civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions against individuals or entities for, among
other things knowingly presenting or causing to be presented false or fraudulent claims for payment by a federal healthcare program
or making a false statement or record material to payment of a false claim or avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to
pay money to the federal government, with potential liability including mandatory treble damages, significant per-claim penalties,
and administrative penalties. |
Transparency
requirements
The
U.S. Physician Payments Sunshine Act (known as Affordable Care Act Section 6002: Transparency Reports and Reporting of Physician Ownership
or Investment Interests) requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available
under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to the CMS information
related to payments or transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as information regarding ownership and investment
interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Any failure to report or providing incomplete or misleading information
may subject the Company to penalties. Analogous state laws. Analogous state fraud and abuse laws and regulations, such as U.S. state
antikickback and false claims laws, can apply to sales or marketing arrangements, and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed
by governmental or non-governmental third-party payors. These laws are generally broad and are enforced by many different U.S. federal
and state agencies as well as through private actions. Some state laws require adherence to compliance guidelines promulgated by the
U.S. federal government and require device and drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value
to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.
Data
privacy and security
We
are subject to a number of federal, state and foreign laws and regulations that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection
of health-related and other personal information. In the United States, such laws and regulations include health information privacy,
data protection and security laws, data breach notification laws, and consumer protection laws and regulations, such as Section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act. For example, HIPAA imposes obligations on “covered entities,” including certain healthcare
providers, such as us, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, and their respective “business associates” that create,
receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity, as well as their covered
subcontractors with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable protected health information,
or PHI,. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA, whether as the result of a breach of unsecured PHI, a complaint about privacy
practices, or an audit by HHS, may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional
reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations
of HIPAA non-compliance.
In
addition, certain state and non-U.S. laws, such as the CCPA, the CPRA, the GDPR, the UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018, govern
the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more
stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating
compliance efforts.
Failure
to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in claims, litigations, regulatory investigations and other proceedings, and
the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy, data protection and security laws, regulations,
and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in claims,
investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties, other liabilities, and restrictions
on data use, storage, and other processing.
Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”)
The
HIPAA imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, failing to protect the privacy of patient and security of patient
data. Additionally, the HIPAA by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and its implementing regulations,
also imposes obligations on covered entities and their business associates that perform certain functions or activities that involve
the use or disclosure of protected health information on their behalf, including mandatory contractual terms as well as implementing
reasonable and appropriate administrative, physical and technical safeguards with respect to maintaining the privacy, security and transmission
of protected health information.
Federal
Trade Commission (“FTC”)
The
FTC has taken an active role with regard to protection of personal information, relying on its broad consumer protection powers to seek
substantial penalties where companies that have made deceptive or misleading statements regarding practices of collecting and safeguarding
data or did not have adequate safeguards to protect information consistent with their claims regarding data security. State laws also
govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways
and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
Government
and Third-Party Payor Reimbursement and Billing for Clinical Laboratory Services
Medicare
coverage is limited to items and services that are within the scope of a Medicare benefit category that are reasonable and necessary
for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury.
Under
Medicare, payment for our tests would be made under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS, with payment amounts assigned to specific
procedure billing codes. In April 2014, Congress passed the Protecting Access to Medicare Act, or PAMA, which included substantial changes
to the way in which clinical laboratory services will be paid under Medicare. Under PAMA, laboratories that receive the majority of their
Medicare revenue from payments made under the CLFS or the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule are required to report to CMS, beginning in
2017 and every three years thereafter (or annually for “advanced diagnostic laboratory tests”), private payor payment rates
and volumes for their tests. Laboratories that fail to report the required payment information may be subject to substantial civil monetary
penalties. As required under PAMA, CMS uses the rates and volumes reported by laboratories to develop Medicare payment rates for laboratory
tests equal to the volume-weighted median of the private payor payment rates for the tests.
PAMA
also authorizes the adoption of new, temporary billing codes and unique test identifiers for FDA-cleared or approved tests, as well as
advanced diagnostic laboratory tests. The AMA’s CPT Editorial Panel created a new section of billing codes to supplement the AMA’s
existing Category I CPT code set and to facilitate implementation of this section of PAMA. These proprietary laboratory analyses codes,
or PLA codes, may be requested by a clinical laboratory or manufacturer to specifically identify their test. If approved, the codes are
issued by the AMA on a quarterly basis. While our testing products are not presently identified by any PLA codes, we may choose to seek
a specific PLA code or codes to describe some of our testing products in the future.
Billing
for testing is complicated. Depending on the billing arrangement and applicable law, we must bill various payors, such as insurance companies,
Medicare, Medicaid, physicians, hospitals, employer groups and patients, all of which have different billing requirements. Additionally,
compliance with applicable laws and regulations as well as internal compliance policies and procedures adds further complexity to the
billing process. Changes in laws and regulations could negatively impact our ability to bill our clients or increase our costs. CMS also
establishes new procedures and continuously evaluates and implements changes to the coverage criteria and reimbursement process for billing
government programs. There is a potential that missing or incorrect information on test requisitions will add complexity to and slow
the billing process, create backlogs of unbilled tests, or generally increase the aging of accounts receivable and bad debt expense.
Failure to timely and correctly bill for testing services may lead to our not being reimbursed for our services or an increase in the
aging of our accounts receivable, which could adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows.
Revenue
from governmental and third-party payors can be retroactively adjusted after a new examination during the claims settlement process or
as a result of post-payment audits. For example, Medicare reimbursement claims made by healthcare providers and suppliers are subject
to audit from time to time by governmental and third-party payors and their agents. To ensure compliance with Medicare, Medicaid and
other requirements and regulations, government agencies or their agents (including Recovery Audit Contractors, Unified Program Integrity
Contractors and other contractors operating under the Medicare and Medicaid programs) often conduct audits and request customer records
and other documents to support claims submitted for payment of services rendered and compliance with government program claim submission
requirements. Private payors conduct similar audits to ensure claims align with coverage requirements and may take legal action to recover
alleged overpayments. Negative audit findings or allegations of fraud or abuse may subject us to liability, including but not limited
to overpayment liability, refunds or recoupments of previously paid claims, payment suspension, or the revocation of billing or payment
privileges in governmental healthcare programs or termination of arrangements with third-party payors. Failure to comply with applicable
laws relating to billing federal healthcare programs could also lead to various penalties, including but not limited to:
|
● |
overpayments
and recoupments of reimbursement received; |
|
|
|
|
● |
exclusion
from participation in Medicare/Medicaid programs; |
|
● |
asset
forfeitures; |
|
|
|
|
● |
civil
and criminal fines and penalties; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations necessary to operate our business. |
Any
of these penalties or sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows.
Healthcare
Reform
In
March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010, collectively the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, was enacted in the United States The ACA made a number of substantial changes to
the way healthcare is financed by governmental and private insurers. The ACA, among other things, included provisions governing enrollment
in federal and state healthcare programs, reimbursement matters and fraud and abuse, which we expect will impact our industry and our
operations in ways that we cannot currently predict.
Since
its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the
U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the
ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order initiating a special enrollment period from
February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive
order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare.
It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration or other efforts, if any, to challenge, repeal or replace
the ACA will impact the ACA or our business.
Other
legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare
payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and
due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension
from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021, unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012,
among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased
the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Additional state
and federal health care reform measures may also be adopted in the future, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the clinical
laboratory industry.
Regulation
of Medical Devices in the European Union
The
European Union, or EU, has adopted specific directives and regulations regulating the design, manufacture, clinical investigations, conformity
assessment, labeling and adverse event reporting for medical devices (including in vitro diagnostic medical devices).
In
the EU, there is currently no premarket government review of medical devices. However, the EU requires that all in vitro diagnostic medical
devices placed on the market in the EU must meet the essential requirements of the EU In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Directive,
or Directive 98/79/EC, or the IVDD, including the requirement that an in vitro diagnostic medical device must be designed and manufactured
in such a way that it will not compromise the clinical condition or safety of patients, or the safety and health of users and others.
In addition, the device must achieve the performances intended by the manufacturer and be designed, manufactured, and packaged in a suitable
manner. The European Commission has adopted various standards applicable to medical devices. There are also harmonized standards relating
to design and manufacture. While not mandatory, compliance with these standards is viewed as the easiest way to satisfy the essential
requirements as a practical matter as it creates a rebuttable presumption that the device satisfies that essential requirement.
Compliance
with the essential requirements of the IVDD is a prerequisite for European Conformity Marking, or CE-Mark, without which in vitro diagnostic
medical devices cannot be marketed or sold in the EU. To demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements laid down in Annex I
to the IVDD, medical device manufacturers must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical
device and its (risk) classification. As a general rule, demonstration of conformity of in vitro diagnostic medical devices and their
manufacturers with the essential requirements must be based, among other things, on the evaluation of clinical data supporting the safety
and performance of the products during normal conditions of use. Specifically, a manufacturer must demonstrate that the device achieves
its intended performance during normal conditions of use, that the known and foreseeable risks, and any adverse events, are minimized
and acceptable when weighed against the benefits of its intended performance, and that any claims made about the performance and safety
of the device are supported by suitable evidence. Except for (general) in vitro diagnostic medical devices, where the manufacturer can
self-declare the conformity of its products with the essential requirements, a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention
of a notified body. Notified bodies are independent organizations designated by EU member states to assess the conformity of devices
before being placed on the market. A notified body would typically audit and examine a product’s technical dossiers and the manufacturers’
quality system (notified body must presume that quality systems which implement the relevant harmonized standards – which is ISO
13485:2016 for Quality Management Systems – conform to these requirements). If satisfied that the relevant product conforms to
the relevant essential requirements, the notified body issues a certificate of conformity, which the manufacturer uses as a basis for
its own declaration of conformity. The manufacturer may then apply the CE-Mark to the device, which allows the device to be placed on
the market throughout the EU.
Throughout
the term of the certificate of conformity, the manufacturer will be subject to periodic surveillance audits to verify continued compliance
with the applicable requirements. In particular, there will be a new audit by the notified body before it will renew the relevant certificate(s).
All
manufacturers placing in vitro diagnostic medical devices into the market in the EU must comply with the EU medical device vigilance
system. Under this system, incidents must be reported to the relevant authorities of the EU member states, and manufacturers are required
to take Field Safety Corrective Actions, or FSCAs, to reduce a risk of death or serious deterioration in the state of health associated
with the use of an in vitro diagnostic medical device that is already placed on the market. An incident is defined as any malfunction
or deterioration in the characteristics and/or performance of a device, as well as any inadequacy in the labeling or the instructions
for use which, directly or indirectly, might lead to or might have led to the death of a patient or user or of other persons or to a
serious deterioration in their state of health. An FSCA may include the recall, modification, exchange, destruction or retrofitting of
the device. FSCAs must be communicated by the manufacturer or its legal representative to its customers and/or to the end users of the
device through Field Safety Notices.
The
advertising and promotion of in vitro diagnostic medical devices is subject to some general principles set forth by EU directives. According
to the IVDD, only devices that are CE marked may be marketed and advertised in the EU in accordance with their intended purpose. Directive
2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, while not specific
to the advertising of medical devices, also apply to the advertising thereof and contain general rules, for example requiring that advertisements
are evidenced, balanced and not misleading. Specific requirements are defined at national level. EU member states laws related to the
advertising and promotion of medical devices, which vary between jurisdictions, may limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of
products to the general public and may impose limitations on promotional activities with healthcare professionals.
Many
member states in the EU have adopted specific anti-gift statutes that further limit commercial practices for medical devices (including
in vitro diagnostic medical devices), in particular vis-à-vis healthcare professionals and organizations. Additionally, there
has been a recent trend of increased regulation of payments and transfers of value provided to healthcare professionals or entities.
In addition, many EU member states have adopted national “Sunshine Acts” which impose reporting and transparency requirements
(often on an annual basis), similar to the requirements in the United States, on medical device manufacturers. Certain countries also
mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs.
In
the EU, regulatory authorities have the power to carry out announced and, if necessary, unannounced inspections of companies, as well
as suppliers and/or sub-contractors and, where necessary, the facilities of professional users. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements
(as applicable) could require time and resources to respond to the regulatory authorities’ observations and to implement corrective
and preventive actions, as appropriate. Regulatory authorities have broad compliance and enforcement powers and if such issues cannot
be resolved to their satisfaction can take a variety of actions, including untitled or warning letters, fines, consent decrees, injunctions,
or civil or criminal penalties.
The
EU regulatory landscape concerning medical devices is evolving. On April 5, 2017 Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament
and of the Council on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU, or the
IVDR, was adopted to establish a modernized and more robust EU legislative framework, with the aim of ensuring better protection of public
health and patient safety. Unlike directives, the IVDR does not need to be transposed into national law and therefore reduces the risk
of discrepancies in interpretation across the different European markets.
The
IVDR will become applicable five years after publication (on May 26, 2022). Once applicable, the IVDR will among other things:
|
● |
strengthen
the rules on placing devices on the market and reinforce surveillance once they are available; |
|
|
|
|
● |
establish
explicit provisions on manufacturers’ responsibilities for the follow-up of the quality, performance and safety of devices
placed on the market; |
|
|
|
|
● |
establish
explicit provisions on importers’ and distributors’ obligations and responsibilities; |
|
|
|
|
● |
impose
an obligation to identify a responsible person who is ultimately responsible for all aspects of compliance with the requirements
of the new regulation; |
|
|
|
|
● |
improve
the traceability of medical devices throughout the supply chain to the end-user or patient through the introduction of a unique identification
number, to increase the ability of manufacturers and regulatory authorities to trace specific devices through the supply chain and
to facilitate the prompt and efficient recall of medical devices that have been found to present a safety risk; |
|
|
|
|
● |
set
up a central database (Eudamed) to provide patients, healthcare professionals and the public with comprehensive information on products
available in the EU; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
strengthen
rules for the assessment of certain high-risk devices that may have to undergo an additional check by experts before they are placed
on the market. |
Regulations
Related to Clinical Laboratories in the European Union
The
EU does not have an overarching law or regulation that governs the legal framework surrounding the operations of clinical laboratories
in a way that would be analogous to CLIA in the United States. However, EU member states’ laws may affect how our business as a
testing service provider is carried out.
Other
laws and guidelines that impact clinical laboratories work include the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the
Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, the Declaration of Helsinki adopted by the World Medical Association
and related codes of conduct and guidelines issued by the relevant research ethics committees.
Coverage
and Reimbursement
In
international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted
price ceilings on specific product lines and procedures. In the EU, member states impose controls on whether products are reimbursable
by national or regional health service providers and on the prices at which devices are reimbursed under state-run healthcare schemes.
More and more, local, product specific reimbursement law is applied as an overlay to medical device regulation, which has provided an
additional layer of clearance requirement.
Intellectual
Property
We
consider the protection of our proprietary technologies and products, as well as our ability to maintain patent protection that covers
the composition of matter of our product candidates, their methods of use, and other related technologies and inventions, to be a critical
element in the success of our business. As of November 16, 2022, our licensed intellectual property included one issued patent in Europe;
one allowed application in the United States; one pending application in Canada and one pending Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, application.
Our
licensed intellectual property portfolio comprises the following:
Title |
|
Country |
|
Application
No |
|
Publication
No |
|
Registration
No |
|
Status |
METHODS
AND KITS COMPRISING GENE SIGNATURES FOR STRATIFYING BREAST CANCER PATIENTS |
|
United
States |
|
16308564 |
|
US20190161809A1 |
|
|
|
Allowed |
METHODS
AND KITS COMPRISING GENE SIGNATURES FOR STRATIFYING BREAST CANCER PATIENTS |
|
Canada |
|
3025860 |
|
|
|
|
|
Pending |
METHODS
COMPRISING GENE SIGNATURES FOR STRATIFYING BREAST CANCER PATIENTS |
|
Europe |
|
177320785 |
|
3472345 |
|
3472345 |
|
EP
Granted |
METHODS
AND KITS FOR DETERMINING THE RISK OF BREAST CANCER RECURRENCE |
|
PCT |
|
PCTEP2021062176 |
|
WO2021224466 |
|
|
|
Published |
We
have licensed the rights to a patent family that discloses methods and kits for stratifying risk in breast cancer patients from IEO/University
of Milan pursuant to the License. This patent family includes pending applications in Canada and an allowed application in the United
States and a granted patent in Europe. Patents issued in this patent family will expire in June 2037, excluding any patent term extensions
available in several jurisdictions.
We
have licensed the rights to a second patent family that discloses methods and kits for determining the risk of breast cancer recurrence
from IEO/University of Milan pursuant to the License. This patent family includes one pending PCT with a national phase entry in November
2022 in Europe. Patents issued in this patent family will expire in May 2041, excluding any patent term extensions available in several
jurisdictions.
We
are not aware of any third-party claims or contested proceedings in relation to our intellectual property portfolio.
IEO/University
of Milan License Agreement
On
June 24, 2014, Tiziana entered into an exclusive license agreement (the “License”) with IEO/University of Milan, pursuant
to which it obtained a worldwide, royalty-bearing, exclusive license under certain patents and a worldwide, royalty-bearing, non-exclusive
license under certain know-how of IEO/University of Milan to develop and commercialize licensed products in connection with a multi-gene
prognostic tool. The License was assigned to us as part of the arrangements contained in the demerger agreement on October 30, 2020.
Pursuant to the terms of the License, we are obliged to use reasonable efforts in connection with the development and commercialization
of the licensed products, including in accordance with specified diligence milestones.
On
November 9, 2022, AccuStem and the IEO/University of Milan amended the License to clarify the regulatory path and timeline for the commercialization
of StemPrintER. Specifically, the regulatory requirement language has been modified to (i) extend the timeline for regulatory approval
or clearance of a licensed product to 36 months from the date of the amendment, (ii) clarify that contractual regulatory requirements
can be satisfied by the approval or clearance of the test as a Laboratory Developed Test (i.e., approval or clearance can be achieved
via the CLIA regulatory path rather than the FDA) and (iii) the timeline for commercial launch has been extended for an additional 60
months from the date of the amendment. The amendment provides for a separate licensing payment of $175,000 to the IEO.
The
License also provides additional payments by us of up to €300,000 (or $320,250 based on exchange rate of $1.0675: to €1.00)
in development milestone payments and payment of single digit percentage royalties on net sales. The License remains in effect until
the royalty term has expired with respect to all licensed products in all countries. The License may be terminated by either party in
the event of a material breach and in addition, we may terminate the License at any time upon 30 days’ notice.
Item
1A. Risk Factors
The
following risk factors may be important to understanding any statement in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or elsewhere. Our business,
financial condition and operating results can be affected by a number of factors, whether currently known or unknown, including but not
limited to those described below. Any one or more of such factors could directly or indirectly cause our actual results of operations
and financial condition to vary materially from past or anticipated future results of operations and financial condition. Any of these
factors, in whole or in part, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and stock
price.
Risks
Specific to the Development of the Business
We
do not have collaborations in place with institutions for utility studies and there is no guarantee that we will be able to demonstrate
prospective clinical utility of StemPrintER.
Following
the completion of the initial retrospective validation studies with respect to StemPrintER, we are likely to run clinical utility studies
to support applications for reimbursement, which are necessary for successful commercialization and to provide further evidence to support
marketing claims. We have not yet identified which institutions will carry out the utility studies and have not yet entered into the
relevant agreements with these institutions. There is a risk that we will not be able to secure these collaborations, which would impact
our ability to proceed to the utility study stage.
Furthermore,
we may not be able to demonstrate the clinical utility of StemPrintER in a real-world setting, which would impact our ability to secure
reimbursement. If such reimbursement is not achieved, it will make commercialization of StemPrintER significantly more challenging and
would impact our ability to generate revenue and, accordingly, result in a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition,
and results of operations.
There
are risks associated with the process of establishing a CLIA laboratory and in offering StemPrintER which are outside our control.
StemPrintER
is a 20-gene test that was designed to indicate the risk of recurrence for patients with early-stage breast cancer, primarily intended
for use in the ER+/HER2- population. We do not yet have a CLIA-certified laboratory that can run StemPrintER as a LDT.
Even
if we eventually obtain CLIA certification for a laboratory that will run our assay and proceed to commercialization, there are inherent
risks associated with offering the StemPrintER as a LDT that are outside our control, including test uptake, which would have an impact
on the amount of revenue we could generate. Further, we may not be able to generate any meaningful revenue from offering StemPrintER
as a LDT.
We
will be dependent on third parties to provide certain resources and services to us, as we have limited resources
We
plan to rely in part on external resources to conduct the research, development, supply of supplies and clinical testing of our StemPrintER
test, including in relation to our laboratory systems which we expect to rely on software developed by external manufacturers. The future
development of StemPrintER and other products will partly depend upon the performance of these third parties. We cannot guarantee that
the relevant third parties will be able to carry out their obligations under the relevant arrangements. In the future, we may depend
on external resources in marketing, sales and distribution of our products. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to assign competent
partners to conduct these tasks or that these tasks can be completed on the basis of terms which are beneficial to us. Additionally,
while management is responsible for making decisions on our behalf, management will rely to a certain extent on the advice of external
professional advisors. There is no guarantee that we will receive the correct advice from such advisors.
Disagreements
between us and any third parties could lead to delays in our R&D program and/or commercialization plans. If any third parties were
to terminate their relationships with us, we would be required to obtain development and/or commercialization services from other third
parties or develop the relevant functions internally, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial
condition.
We
are subject to research and product development risk
We
may not be able to develop new products or to identify specific market needs that can be addressed by tests or solutions developed us.
Product development will be a key ongoing activity for us. However, there can be no assurance that further products will be developed,
successfully launched, or accepted by the market. All new product development has an inherent level of risk and can be a lengthy process
and suffer unforeseen delays, cost overruns and setbacks, such as difficultly recruiting patients into clinical trials. The nature of
the medical device industry may mean new products may become obsolete as a result of competition or regulatory changes which could have
a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
In
addition, R&D may be subject to various requirements, such as research subject protection for individuals participating in clinical
evaluations of new products, institutional review board oversight, regulatory authorizations, and design control requirements. Failure
to comply with requirements could result in penalties, delay, or prevent commercialization of products.
We
are subject to risks associated with medical and technological change and obsolescence
Demand
for our products could be adversely impacted by the development of alternative technology and alternative medicines. There can be no
assurance that the technology and products currently being developed by us will not be rendered obsolete. As a result, there is the possibility
that new technology or products may be superior to, or render obsolete, the technology and products that we are currently developing.
Any failure of ours to ensure that our products remain up to date with the latest advances may have a material adverse impact on our
competitiveness and financial performance. Our success will depend, in part, on our ability to develop and adapt our products or acquire
and integrate new technologies to meet these technological changes and industry trends and failure to do so could have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Risks
Relating to Intellectual Property
Our
rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates are subject to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others.
If we fail to comply with our obligations under our existing and any future intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could
lose license rights that are important to our business.
We
are reliant upon licenses and sublicenses from Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Fondazione FIRC per l’Oncologia Molecolare and the
University of Milan (“IEO/University of Milan”) to certain patent rights and proprietary technology that are important or
necessary to the development of our technology and product candidates, including the patents and know-how relating to manufacture.
On
June 24, 2014, Tiziana entered into an exclusive license agreement (the “License”) with IEO/University of Milan, pursuant
to which it obtained a worldwide, royalty-bearing, exclusive license under certain patents and a worldwide, royalty-bearing, non-exclusive
license under certain know-how, respectively, of IEO/University of Milan to develop and commercialize licensed products in connection
with a multi-gene prognostic tool. The License was assigned to us as part of the arrangements contained in the demerger agreement on
October 30, 2020. Pursuant to the terms of the License, we are obliged to use reasonable efforts in connection with the development and
commercialization of the licensed products, including in accordance with specified diligence milestones.
If
we fail to meet our obligations under the License or if the License is terminated for any reason, we may be required to discontinue our
R&D program or any future commercialization efforts of StemPrintER product candidate, be unable to expand our operations or be unable
to otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could harm our business and potentially cause a discontinuation
of our operations.
The
License may also be terminated for other reasons including breach and insolvency.
If
we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our product candidates and technology, or if the scope of our patent protection
is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize similar products and technology
Our
success depends, in large part, on our ability to seek, obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States, U.K. and other countries
with respect to our product candidates and technology. Our licensors have sought, and we intend to seek, to protect our proprietary position
by filing patent applications in the United States, the U.K. and elsewhere, related to certain technologies and our product candidate,
StemPrintER, that are important to our business.
Our
current patent portfolio contains a limited number of patent applications, which are in-licensed from third parties. If we are unable
to assert any such patents to prevent others from reproducing our technology and product candidates, or are unable to identify patentable
aspects of our R&D output before it is too late to obtain patent protection, failure to do so could have a material adverse effect
on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Our
intellectual property is open to challenge
No
assurance can be given that any current or future trademark, design right or patent applications will result in registered trademarks,
design rights or patents, that the scope of any patent, design or trademark protection or the protection provided by copyright or database
rights or the right to bring actions for breach of confidentiality will exclude competitors or provide competitive advantages to us,
that any of our licensed-in patents, design rights or trademarks will be held valid if challenged or that third parties will not claim
rights or ownership of the patents, design rights, trademarks or other intellectual property rights held by us.
If
we cannot successfully enforce our intellectual property rights, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and prospects. We may be subject to claims in relation to the infringement of patents, design rights, trademarks or other intellectual
property rights owned by third parties. Adverse judgments against us may give rise to significant liabilities in monetary damages, legal
fees and/or an inability to manufacture, market or sell products either at all or in particular territories.
Our
strategy involves generating commercially valuable intellectual property that can be protected
We
intend to augment our intellectual property portfolio. No assurance can be given that any future patent applications will result in granted
patents, that the scope of any patent protection will exclude competitors or provide competitive advantages to us, that any of our patents
will be held valid if challenged or that third parties will not claim rights in or ownership of the patents and other proprietary rights
held by us. Should we fail to successfully obtain additional patent protection in respect its technology and products could have a material
adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Market
and Competitive Risks
We
operate in a competitive market and will face competition from competitors involved in multi-gene prognostic assay for the prediction
of risk of recurrence in luminal (ER+/HER2-) breast cancer patients
We
may face competition from competitors involved in developing a multi-gene prognostic assay for the prediction of risk of recurrence in
luminal (ER+/HER2-) breast cancer patients. Many of our competitors will have access to greater research, development, marketing, financial
and personnel resources which may provide commercial advantages to those competitors. New products may be more effective, cheaper or
more effectively marketed than StemPrintER. A substantial increase in competition for any of these reasons could require us to, for example,
increase our marketing or capital expenditure or require us to change our business model to remain competitive, which may have an adverse
impact on our business including our profitability and/or financial condition.
The
market opportunities for our product candidates may be smaller than we anticipate
We
are focusing our R&D efforts on a multi-gene prognostic tool for predicting the recurrence of certain breast cancers. Our understanding
of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit
from our prognostic assay, is based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may reduce the estimated
incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the United States, the United Kingdom (“U.K.”), the
European Union (“EU”) and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to assessment with
our product candidates or patients may become increasingly difficult to identify and access, all of which would adversely affect our
business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Further,
there are several factors that could contribute to making the actual number of patients who receive our potential products, if and when
approved, less than the potentially addressable market, such as the lack of widespread availability of, and limited reimbursement for,
new therapies in many underdeveloped markets.
The
future commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon the degree of each product candidate’s market acceptance by
physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community
We
have no product authorized for marketing; our product candidates are at the validation study stage of development, and we may never have
a product available to be commercially sold or that becomes commercially successful. The commercial success of our product candidates
will depend, in part, on their acceptance by physicians, patients and third-party payors as medically necessary, cost-effective and safe.
If our future products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become
profitable. Even if some product candidates achieve market acceptance, the market may not prove to be large enough to generate significant
revenues. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on several factors,
including, but not limited to:
|
● |
the
effectiveness and safety of our product candidates as demonstrated in clinical trials; |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
potential and perceived advantages of our product candidates over alternative prognostic tools; |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
availability and cost of use relative to alternative prognostic tools; |
|
|
|
|
● |
changes
in the standard of care for the targeted indications for any product candidate; |
|
● |
the
willingness of physicians to use, and the target patient population to try, new prognostic tools; |
|
|
|
|
● |
product
labelling or product insert requirements of the FDA, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency , the European
Medicines Agency (“EMA”) or other regulatory authorities, including any limitations or warnings contained in a product’s
approved labelling; |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
timing of market introduction of competitive products; |
|
|
|
|
● |
sales,
distribution and marketing support; |
|
|
|
|
● |
publicity
concerning our product candidates or competing products and treatments; |
|
|
|
|
● |
potential
product liability claims; |
|
|
|
|
● |
any
restrictions on the use of our products together with other medications; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
favorable
third-party payor coverage and adequate reimbursement. |
Even
if a potential product displays favorable clinical properties and safety profile in preclinical studies and clinical trials, market acceptance
of the product will not be fully known until after it is launched.
The
insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly approved products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage
and reimbursement for our approved product candidates could limit our ability to market those products
We
expect that coverage and adequate reimbursement by government and private payors will be essential for most patients to be able to afford
our approved product candidates. Accordingly, sales of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad,
on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar
healthcare management organizations, or will be reimbursed by government authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party
payors. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon several factors, including the third-party payor’s determination
that use of a product is:
|
● |
a
covered benefit under our health plan; |
|
|
|
|
● |
safe,
effective and medically necessary; |
|
|
|
|
● |
appropriate
for the specific patient; |
|
|
|
|
● |
cost-effective;
and |
|
|
|
|
● |
neither
experimental nor investigational. |
Obtaining
coverage and reimbursement for a product from third-party payors is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide
to the payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance
with respect to coverage and reimbursement. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or delayed, or are available only at limited
levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement
amount may not be adequate to realize a sufficient return on our investment and less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates
may be implemented in the future.
Market
acceptance and sales of our products will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party
payors and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures.
Regulatory
Risks
Complying
with numerous regulations pertaining to our business is an expensive and time-consuming process, and any failure to comply could result
in substantial penalties.
Once
we have our CLIA certified lab, we will be subject to CLIA, a federal law that regulates clinical laboratories that perform testing on
samples derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease. CLIA regulations
mandate specific standards in the areas of personnel qualifications, administration, and participation in proficiency testing, patient
test management, quality control, quality assurance and inspections. We will be subject to survey and inspection every two years. Moreover,
CLIA inspectors may make random inspections of our clinical reference laboratory.
Although
we are required to hold a certificate of accreditation or compliance under CLIA that allows us to perform high complexity testing, we
are not required to hold a certificate of accreditation through CAP. We could alternatively maintain a certificate of accreditation from
another accrediting organization or a certificate of compliance through inspection by surveyors acting on behalf of the CLIA program.
The
failure to comply with CLIA requirements can result in enforcement actions, including the revocation, suspension, or limitation of our
CLIA certificate of accreditation, as well as a directed plan of correction, state on-site monitoring, civil money penalties, civil injunctive
suit and/or criminal penalties. We must maintain CLIA compliance and certification to be eligible to bill for tests provided to Medicare
beneficiaries. If we were to be found out of compliance with CLIA program requirements and subjected to sanctions, our business and reputation
could be harmed. Even if it were possible for us to bring our laboratory back into compliance, we could incur significant expenses and
potentially lose revenue in doing so.
We
will be required to maintain a license to conduct testing in Arizona. Arizona laws establish standards for day-to-day operation of our
clinical reference laboratory, including the training and skills required of personnel and quality control. Moreover, several other states
require that we hold licenses to test samples from patients in those states. Other states may have similar requirements or may adopt
similar requirements in the future. Although we plan to obtain licenses from states where we believe we are required to be licensed,
we may become aware of other states that require out-of-state laboratories to obtain licensure in order to accept samples from the state,
and it is possible that other states currently have such requirements or will have such requirements in the future.
If
we were to lose our CLIA certificate of accreditation or Arizona license, whether as a result of a revocation, suspension or limitation,
we would no longer be able to sell our testing products, which would limit our revenue and harm our business.
If
we fail to comply with healthcare laws and regulations, we could face substantial penalties and our business, operations and financial
condition could be adversely affected.
We
are also subject to healthcare fraud and abuse regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business
and to similar foreign laws and regulations in the countries where we conduct our business. These laws include, without limitation, state
and federal anti-kickback, self-referral, fraud and abuse, false claims, and transparency laws and regulations with respect to payments
and other transfers of value made to physicians and other licensed health care professionals.
The
Anti-Kickback Stature, or AKS, prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration
(including any kickback, bribe or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for
purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any good, facility, item or service, including laboratory
services, reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. The term “remuneration”
has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The AKS has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between manufacturers
on one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and
regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Our
practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability. Failure to meet all
of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor, however, does not make the conduct per
se illegal under the AKS. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review
of all of its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one
purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the AKS has been violated.
Further, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed
a violation.
On
June 25, 2014, the Office of Inspector General, or OIG, released a Special Fraud Alert, expressing concern regarding laboratory payments
made to referring physicians and physician group practices for blood sample collection, processing, and packaging. Specifically, the
OIG expressed concern that such arrangements may implicate the AKS when laboratories make payments to physicians for services that are
already covered and reimbursed by Medicare, or are not commercially reasonable or exceed fair market value, all in order to induce physicians
to order tests from such laboratory. Because the choice of laboratory and the decision to order laboratory tests is made or strongly
influenced by the physician, with little or no input from patients, such payment may induce physicians to order more laboratory tests
than are medically necessary, particularly when the payments are tied to, or take into account, the volume or value of business generated
by the physician. To the extent our arrangements with physicians and pathology medical groups for services related to sample collection,
transporting and handling are found to be inconsistent with applicable laws, we may be subject to significant penalties, including criminal
penalties, and exclusion from participation in U.S. federal or state health care programs.
We
are also subject to the federal physician self-referral prohibitions, commonly known as the Stark Law, which prohibits, among other things,
physicians who have a financial relationship, including an investment, ownership or compensation relationship with an entity, from referring
Medicare patients for designated health services, which include clinical laboratory services, unless an exception applies. Similarly,
entities may not bill Medicare or any other party for services furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral. In addition, the government
may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the Stark Law constitutes a false or fraudulent claim
for purposes of the false claims laws.
The
federal civil and criminal false claims law, including the False Claims Act, prohibit, among other things, any person from knowingly
presenting or causing to be presented a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making or causing to be made
a false statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid by the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand”
for money or property presented to the U.S. government. In addition, the government may assert that a claim for items or services arising
from a violation of the AKS or Stark Law constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the false claims laws. Private individuals
also have the ability to bring actions under these false claims laws in the name of the government alleging false and fraudulent claims
presented to or paid by the government (or other violations of the statutes) and to share in any amounts paid by the entity to the government
in fines or settlement. Such suits, known as qui tam actions, are pervasive in the healthcare industry.
HIPAA
also established federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute,
a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing
or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of
or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the AKS, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge
of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.
In
addition, under the federal civil monetary penalties statute, a person is prohibited from offering or transferring to a Medicare or Medicaid
beneficiary any remuneration, including waivers of co-payments and deductible amounts (or any part thereof), that the person knows or
should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of Medicare or
Medicaid payable items or services. Moreover, in certain cases, providers who routinely waive copayments and deductibles for Medicare
and Medicaid beneficiaries can also be held liable under the AKS and civil False Claims Act. One of the statutory exceptions to the prohibition
is non-routine, unadvertised waivers of copayments or deductible amounts based on individualized determinations of financial need or
exhaustion of reasonable collection efforts. The OIG emphasizes, however, that this exception should only be used occasionally to address
special financial needs of a particular patient. Although this prohibition applies only to federal healthcare program beneficiaries,
the routine waivers of copayments and deductibles offered to patients covered by commercial payors may implicate applicable state laws
related to, among other things, unlawful schemes to defraud, excessive fees for services, tortious interference with patient contracts
and statutory or common law fraud. To the extent our patient assistance programs are found to be inconsistent with applicable laws, we
may be required to restructure or discontinue such programs, or be subject to other significant penalties.
Under
the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, manufacturers of certain devices, drugs and biologics are required to report to CMS certain payments
and transfers of value by them and in some cases their distributors to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists,
podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other health care providers beginning in 2022, and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and
investment interests held by physicians (as defined by the statute) and their immediate family members. Because we plan to manufacture
our own laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, solely for use by or within our own laboratory, we believe that we are currently exempt
from these reporting requirements. We cannot assure, however, that our regulators, principally the federal government, will agree with
our determination, and a determination that we have violated these laws and regulations, or a public announcement that we are being investigated
for possible violations, could adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition.
Several
states in which we plan to operate have also adopted similar fraud and abuse laws as described above. The scope of these laws and the
interpretations of them vary from state to state and are enforced by state courts and regulatory authorities, each with broad discretion.
Some state fraud and abuse laws apply to items or services reimbursed by any payor, including patients and commercial insurers, not just
those reimbursed by a federally funded healthcare program.
It
is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Such a challenge, regardless
of the outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our business, business relationships, reputation, financial condition and results
of operations. Although an effective compliance program can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these
laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against
it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business.
Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with these laws may prove costly.
If
we or our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply
to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including administrative, civil and/or criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement,
individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in U.S. federal or state health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid in
the United States and similar programs outside the United States, a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations
of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could materially adversely affect
our ability to operate our business and our financial results. To the extent that any of our testing products are sold in a foreign country,
we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including
safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers
of value to healthcare professionals. For instance, many member states in the European Union, or EU, have adopted specific anti-gift
statutes that further limit commercial practices for medical devices (including in vitro diagnostic medical devices), in particular vis-à-vis
healthcare professionals and organizations.
Additionally,
there has been a recent trend of increased regulation of payments and transfers of value provided to healthcare professionals or entities.
In addition, many EU member states have adopted national “Sunshine Acts” which impose reporting and transparency requirements
(often on an annual basis), similar to the requirements in the United States, on medical device manufacturers.
Our
products and operations are subject to extensive government regulation and oversight both in the United States and abroad, and our failure
to comply with applicable requirements could harm our business.
Our
product candidates are in vitro tests which can be regulated as medical devices in the United States and other jurisdictions. When applicable,
the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies regulate, among other things, with respect to medical devices: design, development and manufacturing;
testing, labeling, content and language of instructions for use and storage; clinical trials (to the extent applicable, clinical trials
encompass the notion of clinical investigations in the EU); product safety; establishment registration and device listing; marketing,
sales and distribution; premarket clearance, classification, approval, and certification; recordkeeping procedures; advertising and promotion;
recalls and field safety corrective actions; post-market surveillance, including reporting of deaths or serious injuries and malfunctions
that, if they were to recur, could lead to death or serious injury; post-market studies; and product import and export.
The
regulations to which we may be subject are complex and have tended to become more stringent over time. Regulatory changes could result
in restrictions on our ability to carry on or expand our operations, higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales. The
FDA and its foreign counterparts enforce its regulatory requirements through, among other means, periodic unannounced inspections. We
do not know whether we or any contract manufacturers or suppliers that we utilize will be found compliant in connection with any future
FDA or foreign inspections. Failure to comply with applicable regulations could jeopardize our ability to sell our products and result
in enforcement actions such as: warning letters; fines; injunctions; civil penalties; termination of distribution; recalls or seizures
of products; delays in the introduction of products into the market; total or partial suspension of production; refusal to grant future
marketing authorizations or certifications; withdrawals or suspensions of current marketing authorizations and certifications, resulting
in prohibitions on sales of our products; and in the most serious cases, criminal penalties.
In
order to sell our products in EU member states, our products must comply with the essential requirements of the EU In Vitro Diagnostic
Medical Devices Directive (Directive 98/79/EC), or the IVDD. Compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to be able to affix
the European Conformity, or CE, mark to our products, without which they cannot be sold or marketed in the EU. All medical devices placed
on the market in the EU must meet the essential requirements laid down in Annex I to the IVDD including the requirement that an in vitro
diagnostic medical device must be designed and manufactured in such a way that it will not compromise the clinical condition or safety
of patients, or the safety and health of users and others. In addition, the device must achieve the performances intended by the manufacturer
and be designed, manufactured, and packaged in a suitable manner. The European Commission has adopted various standards applicable to
medical devices. There are also harmonized standards relating to design and manufacture. While not mandatory, compliance with these standards
is viewed as the easiest way to satisfy the essential requirements as a practical matter as it creates a rebuttable presumption that
the device satisfies that essential requirement. To demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements we must undergo a conformity
assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its (risk) classification. As a general rule, demonstration
of conformity of in vitro diagnostic medical devices and their manufacturers with the essential requirements must be based, among other
things, on the evaluation of clinical data supporting the safety and performance of the products during normal conditions of use. Specifically,
a manufacturer must demonstrate that the device achieves its intended performance during normal conditions of use, that the known and
foreseeable risks, and any adverse events, are minimized and acceptable when weighed against the benefits of its intended performance,
and that any claims made about the performance and safety of the device are supported by suitable evidence.
Except
for (general) in vitro diagnostic medical devices, where the manufacturer can self-declare the conformity of its products with the essential
requirements of the IVDD, a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a notified body. Notified bodies are independent
organizations designated by EU member states to assess the conformity of devices before being placed on the market. The notified body
would typically audit and examine the product’s technical file and the manufacturer’s quality system (notified body must
presume that quality systems which implement the relevant harmonized standards—which is ISO 13485:2016 for Quality Management Systems—conform
to these requirements). If satisfied that the relevant product conforms to the relevant essential requirements, the notified body issues
a certificate of conformity, which the manufacturer uses as a basis for its own declaration of conformity. The manufacturer may then
apply the CE-Mark to the device, which allows the device to be placed on the market throughout the EU.
If
we fail to achieve compliance with applicable European laws and directives, we would be unable to continue to affix the CE mark to our
products, which would prevent us from selling them within the EU. In the EU, we must inform the notified body that carried out the conformity
assessment of the devices that we market or sell in the EU and European Economic Area, or EEA, of any planned substantial changes to
our quality system or substantial changes to our in vitro diagnostic medical devices that could affect compliance with the essential
requirements laid down in Annex I to the IVDD or cause a substantial change to the intended use for which the device has been CE marked.
The notified body will then assess the planned changes and verify whether they affect the product’s ongoing conformity with the
IVDD. If the assessment is favorable, the notified body will issue a new certificate of conformity or an addendum to the existing certificate
attesting compliance with the essential requirements and quality system requirements laid down in the Annexes to the IVDD.
The
aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA (which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and
Iceland). Non-compliance with the above requirements would also prevent us from selling our products in these three countries.
The
EU regulatory landscape concerning medical devices is evolving and a new regulation governing in vitro diagnostic medical devices became
applicable on May 26, 2022 and these modifications may have an effect on the way we plan to conduct our business in the EU and the EEA.
The
FDA may modify its enforcement discretion policy with respect to laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, in a risk-based manner, and we
may become subject to extensive regulatory requirements and may be required to conduct additional clinical trials prior to continuing
to sell our existing tests or launching any other tests in the United States we may develop, which may increase the cost of conducting,
or otherwise harm, our business.
LDTs
are in vitro tests that are intended for clinical use and are designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory. Although LDTs
are classified as medical devices and the FDA has statutory authority to ensure that medical devices are safe and effective for their
intended uses, the FDA has historically exercised enforcement discretion and has not enforced certain applicable FDA requirements, including
premarket review, with respect to LDTs. In addition, in August 2020, HHS announced that the FDA will not require premarket review of
LDTs absent notice-and-comment rulemaking. Although the Biden administration has not taken affirmative steps to rescind this August 2020
announcement issued by the previous administration, this 2020 policy statement is no longer posted on the HHS website.
Legislative
and administrative proposals proposing to amend the FDA’s oversight of LDTs have been introduced in recent years and we expect
that new legislative and administrative proposals will continue to be introduced from time to time. It is possible that legislation could
be enacted into law or regulations or guidance could be issued by the FDA which may result in new or increased regulatory requirements
for us to continue to offer our LDTs or to develop and introduce new tests as LDTs in the United States.
For
example, the FDA could modify its current approach to LDTs in a way that would subject our tests that we market in the United States
as LDTs to the enforcement of additional regulatory requirements. In recent years, the FDA has stated its intention to modify its enforcement
discretion policy with respect to LDTs. Specifically, on July 31, 2014, the FDA notified Congress of its intent to modify, in a risk-based
manner, its policy of enforcement discretion with respect to LDTs. On October 3, 2014, the FDA issued two draft guidance documents entitled
“Framework for Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs),” or the Framework Guidance, and “FDA Notification
and Medical Device Reporting for Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs)”. The FDA halted finalization of the guidance in November 2016
to allow for further public discussion on an appropriate oversight approach to LDTs and to give congressional authorizing committees
the opportunity to develop a legislative solution, and FDA issued a discussion paper on possible approaches to LDT regulation in January
2017.
In
addition, the FDA and Congress have, for over the past decade, considered a number of proposals to end the FDA’s enforcement discretion
policy for LDTs and subject LDTs to additional regulatory requirements. For example, Congress has recently worked on legislation to create
an LDT and in vitro diagnostic regulatory framework for all in vitro clinical tests that would be separate and distinct from the existing
medical device regulatory framework. In June 2021, members of the U.S. House of Representatives formally introduced the VALID Act (Verifying
Accurate Leading-edge IVCT Development Act of 2021) and an identical version of the bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate. If passed
in its current form, the VALID Act would create a new category of medical products separate from medical devices called “in vitro
clinical tests,” or IVCTs, and bring all such products within the scope of FDA’s oversight. The VALID Act appears to contemplate
that traditional LDTs would become subject to FDA regulation as IVCTs, and that all IVCTs would be categorized as either high-risk or
low-risk, distinct from FDA’s existing classification for medical devices into Class I, Class II, or Class III. As proposed, the
risk classification for an IVCT would depend on certain factors, including the risk to the patient or public health of an inaccurate
result, the extent to which, the test is well-understood and/or how well-characterized it is, the clinical circumstances under which
the test is used, and the availability of other tests and any mitigating measures. Depending on the risk classification, new IVCTs, or
certain modifications to existing IVCTs, could be subject to premarket review. Notably, the bill currently includes a provision that
would “grandfather” certain tests that were commercialized before the enactment of the legislation, subject to certain requirements.
It is unclear whether the VALID Act or any other legislative proposals would be passed by Congress or signed into law by the President.
Even
if the FDA does not modify its policy of enforcement discretion, they may impose significant regulatory requirements, including the requirement
for premarket review and subsequent marketing authorization at some point in the future. We may also be required to conduct clinical
studies to support our planned product launches. If we are required to conduct such clinical trials, delays in the commencement or completion
of clinical testing could significantly increase our test development costs and delay commercialization of any products.
If
we do not obtain and maintain any required international regulatory registrations and marketing authorizations or certifications for
our products, we will be unable to market and sell such products outside of the United States.
Sales
of our products outside of the United States will remain subject to foreign regulatory requirements that vary widely from country to
country. In addition, the FDA regulates exports of medical devices from the United States. While the regulations of some countries may
not impose significant barriers to marketing and selling our products or only require notification to regulators or third parties, others
require that we obtain affirmative marketing authorization from a specified regulatory body. Complying with foreign regulatory requirements,
including obtaining registrations, marketing authorizations or certifications, can be expensive and time-consuming, and we may not receive
necessary marketing authorizations in each country in which we plan to market our products or we may be unable to do so on a timely basis.
The time required to obtain registrations and marketing authorizations, if required by other countries, may be longer than that required
for FDA marketing authorizations, and requirements for such registrations or authorizations may significantly differ from FDA requirements.
If we modify our products, we may need to apply for additional marketing authorizations before we are permitted to sell the modified
product. In addition, we may not continue to meet the quality and safety standards required to maintain the authorizations that we have
received. If we are unable to maintain our marketing authorizations in a particular country, we will no longer be able to sell the applicable
product in that country.
Obtaining
marketing authorization in the United States from the FDA does not ensure similar marketing authorization or certification by regulatory
authorities or notified bodies in other countries, and registration, marketing authorization or certification by one or more foreign
regulatory authorities or notified bodies does not ensure registration, marketing authorization, or certification by regulatory authorities
or notified bodies in other foreign countries or by the FDA. However, a failure or delay in obtaining registration, marketing authorization
or certification in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others.
Legislative
or regulatory reforms in the United States or the EU may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain marketing authorizations
or certifications for any product candidate or to manufacture, market or distribute any product candidates after such authorizations
have been obtained.
From
time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the
regulation of medical devices. In addition, the FDA may change its policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations,
or take other actions, which may prevent or delay marketing authorization in the United States of our future products under development
or impact our ability to modify any products for which we have already obtained marketing authorizations on a timely basis. Over the
last several years, the FDA has proposed reforms to its 510(k) clearance process, and such proposals could include increased requirements
for clinical data and a longer review period, or could make it more difficult for manufacturers to utilize the 510(k) clearance process
for their products. For example, in November 2018, FDA officials announced steps that the FDA intended to take to modernize the premarket
notification pathway under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. Among other things, the FDA announced that it planned to develop proposals to
drive manufacturers utilizing the 510(k) pathway toward the use of newer predicates. These proposals included plans to potentially sunset
certain older devices that were used as predicates under the 510(k) clearance pathway, and to potentially publish a list of devices that
have been cleared on the basis of demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate devices that are more than ten years old. These proposals
have not yet been finalized or adopted, although the FDA may work with Congress to implement such proposals through legislation. Accordingly,
it is unclear the extent to which any proposals, if adopted, could impose additional regulatory requirements on us that could delay our
ability to obtain 510(k) clearances in the future, increase the costs of compliance, or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing
authorizations that we may obtain, or otherwise create competition that may negatively affect our business.
More
recently, in September 2019, the FDA issued revised final guidance describing an optional “safety and performance based”
premarket review pathway for manufacturers of “certain, well-understood device types” to demonstrate substantial equivalence
under the 510(k) clearance pathway by showing that such device meets objective safety and performance criteria established by the FDA,
thereby obviating the need for manufacturers to compare the safety and performance of their medical devices to specific predicate devices
in the clearance process. The FDA maintains a list of device types appropriate for the “safety and performance based” pathway
and continues to develop product-specific guidance documents that identify the performance criteria for each such device type, as well
as recommended testing methods, where feasible. The FDA may establish performance criteria for classes of devices similar to ours, and
it is unclear the extent to which such performance standards, if established, could impact our ability to obtain marketing authorization
or otherwise create competition that may negatively affect our business.
In
addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business
and our products. Any new statutes, regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs
or lengthen review times of any product candidates or make it more difficult to obtain marketing authorizations for, manufacture, market
or distribute any product candidate we are developing. We cannot determine what effect changes in regulations, statutes, legal interpretation
or policies, when and if promulgated, enacted or adopted may have on our business in the future. Such changes could, among other things,
require: additional testing prior to seeking marketing authorization, changes to manufacturing methods recalls, replacement or discontinuance
of our products; or additional record keeping.
The
FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be promulgated that
could prevent, limit or delay marketing authorization of any product candidates we develop. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes
in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we
may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.
The
EU regulatory landscape concerning medical devices is evolving. On April 5, 2017, Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament
and of the Council on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU, or the
IVDR, was adopted to establish a modernized and more robust EU legislative framework, with the aim of ensuring better protection of public
health and patient safety. Unlike directives, the IVDR does not need to be transposed into national law and therefore reduces the risk
of discrepancies in interpretation across the different European markets.
The
IVDR will become applicable five years after publication (on May 26, 2022). Once applicable, the IVDR will among other things:
|
● |
strengthen
the rules on placing devices on the market and reinforce surveillance once they are available; |
|
|
|
|
● |
establish
explicit provisions on manufacturers’ responsibilities for the follow-up of the quality, performance and safety of devices
placed on the market; |
|
|
|
|
● |
establish
explicit provisions on importers’ and distributors’ obligations and responsibilities; |
|
|
|
|
● |
impose
an obligation to identify a responsible person who is ultimately responsible for all aspects of compliance with the requirements
of the new regulation; |
|
|
|
|
● |
improve
the traceability of medical devices throughout the supply chain to the end-user or patient through the introduction of a unique identification
number, to increase the ability of manufacturers and regulatory authorities to trace specific devices through the supply chain and
to facilitate the prompt and efficient recall of medical devices that have been found to present a safety risk; |
|
● |
set
up a central database (Eudamed) to provide patients, healthcare professionals and the public with comprehensive information on products
available in the EU; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
strengthen
rules for the assessment of certain high-risk devices that may have to undergo an additional check by experts before they are placed
on the market. |
These
modifications may have an effect on the way we conduct our business in the EEA.
Changes
in funding for, or disruptions caused by global health concerns impacting, the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability
to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new medical device products from being developed, authorized
or commercialized in a timely manner, which could negatively impact our business.
The
ability of the FDA, foreign regulatory agencies and notified bodies to review, authorize and certify the sale of new products can be
affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels; its ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept
the payment of user fees; statutory, regulatory, and policy changes; and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability
to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding
of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid
and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new devices, including in vitro diagnostics
to be reviewed and/or authorized for marketing by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example,
over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and
certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.
On
July 10, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to resume certain on-site inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to
a risk-based prioritization system which had been postponed previously due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The FDA intends to use this
risk-based assessment system to identify the categories of regulatory activity that can occur within a given geographic area,
ranging from mission critical inspections to resumption of all regulatory activities. Other regulatory authorities may adopt similar
restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global
health concerns continue to prevent the FDA, other regulatory authorities or notified bodies from conducting business as usual or
conducting inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely
review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
For
instance, in the EU, notified bodies must be officially designated to certify products and services in accordance with the IVDR. Only
a few notified bodies have been designated so far but the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly slowed down their designation process.
Without IVDR designation, notified bodies may not yet start certifying devices in accordance with the new Regulation. As only a few notified
bodies have been IVDR-designated they are facing a heavy workload and their review times have lengthened. This situation could impact
the way we are conducting our business in the EU and the EEA.
If
we are unable to effectively adapt to changes in the healthcare industry, including changes to laws and regulations regarding or affecting
the U.S. healthcare reform, our business may be harmed.
Federal,
state and local legislative bodies frequently pass legislation and promulgate regulations relating to healthcare reform or that affect
the healthcare industry. We anticipate that there will continue to be increased government oversight and regulation of the healthcare
industry in the future. We cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any new healthcare legislation or regulations, nor
is it possible at this time to estimate the impact of potential new legislation or regulations on our business. It is possible that future
legislation enacted by Congress or state legislatures, or regulations promulgated by regulatory authorities at the federal or state level,
could adversely affect our business.
Our
failure to maintain compliance of our future clinical laboratory operations with applicable laws could result in substantial civil or
criminal penalties
The
operation of a clinical laboratory by us will be in a highly regulated environment which, among other things, will require maintaining
compliance with CLIA certification and state clinical laboratory licensing requirements. Failure to maintain compliance with these requirements
may result in a range of enforcement actions, including certificate or license suspension, limitation, or revocation, directed plan of
action, onsite monitoring, civil monetary penalties and criminal sanctions. Such failure may also result in significant adverse publicity.
Any of these consequences could limit or entirely prevent our continued operation and therefore impact our financial performance.
Failure
in, or security breaches or incidents impacting, our information technology, storage systems or our clinical laboratory equipment could
significantly disrupt our operations and our research and development efforts.
Our
ability to execute our business strategy will depend, in part, on the continued and uninterrupted performance of our information technology,
or IT, systems, which support our operations, including at our proposed clinical laboratories, and our research and development efforts.
We are dependent on our IT systems for many aspects of our business, including our needs to retain and store our confidential and proprietary
business information and to receive and process test orders, securely store patient health records and deliver the results of our tests.
The integrity and protection of our own data, and that of our customers and employees, is critical to our business. The regulatory environment
governing information, security and privacy and data protection laws is increasingly demanding and continues to evolve. IT systems are
vulnerable to damage from a variety of sources, including telecommunications or network failures, cyberattacks (including ransomware
attacks) and other malicious human acts from criminal hackers, hacktivists, state-sponsored intrusions and other attacks, industrial
espionage and employee malfeasance, breaches and incidents due to employee error or negligence, and natural disasters. Moreover, despite
network security and back-up measures, some of our servers are potentially vulnerable to physical or electronic break-ins, computer viruses
and other malicious code similar disruptive problems.
High-profile
security breaches and incidents at other companies and in government agencies have increased in recent years, and security industry experts
and government officials have warned about the risks of hackers and cyber-attacks targeting businesses such as ours. Cyber-attacks are
becoming more sophisticated and frequent, and in some cases have caused significant harm. Computer hackers and others routinely attempt
to breach the security of technology products, services and systems, and to fraudulently induce employees, customers, or others to disclosure
information or unwittingly provide access to systems or data. Much of our workforce currently works remotely rather than in our offices,
and we may be more susceptible to security breaches and incidents as a result. Our service providers may be more susceptible to security
breaches and other security incidents while social distancing measures restrict the ability of their employees to work at offices to
combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
We
may in the future experience attempted or successful cyber-attacks of our IT systems or networks. To date, we have not experienced any
material cyber-attacks. However, any security breach or incident impacting, or interruption could compromise our networks and the information
stored therein, including algorithms relating to our products, could be accessed by unauthorized parties, publicly disclosed, lost, inaccessible
or unavailable, corrupted, or stolen. Despite the precautionary measures we have taken to prevent unanticipated problems that could affect
our IT systems, unauthorized access to our systems, or disruptions or other security breaches impacting our IT systems, and any unauthorized
access to, or, loss, inaccessibility, unavailability, corruption, theft or disclosure could also disrupt our operations, including our
ability to:
|
● |
process
tests, provide test results, bill payors or patients; |
|
|
|
|
● |
process
claims and appeals; |
|
|
|
|
● |
provide
customer assistance services; |
|
|
|
|
● |
conduct
research and development activities; |
|
|
|
|
● |
collect,
process and prepare company financial information; |
|
|
|
|
● |
provide
information about our tests and other patient and healthcare provider education and outreach efforts through our website; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
and
manage the administrative aspects of our business and damage our reputation. |
Any
such breach, incident, or other compromise of IT systems or data, or the perception that any of these has occurred, could result in legal
claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, such as the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, similar U.S. state data protection regulations, including the California Consumer Privacy Act,
or CCPA, the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, and other regulations, the breach of which could result in claims, complaints,
regulatory investigations and other proceedings, and significant fines, penalties, and other liability. We also may be required to incur
significant costs in an effort to detect and prevent security breaches and other security-related incidents. Additionally, information
obtained by third parties in connection with past or future cyberattacks or other security breaches or incidents could be used in ways
that adversely affect our company or our stockholders.
Further,
third-party service providers who support our operations, and our independent contractors (including CROs), consultants, collaborators,
and service providers also may suffer interruptions and disruptions of systems and other breaches, incidents, or other compromises of
or impacting their IT systems or data that they process or maintain for us, which may lead to any of the foregoing. We and our third-party
service providers may not have the resources or technical sophistication to anticipate or prevent all cyberattacks or other sources of
security breaches or incidents, and we or they may face difficulties or delays in identifying and responding to cyberattacks and data
security breaches and incidents. In addition, the interpretation and application of consumer, health related and security, privacy and
data protection laws in the United States, Europe and elsewhere are often uncertain, contradictory and in flux, such as in the area of
international transfers of personal data. Complying with these various laws, and satisfying healthcare providers’ and patients’
evolving expectations with respect to data protection, could cause us to incur substantial costs or require us to change our business
practices and compliance procedures in a manner adverse to our business.
We
do not maintain insurance policies for cybersecurity-related matters, data handling or data security liabilities. The successful assertion
of one or more large claims against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, including our financial condition, operating
results, and reputation
Potential
conflicts of interest between our management, Board of Directors, and significant stockholders and Tiziana could result in a divergence
of interest between management and investors.
Certain
directors, management personnel, and significant stockholders of Tiziana are also our directors, officers and significant stockholders.
Additionally, a majority of the Board, as of the date hereof, consists of individuals who are also affiliated with Tiziana. For the year
ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, Tiziana has received cash fees of approximately $0 and $12,434, respectively, from us in consideration
for providing certain services to us including, but not limited to, management and administrative services. Conflicts of interest may
arise between the best interest of our stockholders and Tiziana with respect to the performance of services by Tiziana by us. There can
be no assurances that any such conflicts will be resolved in our favor or will not adversely affect our business, operations or operating
results.
Certain
members of our management do not devote their full time to our company and certain of our officers and directors may have conflicts of
interest.
While
our executive officers devote such time to us as they deem reasonable and necessary to discharge the business of our company, our
officers have professional interests in a variety of activities other than those relevant to us and are not required to devote any
minimum amount of time to our business. Keeren Shah, our Chief Financial Officer also serves as Chief Financial Officer of Tiziana Life Sciences, OKYO Pharma Ltd and Rasna Therapeutics Inc.
Accordingly, conflicts may arise in the allocation of time between our company and one or more of these activities. While we expect
that our board of directors and management will exercise their fiduciary obligation to our company, there are no assurances any
conflicts of interest which may arise will be resolved in our favor.
Risks
Specific to Our Financial Position and the Future Financing of the Business
We
have incurred net losses in every year since our inception. We anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future
and may never achieve or maintain profitability.
We
are a clinical stage diagnostic company with a limited operating history. Since our inception in May 2013, we have incurred
significant net losses. Our net losses were $3,746,419 and $670,614 for the year ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. As
of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $4,471,281. We expect that it could be several years, if ever, before we have
a commercialized product candidate. We expect to continue to incur significant and increasing operating expenses and losses for the
foreseeable future. These net losses will adversely impact our stockholders’ equity and net assets and may fluctuate
significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as,
we:
|
● |
manufacture
our product candidates in accordance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, for clinical trials or potential commercial
sales; |
|
|
|
|
● |
establish
a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure to commercialize any product candidate for which we may obtain marketing approval; |
|
|
|
|
● |
develop,
maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio; |
|
|
|
|
● |
identify,
assess, and acquire or in-license other product candidates and technologies; |
|
|
|
|
● |
secure,
maintain or obtain freedom to operate for any in-licensed technologies and products; |
|
|
|
|
● |
address
any competing technological and market developments; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
expand
our operations in the United States and Europe. |
We
may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues that are significant or large
enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly
or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to
raise capital, maintain our research and development, or R&D, efforts expand our business or continue our operations.
We
need substantial additional funding to complete the development of its product candidates, which may not be available on acceptable terms,
if at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate certain of our product development,
research operations or future commercialization efforts, if any
Our
operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception, and we expect our expenses to increase significantly in connection
with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the R&D of, initiate further clinical trials of and seek marketing approval
for, our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, we expect to incur significant
expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution.
Furthermore,
we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public reporting company in the United States.
If
we are unable to obtain adequate funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue our R&D
programs of our product candidates or any future commercialization efforts, be unable to expand our operations or be unable to otherwise
capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could harm our business and potentially cause a discontinuation of operations.
Our
financial condition and operating results have varied significantly in the past and losses are continuing and increasing due to a variety
of factors, many of which are beyond our control.
Our
financial condition and operating results have varied significantly in the past and losses are continuing and increasing due to a variety
of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Factors relating to our business that may contribute to these fluctuations include:
● |
continuing
our current research and development programs, including conducting preclinical and clinical studies for product candidates; |
|
|
● |
initiating
clinical trials for product candidates; |
|
|
● |
the
success of our clinical trials through all phases of clinical development; |
|
|
● |
delays
in the commencement, enrollment and timing of clinical trials; |
|
|
● |
our
ability to secure and maintain collaborations, licensing or other arrangements for the future development and/or commercialization
of our product candidates, as well as the terms of those arrangements; |
|
|
● |
our
ability to obtain, as well as the timeliness of obtaining, additional funding to develop our product candidates; |
|
|
● |
the
results of clinical trials or marketing applications for product candidates that may compete with our product candidates; |
|
|
● |
competition
from existing products or new products that may receive marketing approval; |
|
|
● |
potential
side effects of our product candidates that could delay or prevent approval or cause an approved product to be taken off the market; |
|
|
● |
any
delays in regulatory review and approval of our product candidates; |
|
|
● |
our
ability to identify and develop additional product candidates; |
|
|
● |
the
ability of patients or healthcare providers to obtain coverage or sufficient reimbursement for our products; |
|
|
● |
our
ability, and the ability of third parties such as Clinical Research Organizations (“CROs”) to adhere to clinical study
and other regulatory requirements; |
|
|
● |
the
ability of third-party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates and key ingredients needed to conduct clinical trials
and, if approved, successfully commercialize our products; |
|
|
● |
the
costs to us, and our ability as well as the ability of any third-party collaborators, to obtain, maintain and protect our intellectual
property rights; |
|
|
● |
costs
related to and outcomes of potential intellectual property litigation; |
|
|
● |
our
ability to adequately support future growth; |
|
|
● |
our
ability to attract and retain key personnel to manage our business effectively; and |
|
|
● |
our
ability to build our finance infrastructure and, to the extent required, improve our accounting systems and controls. |
Developing
new products and services is a speculative and risky endeavor. Products or services that initially show promise may fail to achieve the
desired results or may not achieve acceptable levels of analytical accuracy or clinical utility. We may need to alter our products in
development and repeat clinical studies before we identify a potentially successful product or service. Product development is expensive,
may take years to complete and can have uncertain outcomes. Failure can occur at any stage of the development. If, after development,
a product or service appears successful, we may, depending on the nature of the product or service, still need to obtain U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, or FDA, and other regulatory clearances, authorizations or approvals before we can market it. The FDA’s clearance,
authorization or approval pathways are likely to involve significant time, as well as additional research, development and clinical study
expenditures. The FDA may not clear, authorize or approve any future product or service we develop. Even if we develop a product or service
that receives regulatory clearance, authorization or approval, we would need to commit substantial resources to commercialize, sell and
market it before it could be profitable, and the product or service may never be commercially successful. Additionally, development of
any product or service may be disrupted or made less viable by the development of competing products or services.
New
potential products and services may fail any stage of development or commercialization and if we determine that any of our current or
future products or services are unlikely to succeed, we may abandon them without any return on our investment. If we are unsuccessful
in developing additional products or services, our potential for growth may be impaired.
In
cases where we are successful in obtaining regulatory approval to market one or more of our product candidates, our revenue will be dependent,
in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the
ability to obtain coverage and reimbursement, and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the number of our addressable
patients is not as significant as we estimate, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the treatment
population is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of
such products, even if approved.
We
expect our research and development expenses to continue to be significant in connection with our continued investment in our ongoing
and planned clinical trials for our current product candidates and any future product candidates we may develop. Furthermore, if we obtain
regulatory approval for our product candidates, we expect to incur increased sales and marketing expenses. In addition, once we are a
public company, we will incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. As a result, we expect to continue to incur
significant and increasing operating losses and negative cash flows for the foreseeable future. These losses have had and will continue
to have a material adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity, financial position, cash flows and working capital.
Our
recurring losses from operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern
Since inception, we have incurred cumulative losses from operations,
negative cash flows from operating activities and have accumulated deficits of $4,471,281 and $724,862 as of December 31, 2022 and
2021, respectively. We expect to continue to generate significant operating losses for the foreseeable future. Based on our recurring
losses from operations since inception and continued cash outflows from operating activities, in our audited consolidated financial statements
for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, we concluded that this circumstance raised substantial doubt about our ability to continue
as a going concern within one year from the original issuance date of such financial statements. Similarly, in its report on the consolidated
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, our independent registered public accounting firm included an emphasis
of matter paragraph stating that our recurring losses from operations and continued cash outflows from operating activities raised substantial
doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2022 and
2021 do not include any adjustments that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
Risks
Related to our Business Operations
Risks
relating to managing growth, employee matters and other risks relating to our business
As
of December 31, 2022, we had four full-time employees. As we mature, we expect to expand our full-time employee base and hire more scientists,
technicians and other skilled and experienced personnel. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention
away from the day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time toward managing these growth activities. We may not be able
to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, operational mistakes, loss
of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant
capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional products or technologies.
If the management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, the ability to generate and/or
grow revenues could be reduced, and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability
to commercialize products and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.
Challenges
in identifying and retaining key personnel could impair our ability to conduct and grow our operations effectively
Our
ability to compete in the highly competitive medical device industry depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified
management and sales teams. We are intending to recruit our own commercial team and expand our existing central infrastructure team.
Many of the other pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial
and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than it does. We might not be able to attract or retain
these key persons on conditions that are economically acceptable. Our inability to attract and retain these key persons could have a
material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial conditions and results of operation.
We
are reliant upon the expertise and continued service of a small number of key individuals of our management, Board of Directors and scientific
advisors
We
rely on the expertise and experience of a small number of key individuals of our management, Directors and scientific advisors to continue
to develop and manage our business. The retention of their services cannot be guaranteed. Accordingly, the departure of these key individuals
could have a negative impact on our operations, financial condition, our ability to execute our business strategy and future prospects.
We
intend to rely, in part, on the recruitment of appropriately qualified personnel, including personnel with a high level of scientific
and technical expertise in the industry. We may be unable to find a sufficient number of appropriately highly trained individuals to
satisfy its growth rate which could affects its ability to develop products as planned.
In
addition, if we fail to succeed in pre-clinical or clinical studies, it may make it more challenging to recruit and retain appropriately
qualified personnel. Our inability to recruit key personnel or the loss of the services of key personnel or consultants may impede the
progress of our R&D objectives as well as the commercialization of our lead and other products, which could have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We do not have employment agreements with any of our executive
officers, and they may voluntarily terminate their employment with us at any time.
We
may become subject to product liability claims
We
face an inherent risk of product liability and associated adverse publicity as a result of the clinical testing of our products and sales
of our products once marketing approval is received from relevant regulatory authorities.
Criminal
or civil proceedings might be filed against us by study subjects, patients, relevant regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies,
and any other third party using or marketing our products. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing
or design, negligence, strict liability, a breach of warranties and a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product.
If
we cannot successfully defend ourself against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit
commercialization of our products, if approved. Even if we successfully defend ourself against such product liability claims it could
require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result
in:
|
● |
decreased
demand for our products due to negative public perception; |
|
|
|
|
● |
injury
to our reputation; |
|
|
|
|
● |
withdrawal
of clinical study participants or difficulties in recruiting new study participants; |
|
|
|
|
● |
initiation
of investigations by regulators; |
|
|
|
|
● |
costs
to defend or settle the related litigation; |
|
|
|
|
● |
diversion
of management’s time and our resources; |
|
|
|
|
● |
substantial
monetary awards to patients, study participants or subjects; |
|
|
|
|
● |
product
recalls, withdrawals or labelling, marketing or promotional restrictions; |
|
|
|
|
● |
loss
of revenues from product sales; or |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
inability to commercialize any our products, if approved. |
Although
we intend to maintain levels of insurance customary for our sector to cover our current and future business operations, any claim that
may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our
insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may
be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. In such cases, we would have to pay any amounts awarded by a court
or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or
be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Any such judgment could adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations, business reputation and could adversely affect the market for our products.
If
we or our partners, licensees and subcontractors were unable to obtain and maintain appropriate insurance coverage at an acceptable cost,
or to protect ourself or themselves in any way against actions for damages, this would seriously affect the marketing of our products
and, more generally, be detrimental to our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition.
The
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and actions taken in response to it may result in disruptions to our business operations, which would have
a materially adverse effect on our business, financial position, operating results, and cash flows.
In
December 2019, the strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, causing the disease known as COVID-19, was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan,
China. In March 2020, the WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic. Since being discovered, new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have
emerged.
Moreover,
we may experience additional disruptions that could severely impact our business and development activities, including, but not limited
to, strain on our suppliers and other third parties, possibly resulting in supply disruptions of our product candidates for preclinical
development and potential future clinical trials we expect to initiate, decrease in clinical enrollment in any clinical trials we initiate,
and the ability to raise capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the global supply
chain, causing disruptions to service providers, logistics, and the flow and availability of supplies and products. Disruptions in our
operations or supply chain, whether as a result of government intervention, restricted travel, quarantine requirements, or otherwise,
could negatively impact our ability to proceed with our clinical trials, preclinical development, and other activities and delay our
ability to receive product approval and generate revenue.
In
addition, the continued spread of COVID-19 may lead to severe disruption and volatility in the global capital markets, which could increase
our cost of capital and adversely affect our ability to access the capital markets. It is possible that the continued spread of COVID-19
could cause an economic slowdown or recession or cause other unpredictable events, each of which could adversely affect our business,
results of operations, or financial condition.
Market
and economic conditions may negatively impact our business, financial condition and share price.
Concerns
over medical epidemics, energy costs, geopolitical issues, the U.S. mortgage market and a deteriorating real estate market, unstable
global credit markets and financial conditions, and volatile oil prices have led to periods of significant economic instability, diminished
liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence and discretionary spending, diminished expectations for the global
economy and expectations of slower global economic growth, increased unemployment rates, and increased credit defaults in recent years.
Our general business strategy may be adversely affected by any such economic downturns (including the current downturn related to inflation
and the Russia-Ukraine conflict), volatile business environments and continued unstable or unpredictable economic and market conditions.
If these conditions continue to deteriorate or do not improve, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult to complete,
more costly, and more dilutive. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material
adverse effect on our growth strategy, financial performance, and share price and could require us to delay or abandon development or
commercialization plans.
Clinical
trials are expensive, time-consuming, and may not be successful.
Clinical
trials are expensive, time-consuming, and may not be successful. They involve the evaluation of diagnostic tests to determine the safety
and efficacy of the diagnostic tests necessary for an approved diagnostic technology. Many tests and products in human clinical trials
fail to demonstrate the desired safety and efficacy characteristics. Even if our tests and products candidates progress successfully
through initial or subsequent human testing, they may fail in later phases of development. We may engage others to conduct our clinical
trials, including clinical research organizations and government-sponsored agencies. These trials may not start or be completed as we
forecast or may not achieve desired results.
We
may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive
marketing authorization or commercialize our diagnostic technologies, including:
|
● |
regulators
or institutional review boards may not authorize us or our investigators to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial
at a prospective trial site; |
|
|
|
|
● |
we
may experience delays in reaching, or fail to reach, agreement on acceptable clinical trial contracts or clinical trial protocols
with prospective trial sites; |
|
|
|
|
● |
clinical
trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical
trials or abandon product and test development programs; |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
number of patients required for clinical trials may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower
than we anticipate, or participants may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate; |
|
|
|
|
● |
our
third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner,
or at all; |
|
|
|
|
● |
we
may have to suspend or terminate clinical trials for various reasons, including a finding that the participants are being exposed
to unacceptable health risks; |
|
● |
regulators
or institutional review boards may require that we or our investigators suspend or terminate clinical research for various reasons,
including noncompliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health
risks; |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
cost of clinical trials may be greater than we anticipate; or |
|
|
|
|
● |
regulators
may revise the requirements for approving our diagnostic technologies, or such requirements may not be as we anticipate. |
If
we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to
successfully complete clinical trials or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly
positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:
|
● |
be
delayed in obtaining marketing approval; |
|
|
|
|
● |
not
obtain marketing approval at all, which would seriously impair our viability; |
|
|
|
|
● |
obtain
marketing approval in some countries and not in others; |
|
|
|
|
● |
obtain
approval for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as we intend or desire; |
|
|
|
|
● |
obtain
approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings; |
|
|
|
|
● |
be
subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements; or |
|
|
|
|
● |
have
the diagnostic test removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval. |
Our
product and test development costs will increase if we experience delays in clinical testing or marketing approvals. We do not know whether
any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured, or will be completed on schedule
or at all. Significant preclinical or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right
to commercialize our diagnostic technology or allow our competitors to bring diagnostic tests to market before we do, potentially impairing
our ability to successfully commercialize our diagnostic technologies and harming our business and results of operations.
If
testing of a particular diagnostic test or product candidate does not yield successful results, then we will be unable to commercialize
that test or product candidate.
We
must demonstrate that the product safety and efficacy of our candidates for diagnostic tests and product candidates in humans through
extensive clinical testing. Our research and development programs are at an early stage of development. We may experience numerous unforeseen
events during, or as a result of, the testing process that could delay or prevent commercialization of any test or product, including
the following:
|
● |
the
results of pre-clinical studies may be inconclusive, or they may not be indicative of results that will be obtained in human clinical
trials; |
|
|
|
|
● |
safety
and efficacy results attained in early human clinical trials may not be indicative of results that are obtained in later clinical
trials; |
|
|
|
|
● |
after
reviewing test results, we may abandon projects that we might previously have believed to be promising; |
|
|
|
|
● |
we
or our regulators may suspend or terminate clinical trials because the participating subjects or patients are being exposed to unacceptable
health risks; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
our
test or product candidates may not have the desired effects or may include undesirable side effects or other characteristics that
preclude regulatory approval or limit their commercial use if approved. |
Even
if our diagnostic tests or product candidates receive marketing approval, they may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by
physicians, patients, third-party payers and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.
Even
if our products receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party
payers, and others in the medical community. If we do not generate significant product revenues, we may not become profitable. The degree
of market acceptance of our products and tests, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:
|
● |
their
efficacy, safety and other potential advantages compared to alternative tests or products; |
|
|
|
|
● |
our
ability to offer them for sale at competitive prices; |
|
|
|
|
● |
their
convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative diagnostics or treatments; |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
willingness of the target patient population to try new diagnostic tests and of physicians to order these tests; |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies; |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
strength of marketing and distribution support; |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
availability of governmental agencies and third-party medical insurance and adequate reimbursement for our diagnostic tests or product
candidates; |
|
|
|
|
● |
any
restrictions on the use of our diagnostic tests or product candidates together with other diagnostic methods or therapeutic treatments; |
|
|
|
|
● |
any
restrictions on the use of our diagnostic tests or product candidates together with other medications; |
|
|
|
|
● |
inability
of certain types of patients to produce adequate samples for analysis in the use of our diagnostic tests; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
inability
of certain types of patients to use our diagnostic tests. |
If
we are unable to address and overcome these and similar concerns, our business and results of operations could be substantially harmed.
If
we are unable to establish effective sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties with
such capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing our diagnostic tests or product candidates if and when they are approved.
We
do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have limited experience in the sale, marketing, or distribution of our diagnostic
tests or product candidates. To achieve commercial success for any diagnostic test or product candidates for which we obtain marketing
approval, we will need to successfully establish and maintain relationships directly and with third parties to perform sales and marketing
functions.
Factors
that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our diagnostic tests or product candidates on our own include:
|
● |
our
inability to recruit, train, and retain adequate numbers of effective sales, technical support, and marketing personnel; |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
inability of sales personnel to obtain access to or educate physicians on the benefits of our diagnostic tests or product candidates; |
|
● |
the
lack of complementary diagnostic tests or products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage
relative to companies with more extensive diagnostic tests or product lines; |
|
|
|
|
● |
unforeseen
costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales, technical support, and marketing organization; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
the
inability to obtain sufficient coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors and governmental agencies. |
If
we do not establish sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties,
we will not be successful in commercializing our diagnostic tests or product candidates.
If
we are unable to convince physicians as to the benefits of our proposed diagnostic tests or product candidates, we may incur delays or
additional expense in our attempt to establish market acceptance.
Broad
use of our proposed diagnostic tests and products may require pathology laboratories and physicians to be informed regarding our proposed
diagnostic tests and products and the intended benefits. Inability to carry out this physician education process may adversely affect
market acceptance of our proposed diagnostic tests or products. We may be unable to timely educate physicians regarding our proposed
diagnostic tests or products in sufficient numbers to achieve our marketing plans or to achieve acceptance of our diagnostic tests or
products. Any delay in physician education may materially delay or reduce demand for our diagnostic tests or products. In addition, we
may expend significant funds toward physician education before any acceptance or demand for our proposed diagnostic tests or products
is created, if at all.
We
face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing, or commercializing competing diagnostic tests or products
before or more successfully than we do.
The
development and commercialization of new diagnostic technologies is highly competitive. We face competition and will face competition
with respect to any diagnostic technology that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major diagnostic and pharmaceutical
companies, LDT laboratories, smaller diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors
also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek
patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization.
A
substantial number of the companies against which we are competing have or, against which we may compete in the future may have, significantly
greater financial resources, established presence in the market, and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical
testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved diagnostic tests or products than we do.
Mergers and acquisitions in the diagnostic, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated
among a smaller number of our competitors.
Smaller
and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large
and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales, marketing, and
management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, and acquiring technologies complementary
to, or necessary for, our programs.
Our
commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize diagnostic tests or products that
are more accurate, more convenient, or less expensive than any diagnostic tests or products that we may develop. Our competitors also
may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their diagnostic tests or products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours,
which could result in our competitors establishing a stronger market position. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in
many cases by insurers or other third-party payors.
We
may be unable to compete in our target marketplaces, which could impair our ability to generate revenues, thus causing a material adverse
impact on our results of operations.
If
users of our proposed diagnostic tests or products are unable to obtain adequate reimbursement from third-party payers or governmental
agencies or if new restrictive legislation is adopted, market acceptance of our proposed tests or products may be limited, and we may
not achieve revenues.
The
continuing efforts of government and insurance companies, health maintenance organizations (“HMOs”) and other payers of healthcare
costs to contain or reduce costs may affect our future revenues and profitability, as well as the future revenues and profitability of
our potential customers, suppliers, and collaborative partners and the availability of capital. For example, in certain international
markets, pricing or profitability of diagnostic tests and products is subject to government control. In the U.S., given recent federal
and state government initiatives directed at lowering the total cost of healthcare, the U.S. Congress and state legislatures will likely
continue to focus on healthcare reform, the cost of medical devices, tests and prescription pharmaceuticals, and Medicare and Medicaid
reforms. While we cannot predict whether any such legislative or regulatory proposals will be adopted, the announcement or adoption of
such proposals could materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Our
ability to commercialize our proposed tests or products will depend in part on the extent to which appropriate reimbursement levels for
the cost of our tests or products are obtained by governmental authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations such as
HMOs. Governmental agencies and third-party payers are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical tests, drugs, and services.
Also, the trend toward managed healthcare in the U.S. and the concurrent growth of organizations such as HMOs, which could control or
significantly influence the purchase of healthcare services, diagnostics, and drugs, as well as legislative proposals to reform healthcare
or reduce government insurance programs, may all result in lower prices for or rejection of our tests or products.
Our
employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities,
including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.
Our
business operations and current and future relationships with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors
and customers will be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, health
information privacy and security laws, and other healthcare laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied,
with such laws, we could face substantial penalties. We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other illegal activity by our employees,
independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, vendors and agents acting on behalf of us or our affiliates. Misconduct by
these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to: comply with the regulations of the FDA or foreign
health authorities; provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA or foreign health authorities; comply with manufacturing
standards we have established; comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct
laws; or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us.
The
market for our proposed tests and products is competitive and rapidly changing, and new diagnostic technologies which may be developed
by others could impair our ability to maintain and grow our business and remain competitive.
The
diagnostic industry is subject to rapid and substantial technological change. Developments by others may render our proposed tests or
products noncompetitive or obsolete, or we may be unable to keep pace with technological developments or other market factors. Technological
competition from diagnostic, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, governmental entities, and others diversifying
into the field is intense and is expected to increase.
Our
resources are limited, and we may experience technical challenges inherent in such technologies. Competitors have developed or are in
the process of developing technologies that are, or in the future may be, the basis for competition. Some of these technologies may have
an entirely different approach or means of accomplishing similar diagnostic efficacy compared to our proposed tests or products. Our
competitors may develop diagnostic technologies that are more effective or less costly than our proposed tests or products and therefore
present a serious competitive threat.
The
potential widespread acceptance of diagnostic tests that are alternatives to ours may limit market acceptance of our proposed tests or
products, even if commercialized. Many of our targeted diseases and conditions can also be detected by other tests or treated by other
medications. These tests and treatments may be widely accepted in medical communities and have a longer history of use. The established
use of these competitive technologies may limit the potential for our technologies, formulations, tests and products to receive widespread
acceptance if commercialized.
Risks
Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties
We
rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties
do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for
or commercialize our product candidates.
We
have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third parties, including independent clinical investigators and third-party contract
research organizations (“CROs”), to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials and to monitor and manage data for
our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. In engaging these third parties, we typically have to, and expect to have to, negotiate
budgets and contracts, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increases costs. Additionally, there is a limited
number of qualified third-party service providers that specialize or have the expertise required to achieve our business objectives,
and so it may be challenging to find alternative investigators or CROs, or do so on commercially reasonable terms. We rely on these parties
for execution of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we
are responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable
protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory
responsibilities. We and our third-party contractors and CROs are required to comply with Good Clinical Practice (‘GCP’)
requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European
Economic Area and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities
enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. If we
fail to exercise adequate oversight over any of our CROs or if we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements,
the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities may require
us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon a regulatory inspection
of us or our CROs or other third parties performing services in connection with our clinical trials, such regulatory authority will determine
that any of our clinical trials complies with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced
under applicable cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would
delay the regulatory approval process.
Further,
these investigators and CROs are not our employees and we will not be able to control, other than by contract, the amount of resources,
including time, which they devote to our product candidates and clinical trials. If independent investigators or CROs fail to devote
sufficient resources to the development of our product candidates, or if their performance is substandard, it may delay or compromise
the prospects for approval and commercialization of our product candidates. These investigators and CROs may also have relationships
with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other product development
activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to
disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which increases the risk that a competitor will discover them or that this information
will be misappropriated or disclosed.
If
any of our relationships with these third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or
to do so on commercially reasonable terms. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected
deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure
to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated
and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our results
of operations and commercial prospects would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.
Repeating
clinical trials or switching or engaging additional CROs involves additional cost and requires our management’s time and focus.
In addition, there is a natural transition period when a clinical trial has to be repeated or when a new CRO commences work. As a result,
delays could occur, which could materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.
Our
failure to find third party collaborators to assist or share in the costs of product development could materially harm our business,
financial condition and results of operations.
Our
strategy for the development and commercialization of our proprietary product candidates may include the execution of collaborative arrangements
with third parties. Future collaborators will have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources they apply and may
not perform their obligations as expected. Potential third-party collaborators include biopharmaceutical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology
companies, academic institutions and other entities. Third-party collaborators may assist us in:
|
● |
funding
research, pre-clinical development, clinical trials and manufacturing; |
|
|
|
|
● |
seeking
and obtaining regulatory approvals; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
successfully
commercializing any future product candidates. |
If
we are not able to establish collaboration agreements, we may be required to undertake product development and commercialization at our
own expense. Such an undertaking may limit the number of product candidates that we will be able to develop, significantly increase our
capital requirements and place additional strain on our internal resources. Our failure to enter into additional collaborations could
materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
In
addition, our dependence on licensing, collaboration and other agreements with third parties may subject us to a number of risks. These
agreements may not be on terms that prove favorable to us and may require us to relinquish certain rights in our product candidates.
To the extent we agree to work exclusively with one collaborator in a given area, our opportunities to collaborate with other entities
could be curtailed. Lengthy negotiations with potential new collaborators may lead to delays in the research, development or commercialization
of product candidates. The decision by our collaborators to pursue alternative technologies or the failure of our collaborators to develop
or commercialize successfully any product candidate to which they have obtained rights from us could materially harm our business, financial
condition and results of operations.
Risks
Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates
Even
if we are successful in completing all pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, we may not be successful in commercializing one or more
of our product candidates.
Even
if we complete the necessary pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and
uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. If we are not
able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our product
candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.
Our
product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture,
safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, export and import are subject
to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the EMA and similar regulatory authorities
outside of the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product
candidate. We have not submitted an application for or received marketing approval for any of our product candidates in the United States
or in any other jurisdiction.
We
have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party
clinical research organizations or other third-party consultants or vendors to assist us in this process. Securing marketing approval
requires the submission of extensive pre-clinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each indication
to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information
about the drug manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities.
The
process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years, if approval is obtained
at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates
involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or
regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted drug application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an
application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may
decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional pre-clinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying
interpretations of the data obtained from pre-clinical studies and clinical trials could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of
a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments
that render the approved drug not commercially viable.
Risks
Related to Our Common Stock
Further
issuances of Common Shares may be dilutive
We
may decide to offer additional shares in the future for capital raising or other purposes. Shareholders who do not take up or who are
not eligible to take such an offer will find their proportionate ownership and voting interests in us to be reduced. An additional offering
could also have a material adverse effect on the market price of the Common Shares as a whole.
Economic
conditions and current economic weakness
Any
economic downturn either globally or locally in any area in which we operate may have an adverse effect on the demand for our services.
A more prolonged economic downturn may restrict our ability to generate a profit.
In
addition, although signs of economic recovery have been perceptible in certain countries, the sustainability of a global economic upturn
is not yet assured. If economic conditions remain uncertain this might have an adverse impact on our operations and business results.
We
presently do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock.
We
expect that no cash dividends will be paid on the common stock in the foreseeable future. While our dividend policy will be based on
the operating results and capital needs of the business, it is anticipated that all earnings, if any, will be retained to finance the
future expansion of our business.
Our
principal shareholder has a significant holding in the company which may give them influence in certain matters requiring approval by
shareholders, including approval of significant corporate transactions in certain circumstances
As
of December 31, 2022, Gabriele Cerrone and Planwise Group Limited, a company in which Mr. Cerrone is the sole beneficial owner, held
a beneficial ownership interest in aggregate of approximately 33.77% of our outstanding common stock. Accordingly, Mr. Cerrone will,
as a practical matter, be able to significantly influence certain matters requiring approval by stockholders, including approval of significant
corporate transactions in certain circumstances. Such concentration of ownership may also have the effect of delaying or preventing any
future proposed change in control of the Company. The trading price of the common stock could be adversely affected if potential new
investors are disinclined to invest in us because they perceive disadvantages to a large shareholding being concentrated in the hands
of a single shareholder.
We
are an “emerging growth company”, and there are reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies
We
are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the SEC’s rules and regulations and we will remain an emerging growth
company until the earlier to occur of (1) the last day of 2025, (2) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross
revenues of at least $1.07 billion, (3) the last day of the fiscal year in which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer”,
under the SEC’s rules, which means the market value of our equity securities that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million
as of the prior June 30th, and (4) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year
period. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure
requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include:
●
not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;
●
reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation; and
●
an exemption from the requirement to seek nonbinding advisory votes on executive compensation or golden parachute arrangements.
We
may choose to take advantage of some, but not all, of the available exemptions. We have taken advantage of reduced reporting burdens
in this registration statement. In particular, we have not included all of the executive compensation information that would be required
if we were not an emerging growth company.
In
addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company may take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with
new or revised accounting standards. This allows an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until
those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We are considering whether we will take advantage of the extended transition
period for complying with new or revised accounting standards.
We
will incur increased costs as a result of operating as a U.S. public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial
time to new compliance initiatives
As
a U.S. public company, and particularly after we are no longer an emerging growth company, we will incur significant legal, accounting
and other expenses that we will not incur as a private company. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and rules subsequently implemented
by the SEC have imposed various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and
financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of
time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and
will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, we expect that these rules and regulations may make it more difficult
and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance.
Pursuant
to Section 404, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including
an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. However,
while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial
reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period,
we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging.
In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed
work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes
as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement
process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk we will not be able to conclude within the
prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in
an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.
If
we are unable to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our
financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which
would harm our business
Effective
internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure
controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered
in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection
with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal
controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to
our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause you
to lose confidence in our reported financial information.
Our
management will be required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are an emerging growth
company, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls
over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years. An independent assessment
of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting could detect problems that our management’s assessment might
not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting could lead to financial statement restatements
and require us to incur the expense of remediation.
We
have been a private company with limited accounting personnel to adequately execute our accounting processes and limited supervisory
resources with which to address our internal control over financial reporting. As a newly public company, we have designed a control
environment as required of public companies under the rules and regulations of the SEC. The Company identified a material weakness as
of December 31, 2022 over internal controls over financial reporting due to a lack of accounting resources. If we fail to remediate a
material weakness, or if we experience material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal
controls in the future, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, which may
adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the value of our common stock.
Our
disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud
Our
disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file
or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the
time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls
and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of
the control system are met. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that
breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons,
by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in
our control system, misstatements or insufficient disclosures due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.
Future
changes to tax laws could materially adversely affect our company and reduce net returns to our shareholders
Recently
enacted U.S. tax legislation has significantly changed the U.S. federal income taxation of U.S. corporations, including by reducing the
U.S. corporate income tax rate, limiting interest deductions, modifying or repealing many business deductions and credits (including
reducing the business tax credit for certain clinical testing expenses incurred in the testing of certain drugs for rare diseases or
conditions generally referred to as “orphan drugs”), adopting elements of a territorial tax system, imposing a one-time transition
tax, or repatriation tax, on all undistributed earnings and profits of certain U.S.- owned foreign corporations, revising the rules governing
net operating losses and the rules governing foreign tax credits, and introducing new anti-base erosion provisions. Many of these changes
are effective immediately, without any transition periods or grandfathering for existing transactions.
While
some of the changes made by the tax legislation may adversely affect us in one or more reporting periods and prospectively, other changes
may be beneficial on a going forward basis.
Trading
on the OTC Markets may be volatile and sporadic, which could depress the market price of our common stock and make it difficult for our
stockholders to resell their shares.
Our
common stock is quoted on the OTC Markets. Trading in stock quoted on the OTC Markets is often thin and characterized by wide fluctuations
in trading prices, due to many factors that may have little to do with our operations or business prospects. This volatility could depress
the market price of our common stock for reasons unrelated to operating performance. Moreover, the OTC Markets is not a stock exchange,
and trading of securities on the OTC Markets is often more sporadic than the trading of securities listed on a quotation system like
NASDAQ or a stock exchange like the NYSE MKT. Accordingly, shareholders may have difficulty reselling any of their shares and the lack
of liquidity may negatively impact our ability to pursue strategic alternatives.
Climate
change initiatives could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Both
domestic and international legislation to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establishing a price on carbon
could create increases in energy costs and price volatility. Considerable international attention is now focused on development of an
international policy framework to address climate change. Consumers and businesses also may change their behavior on their own as a result
of these concerns. We will need to respond to new laws and regulations as well as consumer and business preferences resulting from climate
change concerns. We may face cost increases, asset value reductions and operating process changes. The impact on our business will likely
vary depending on specific attributes, including reliance on or role in carbon intensive activities.