Table of Contents

​

​

​

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

☒ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

or

☐TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                     to                      

Commission file number 001-36554

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

​

(781) 357-4000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

​

​

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    ⌧  Yes     ◻  No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    ◻  Yes    ⌧  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    ⌧  Yes    ◻  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    ⌧  Yes    ◻  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

​

​

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.     ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    ☐  Yes    ☒  No

As of June 30, 2020, the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $478 million. The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s class of common stock, as of March 1, 2021: 76,069,673.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III of this Annual Report incorporates by reference information from the definitive Proxy Statement for the registrant’s 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2020.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “target,” “potential,” “goals,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “continue” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, among other things, statements about:

Table of Contents

We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in the “Risk Factors” section, that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures, licensing agreements or investments we may make.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

Summary of Risks Related to our Business

Our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of before making an investment decision, as more fully described under the heading “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

Table of Contents

​

​

Table of Contents

PART I

Overview of Ocular Therapeutix

​

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the formulation, development and commercialization of innovative therapies for diseases and conditions of the eye using our proprietary, bioresorbable hydrogel platform technology. We use this technology to tailor duration and amount of delivery of a range of therapeutic agents in our product candidates.

​

We currently incorporate therapeutic agents that have previously received regulatory approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, including small molecules and proteins, into our hydrogel technology with the goal of providing local programmed-release of drug to the eye. We believe that our local programmed-release drug delivery technology has the potential to treat conditions and diseases of both the front and the back of the eye and can be administered through a range of different modalities including intravitreal implants, suprachoroidal implants, intracameral implants and intracanalicular inserts. We have product candidates in preclinical and clinical development designed to utilize this technology to treat retinal diseases including wet age-related macular degeneration, or wet AMD; glaucoma and ocular hypertension; and ocular surface diseases and conditions including dry eye disease and ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. We also have two FDA-approved products in commercialization in the United States: DEXTENZA^®, an intracanalicular insert for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain, and ReSure^® Sealant, an ophthalmic device designed to prevent wound leaks in corneal incisions following cataract surgery.

​

Our earlier-stage assets include four programs in clinical development:

​

​

​

​

​

We have a collaboration with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Regeneron, for the development and potential commercialization of products containing our local programmed-release hydrogel in combination with Regeneron’s vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF inhibitor, aflibercept, currently marketed under the brand name Eylea. We also continue to assess the potential use of our hydrogel platform technology in other areas of the body.

Retinal Disease Programs

​

We are engaged in the development of formulations of our hydrogel administered via intravitreal injection to address large markets for diseases and conditions of the back of the eye which we believe have significant growth potential. Our initial development efforts for our retinal disease programs have focused on the use of our extended-delivery hydrogel in combination with anti-angiogenic drugs, such as TKIs or protein-based anti-VEGF drugs, for the treatment of retinal diseases such as wet AMD; diabetic macular edema, or DME; and retinal vein occlusion, or RVO. Our initial goal for these programs is to provide extended delivery for at least six months, thereby reducing the frequency of the current monthly or bi-monthly immediate release intravitreal anti-VEGF injection regimens for wet AMD and other retinal diseases.

OTX-TKI (axitinib intravitreal implant)

​

Our product candidate OTX-TKI is a preformed, bioresorbable hydrogel fiber implant incorporating a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, or TKI, axitinib, with anti-angiogenic properties delivered by intravitreal injection

Table of Contents

and designed for a duration of six months or longer. TKIs have shown promise in the treatment of wet AMD. In the first quarter of 2019, we began dosing patients in a multi-center, open-label, dose-escalation Phase 1 clinical trial in Australia designed to evaluate the safety, durability and tolerability of OTX-TKI. We are evaluating biological activity by measuring retinal thickness using spectral domain optical coherence tomography, or OCT, and following visual acuity over time. Two cohorts were initially enrolled: a lower dose cohort of 200 µg with six subjects and a higher dose cohort of 400 µg with seven subjects. We are actively enrolling a third cohort of 12 subjects, split between parallel arms of six subjects each. Subjects in the first arm of the third cohort will receive a dose of 600 µg, and subjects in the second arm will receive a 400 µg dose combined with an anti-VEGF induction injection.

​

At the Angiogenesis, Exudations, and Degeneration Virtual Conference in February 2021, we presented interim data from the Phase 1 clinical trial. In the Phase 1 clinical trial, OTX-TKI was observed to have a generally favorable safety profile, with no reported ocular serious adverse events. Some subjects in the Phase 1 clinical trial have shown a decrease in intraretinal or subretinal fluid by two months, and interim data suggests that OTX-TKI might have an extended duration of action beyond that of the current standard of care.

​

We plan to initiate a prospective, randomized, controlled Phase 1 clinical trial in the United States under an exploratory investigational new drug, or eIND, application in mid-2021 to evaluate a single implant 600 µg dose of OTX-TKI (combined with an anti-VEGF induction injection) in comparison with a 2 mg dose of aflibercept. We have requested a pre-investigational new drug, or IND, application meeting with the FDA to discuss the possibility of transitioning from an eIND application to a traditional IND application.

​

Pending our receipt and review of the topline data from the Phase 1 clinical trial in Australia and related regulatory discussions, we also plan to initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial in Australia to compare the administration of a single implant 600 µg dose of OTX-TKI (combined with an anti-VEGF induction injection) to a 2 mg dose of aflibercept dosed every 8 weeks as the comparator.

​

OTX-AFS (aflibercept suprachoroidal injection) in collaboration with Regeneron

​

As described above, in October 2016, we entered into a strategic collaboration, option and license agreement with Regeneron for the development and potential commercialization of products using our local programmed-release hydrogel in combination with, among other things, Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds for the treatment of retinal diseases, with the initial focus on the VEGF trap aflibercept. We and Regeneron amended this agreement in May 2020 to, among other things, transition joint efforts under the collaboration to the research and development of an extended-delivery formulation of aflibercept to be delivered to the suprachoroidal space which we refer to as OTX-AFS. Under the amended agreement, we have provided certain formulations to Regeneron who have agreed to perform preclinical assessments of OTX-AFS.

​

Glaucoma Program

Our development efforts for our glaucoma program have focused on the use of our extended-delivery hydrogel in combination with travoprost, an FDA-approved prostaglandin analog designed to lower elevated IOP. Our initial goal for this program is to provide extended delivery over at least four months with a single treatment.

OTX-TIC (travoprost intracameral implant)

​

Our product candidate OTX-TIC is a bioresorbable hydrogel implant incorporating travoprost that is designed to be administered by a physician as an intracameral injection with an initial target duration of drug release of four to six months. We are currently conducting a multi-center, open-label, dose-escalation, proof-of-concept Phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate the safety, biological activity, durability and tolerability of OTX-TIC compared to topical travoprost (eye drops) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The trial consists of four patient cohorts: cohort 1 is 5 subjects who are receiving a 15 µg dose, cohort 2 is 4 subjects who are receiving a 26 µg dose, cohort 3 is 5 subjects who are receiving a 15 µg with a fast-degrading implant, and cohort 4 is 5 subjects who are receiving a 5 µg with a fast-degrading implant.

​

We presented interim data on all four patient cohorts at the Glaucoma360 Virtual Conference in January 2021. In this Phase 1 clinical trial, with a single implant, several subjects were able to achieve a decrease in IOP at least as large as that of the current standard of care. Many subjects exhibited an IOP-lowering effect of more than six months in

Table of Contents

cohorts 1 and 2 and between three and six months in cohorts 3 and 4, the cohorts in which the fast-degrading implant was used. In the clinical trial, OTX-TIC was observed to have a generally favorable safety profile, with no reported ocular serious adverse events. Corneal health, as measured by endothelial cell counts, pachymetry assessments and slit lamp examinations did not indicate a clinically meaningful change from baseline.

​

In mid-2021, we plan to initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate two formulations of OTX-TIC for the treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension in patients compared to Durysta (Allergan). The non-study eye of each patient will receive a topical prostaglandin daily. Certain subjects in the Phase 2 clinical trial will receive the same formulation used in cohort 1 of the Phase 1 clinical trial, containing a 26 µg dose of drug and utilizing a standard implant, and others will receive the same formulation used in cohort 4 of the Phase 1 clinical trial, containing a 5 µg dose of drug and utilizing a fast-degrading implant.

​

Ocular Surface Disease Programs

​

We are engaged in the development of formulations of our hydrogel administered via intracanalicular inserts to address large markets for diseases and conditions of the surface of the eye. Our initial development efforts are focused on the use of our extended-delivery hydrogel in combination with well-known and well-understood drugs (cyclosporine and corticosteroids) for the treatment of dry eye disease and allergic conjunctivitis.

Dry Eye Disease

​

OTX-CSI (cyclosporine intracanalicular insert)

​

Our product candidate, OTX-CSI, incorporates the FDA-approved immunomodulator cyclosporine as a preservative-free active pharmaceutical ingredient into a hydrogel, drug-eluting intracanalicular insert. The product candidate is designed for a duration of three to four months for patients suffering from moderate to severe dry eye and to be administered by a physician as a bioresorbable intracanalicular insert.

​

In October 2020, we reported topline data from our five subject Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating OTX-CSI in the treatment of dry eye disease. All subjects completed the 16-week study period with no drop-outs. There were no serious adverse effects reported. The inserts were observed to be generally well-tolerated, and there were no adverse events of stinging, irritation, blurred vision or tearing reported or observed.

​

In September 2020, we dosed the first patients in a Phase 2 clinical trial designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and durability and to evaluate the efficacy of OTX-CSI for the chronic treatment of dry eye disease. The Phase 2 clinical trial is a U.S.-based, randomized, double-masked, multi-center trial evaluating two different formulations of OTX-CSI compared to a vehicle insert in approximately 140 subjects who are to be followed for a period of approximately 16 weeks. Endpoints include tear production as measured by the Schirmer’s test; signs of dry eye disease as measured by corneal fluorescein staining; and symptoms of dry eye disease as measured by the visual analog scale, or VAS, eye dryness severity score and the VAS dry eye frequency score. We currently anticipate receiving topline data from this Phase 2 clinical trial by year-end 2021.

​

OTX-DED (dexamethasone intracanalicular insert)

Our product candidate OTX-DED incorporates the FDA-approved corticosteroid dexamethasone as a preservative-free active pharmaceutical ingredient in a hydrogel, drug-eluting intracanalicular insert. OTX-DED incorporates the same active drug as DEXTENZA, but it includes a lower dose of the drug, delivers it via a smaller insert, and is designed to release it over a period of two to three weeks, compared with up to thirty days in the case of DEXTENZA. We believe that OTX-DED will address several of the current limitations of existing dry eye disease steroid treatments, the toxicity associated with preservatives, and the potential for abuse of topical steroids.

In February 2021, we dosed the first patient in a U.S.-based prospective, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating two different formulations of OTX-DED for the short-term treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease compared to a hydrogel insert in approximately 150 subjects. We anticipate receiving topline data from this Phase 2 clinical trial in the first half of 2022.

​

Table of Contents

Allergic Conjunctivitis

​

DEXTENZA (dexamethasone ophthalmic insert) for the Treatment of Ocular Itching Associated with Allergic Conjunctivitis

​

DEXTENZA, incorporating the corticosteroid dexamethasone, is our FDA-approved intracanalicular insert for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain. We believe that allergic conjunctivitis represents a discrete potential market for DEXTENZA as a physician administered, hands-free, therapy administered in the office setting and designed to release preservative-free dexamethasone to the ocular surface for up to 30 days.

​

In April 2020, we reported topline results of a 96-subject, third pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. DEXTENZA-treated subjects demonstrated a statistically significant (p-value < 0.0001) difference in mean ocular itching scores, compared to vehicle-treated subjects, at all three pre-specified time points.

​

In the fourth quarter of 2020, we filed a supplemental new drug application, or sNDA, for DEXTENZA to include the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis as an additional indication. The FDA has accepted our sNDA for filing and has established a target action date under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, commonly known as PDUFA, of October 18, 2021. If our sNDA is approved, we expect to launch DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the first half of 2022.

​

Post-Surgical Ocular Inflammation and Pain

​

DEXTENZA (dexamethasone ophthalmic insert) 0.4 mg for intracanalicular use for the Treatment of Post-Surgical Ocular Inflammation and Pain

​

As described above, DEXTENZA incorporates the FDA-approved corticosteroid dexamethasone as a preservative-free active pharmaceutical ingredient into a hydrogel, drug-eluting intracanalicular insert for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain. We commercially launched DEXTENZA in the United States in July 2019. DEXTENZA is the first FDA-approved intracanalicular insert delivering dexamethasone to treat post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain for up to 30 days with a single administration.

In September 2020, we announced that we had dosed the first patients in a Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain in children following cataract surgery. This planned clinical trial is a post-approval requirement of the FDA in accordance with the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, in connection with the FDA’s prior approval of DEXTENZA for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery in adults.

​

Additionally, we have received proposals for, and plan to support, several investigator-initiated trials evaluating DEXTENZA in different clinical situations. To date, third-party clinical investigators have initiated over 25 trials to study the use of DEXTENZA in cataract surgery, other ophthalmic surgeries and other potential indications. Seven of the trials have completed enrollment, and the remaining trials are actively enrolling and treated patients are being followed.

​

ReSure Sealant

​

In 2014, we commercially launched ReSure Sealant in the United States as a device approved to prevent wound leaks in corneal incisions following cataract surgery. In the pivotal clinical trials that formed the basis for FDA approval, ReSure Sealant provided superior wound closure and a better safety profile than sutured closure.

​

The FDA required two post-approval studies as a condition for approval of our premarket approval, or PMA, application for ReSure Sealant. The FDA has confirmed that first post-approval study, identified as the Clinical PAS, has been completed. The second post-approval study, which we refer to as the Device Exposure Registry Study, was a retrospective analysis of the IRIS Registry, comparing endophthalmitis rates from sites that purchased ReSure Sealant versus those sites that did not. We completed the retrospective study in accordance with our agreement with the FDA and submitted the final study report for the Device Exposure Registry Study to the FDA in January 2021. We anticipate

Table of Contents

that the FDA will review the report within 90 days of our submission and notify us as to whether our obligation to conduct the post-approval study has been satisfied.

​

While ReSure Sealant remains commercially available in the United States, commercial and sales support for this product are modest at this time. We have received only limited revenues from ReSure Sealant to date and anticipate only limited sales for 2021.

​

AffaMed License Agreement

​

In October 2020, we entered into a license agreement and collaboration with AffaMed Therapeutics Limited, or AffaMed, for the development and commercialization of DEXTENZA and OTX-TIC in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan; South Korea; and the ASEAN markets (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam). Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment of $12 million and are eligible to receive development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments and clinical development support payments of up to $91 million in the aggregate, as well as royalties from future product sales. Royalties are tiered and will range from the low teens to low twenty percent range. In return, we agreed to grant AffaMed exclusive rights to develop and commercialize DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery and ocular itching in patients with allergic conjunctivitis, and OTX-TIC for the reduction of elevated intraocular pressure in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in specified Asian markets. We retain the right to develop and commercialize DEXTENZA and OTX-TIC in all other global markets.

​

Additional Potential Areas for Growth

​

We continue to leverage the potential of our hydrogel platform to explore areas for growth with our focus on formulating, developing and commercializing innovative therapies for diseases and conditions of the eye. In September 2018, we entered into a second amended and restated license agreement, or Second Amended Agreement, with Incept LLC, an intellectual property holding company, or Incept. The Second Amended Agreement expanded the scope of our intellectual property license to include products delivered for the treatment of acute post-surgical pain or for the treatment of ear, nose and/or throat diseases or conditions, subject to specified exceptions.

​

Market Background

​

Our clinical stage product candidates and our marketed products are based on a proprietary bioresorbable hydrogel technology platform that uses polyethylene glycol, or PEG, as a key component. Bioresorbable materials gradually break down in the body into non-toxic, water soluble compounds that are cleared by normal biological processes. PEG is used in many pharmaceutical products and is widely considered to be safe and biocompatible. Our technology platform allows us to tailor the physical properties, drug release profiles and bioresorption rates of our hydrogels to meet the needs of specific clinical indications. We have used this platform to engineer each of our intracanalicular insert, intracameral implant, and intravitreal implant product candidates; our suprachoroidal formulations; and ReSure Sealant. Our technical capabilities include a deep understanding of the polymer chemistry of PEG-based hydrogels and the design of the specialized manufacturing processes required to achieve a reliable, preservative-free and high purity product.

​

Product Pipeline

​

The following table summarizes the status of our key product development programs and DEXTENZA, our marketed product. We hold worldwide exclusive commercial rights to the core technology underlying all of our products in development and have not granted commercial rights to any marketing partners other than the option on commercial rights we granted to Regeneron for the delivery of protein-based anti-VEGF drugs in our hydrogel depot for the

Table of Contents

treatment of retinal diseases and a license agreement and collaboration with AffaMed for the development and commercialization of DEXTENZA and OTX-TIC in the geographies agreed to between the parties.

​

​

​

Our Strategy

​

We are pursuing three overall strategic goals: to make prescription eye drops obsolete; to make immediate release back-of-the-eye injections obsolete; and to extend our hydrogel platform technology for use beyond the eye to other areas of the body. The key tactics of our strategy to achieve these goals are:

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

Eye Disease

​

Eye disease can be caused by many factors and can affect both the front and back of the eye.

​

The front of the human eye consists of the cornea on the surface of the eye, the lens and the aqueous humor, which is a transparent fluid that fills the anterior chamber between the lens and the cornea. The tissue surrounding the eye also serves important functions. There is a natural opening, called a punctum, located in the inner portion of each upper and lower eyelid near the nose. The puncta open into nasolacrimal ducts, which collect and drain tears. The conjunctiva is the membrane covering the inside of the eyelids and the white part of the eye, known as the sclera. It helps to protect the eye from microbes and to lubricate the eye. Diseases and conditions affecting the front of the eye have generally been treated with either surgery or with medications delivered to the ocular surface by eye drops.

​

The back of the eye contains the retina, which is the light sensing layer of tissue; the vitreous humor, which is a transparent gel that fills the vitreous chamber between the lens and the retina; and the optic nerve, which transmits visual information from the retina to the brain. Eye disease can be caused by many factors and can affect both the front and back of the eye. Intravitreal injections or oral pills have typically been used to deliver medications to the back of the eye.

​

Table of Contents

We currently focus on some of the largest markets in ophthalmology. According to the Market Scope 2019 reports, our product candidates seek to address select indications within segments of ophthalmology that, in the aggregate, account for more than $20 billion global annual sales.

​

​

Retinal Diseases

​

One of the principal retinal diseases is wet AMD, a serious disease of the central portion of the retina, known as the macula, that is responsible for detailed central vision and color perception. Wet AMD is characterized by abnormal new blood vessel formation, referred to as neovascularization, which results in blood vessel leakage and retinal distortion. If untreated, neovascularization in wet AMD patients typically results in formation of a scar under the macular region of the retina. The current standard of care for wet AMD is treatment with drugs that target VEGF, one of several proteins involved in neovascularization.

​

Wet AMD is the leading cause of blindness in people over the age of 55 in the United States and the European Union. According to the 2019 Market Scope Retinal Disease Report, there are approximately 8.0 million people in the United States who suffer from vision-threatening retinal diseases. This population is expected to grow at a 2.4% compound annual growth rate through 2024.

​

Because eye drops are unable to carry effective drug concentrations to the back of the eye, intravitreal injections or oral medications are used to deliver medications to this location. However, the frequency of intravitreal injection can be a significant burden on patients, caregivers and clinicians. For example, the current treatment protocol for wet AMD involves monthly or bi-monthly injections. Intravitreal injections can lead to patient discomfort, a transient increase in IOP, and ocular inflammation and infection. Although serious adverse event rates after treatment with anti-VEGF compounds are low, intravitreal injections can result in severe complications and damage to the retina and other structures of the eye, such as ocular hemorrhage and tears in the retinal pigment epithelium.

​

Table of Contents

Market Data

​

The global market for retinal disease was approximately $13.0 billion in 2019 and was estimated to grow at approximately 11% per year through 2024 according to Market Scope. The U.S. market accounted for just over 50% of the global market or $6.8 billion in 2019.

​

The anti-VEGF market for the treatment of wet AMD consists predominantly of three drugs that are approved for marketing and primarily prescribed for the treatment of wet AMD: Eylea, marketed in the United States by Regeneron; Lucentis, marketed in the United States by Genentech; and Beovu, marketed in the United States by Novartis. Avastin, a cancer treatment drug, marketed by Genentech, is also used off-label for the treatment of wet AMD.

​

Glaucoma

​

Glaucoma is a progressive and highly individualized disease in which elevated levels of IOP are associated with damage to the optic nerve, which results in irreversible vision loss. According to the World Health Organization, glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness in the world. Ocular hypertension is characterized by elevated levels of IOP without any optic nerve damage. Patients with ocular hypertension are at high risk of developing glaucoma.

​

Glaucoma impacts more than 2.7 million people age 40 or older in the United States. The primary goal of glaucoma treatment is to slow the progression of this chronic disease by reducing IOP, and many medications can accomplish this. Importantly, however, adherence to current topical glaucoma therapies is known to be particularly poor with reported rates of non-adherence from 30% to 80%. These low compliance rates may be associated with disease progression and loss of vision and may be part of the reason that glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness in people over 60 years of age.

In a healthy eye, fluid is continuously produced and drained to maintain pressure equilibrium and provide nutrients to the ocular tissue. Excess fluid production or insufficient drainage of fluid in the front of the eye or a combination of these problems causes increased IOP. The increased IOP associated with uncontrolled glaucoma results in degeneration of the optic nerve in the back of the eye and loss of peripheral vision. Once glaucoma develops, it is a chronic condition that requires life-long treatment.

​

Prostaglandins are the most commonly used class of medications to treat patients with glaucoma and are administered via daily eye drops as the current standard of care. The ability of patients to use and place daily eye drops is challenging. The products that we are developing are designed to address the issue of compliance by delivering a prostaglandin analog, or PGA, formulated with our programmed release hydrogel to lower IOP for several months with a single insert.

Market Data

​

The global market for glaucoma was estimated by Market Scope at $4.8 billion in 2019 with the U.S. market representing $1.9 billion.

​

The market for drugs administered by eye drops for the treatment of glaucoma consists of both branded and generic products. Branded products have maintained premium pricing and significant market share. These products include Travatan Z (travoprost) marketed by Alcon and Lumigan (bimatoprost) marketed by Allergan. The relevant patents covering travoprost expired in December 2014. Commonly used generic drugs include latanoprost and timolol.

​

Ocular Surface Diseases

​

Dry Eye Disease

​

Dry eye disease is a chronic, multifactorial disease affecting the tears and ocular surface that can result in dryness, inflammation, irritation, pain, tear film instability, visual disturbance and ocular surface damage. Dry eye disease can have a significant impact on quality of life and can potentially cause long-term damage to the ocular surface. Due to the impact of dry eye disease on tear film dynamics, the condition can affect performance of common vision-related activities such as reading, using a computer and driving, and can lead to complications associated with visual impairment. In addition, the vast majority of dry eye patients experience acute episodic exacerbations of their symptoms, which are commonly referred to as flares, at various times throughout the year. These flares can be triggered by

Table of Contents

numerous factors, including exposure to allergens, pollution, wind and low humidity, intense visual concentration such as watching television and working at a computer, hormonal changes, contact lens wear, smoking and sleep deprivation, which cause ocular surface inflammation and impact tear production and/or tear film stability.

​

There are approximately 17.2 million patients diagnosed with dry eye disease in the United States, according to the Market Scope 2019 Dry Eye Products Market Report. Approximately 8.6 million of those patients are diagnosed with moderate to severe dry eye while the remaining 8.6 million patients are diagnosed with episodic dry eye disease. The prevalence of dry eye disease increases with age, and we expect that the number of dry eye disease cases will increase as the U.S. population continues to age.

​

The current standard of care for moderate to severe dry eye disease is the use of artificial tears and topical anti- inflammatory and immune modulating drugs administered by prescription eye drops. The anti-inflammatory and immune modulating prescription drug market consists of Restasis®, for increasing tear production, marketed by Allergan; Cequa™ for increasing tear production, marketed by Sun Ophthalmics in the United States; lifitegrast, for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, marketed by Novartis under the brand name Xiidra®; and off-label use of corticosteroids. As each of Restasis and Xiidra have a relatively long onset of action, they are not generally used for the short-term treatment of episodic dry eye flares. In addition, patients have reported significant issues with stinging and burning when using several of the current treatments.

​

Market Data

​

The global market for dry ocular surface disease, which we refer to as dry eye disease, was estimated by Market Scope at $5.1 billion in 2019 with the U.S. market representing $2.1 billion, composed of approximately $1.5 billion in prescriptions and $0.6 billion in over-the-counter medications. Within the prescription category, Restasis recorded sales in 2019 of approximately $1.2 billion in the United States while Xiidra recorded estimated sales of $0.3 billion in the United States.

​

Allergic Conjunctivitis

​

Allergic conjunctivitis, another ocular surface disease, is an inflammatory disease of the conjunctiva resulting primarily from a reaction to allergy- causing substances such as pollen or pet dander. The primary sign of this inflammation is redness and the primary symptom is acute itching. Allergic conjunctivitis ranges in clinical severity from relatively mild, common forms to more severe forms that can cause impaired vision. According to a study on the management of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis published in 2012 in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Ophthalmologica, allergic conjunctivitis affects 15% to 40% of the U.S. population. The first line of defense against allergic conjunctivitis is avoidance of the allergen. If this is not successful, physicians typically prescribe a combination of a topical mast cell stabilizer and anti-histamine. These treatments act to reduce the signs and symptoms of the early phase allergic reaction. For the subset of patients with chronic or more severe forms of allergic conjunctivitis, anti-histamines and mast cell stabilizers are often not sufficient to treat their signs and symptoms. These refractory patients are frequently treated with topical corticosteroids administered by prescription eye drops.

​

It is estimated that up to 10 million people in the United States seek medical attention annually for the inflammatory response associated with allergic conjunctivitis caused by both seasonal and perennial allergens.

​

Market Data

​

According to IMS Health data, approximately 6.1 million anti-allergy eye drop prescriptions were filled in the United States in 2020, resulting in sales of approximately $401.2 million. The market to treat allergic conjunctivitis consists of antihistamines, mast-cell stabilizers and steroid eye drops and consists of both branded and generic products. Branded steroids include Lotemax and Alrex (loteprednol etabonate) marketed by Bausch & Lomb, and Durezol (difluprednate) marketed by Alcon. Commonly used generic steroids include prednisolone, dexamethasone and fluorometholone. Pataday and Patanol formerly led the prescription market in this category but have recently been made available as over-the-counter products.

​

Table of Contents

Post-Surgical Ocular Inflammation and Pain

​

Ocular inflammation and pain are common side effects following ophthalmic surgery. Frequently performed ophthalmic surgeries include cataract, refractive, vitreoretinal, cornea, and glaucoma procedures. Physicians prescribe anti-inflammatory drugs, such as corticosteroids, which are typically administered through eye drops multiple times per day, following ocular surgery as the standard of care. These drugs improve patient comfort and also accelerate recovery through disruption of the inflammatory cascade resulting in decreased inflammation and reduced activity of the immune system. Physicians also frequently prescribe non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, as adjunctive or combination therapy to supplement the use of corticosteroids. If left untreated, inflammation of the eye may result in further ocular complications, including pain, scarring and vision loss.

​

Market Data

​

Market Scope has estimated that approximately 4.7 million ocular surgeries were to be performed in the United States in 2020, of which approximately 3.2 million are estimated to be cataract surgeries. In 2021, Market Scope estimates 5.1 million cataract surgeries are to be performed. We focus our sales efforts on patients covered by Medicare Part B which accounts for roughly 50% of all cataract surgeries or approximately 2 million surgeries annually. At the current wholesale acquisition price of $538.83 per insert, we estimate that there is a near-term addressable market of approximately $1 billion per year in the surgical space.

​

According to IMS Health data, approximately 17.7 million prescriptions were filled in the United States in 2020 for anti-inflammatory drugs administered by prescription eye drops for ocular diseases and conditions, resulting in sales of approximately $4.3 billion. These prescriptions consisted of approximately 7.4 million prescriptions and $580.0 million in sales for single-agent corticosteroids, 2.8 million prescriptions and $293.4 million in sales for NSAIDs, 3.7 million prescriptions and $262.7 million in sales for corticosteroid and antibiotic combination products and approximately 3.6 million prescriptions and $2.9 billion in sales of Restasis and Xiidra for dry eye disease.

​

The Use of Eye Drops and its Limitations

​

Eye drops are widely used to deliver medications directly to the ocular surface and to intraocular tissue in the front of the eye. Eye drops are administrable by the patient or care provider, inexpensive to produce and treat the local tissue. However, eye drops have significant limitations, especially when used for chronic diseases or when requiring frequent administration, including:

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

As a result of these limitations, eye drops are often suboptimal as a therapeutic option for the treatment of many diseases and conditions of the front of the eye.

​

Challenges of Back-of-the-Eye Injections

​

An intravitreal injection is a procedure to place a medication directly into the space in the back of the eye called the vitreous cavity, which is filled with a jelly-like fluid called the vitreous humor gel. The procedure is usually performed by a trained retina specialist in the office setting. Intravitreal injections are used to administer medications to treat a variety of chronic conditions; wet AMD, DME and RVO are among the most common conditions treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs. Anti-VEGF drugs and steroids help to reduce fluid leakage associated with these disorders.

​

While anti-VEGF treatment regimens can be very effective therapies, there are a number of significant drawbacks, driven primarily by the frequency of injections that typically range from every six to eight weeks. The actual injection at the time of administration is uncomfortable for patients and can be a deterrent in terms of compliance. Then there is the burden to both patients and their caregivers of regular office visits. These patients may not be mobile enough to travel to the office on their own and therefore require not only the assistance of a caregiver but also transportation to and from the office. And finally, while intravitreal injections are typically safe, there is the potential risk of endophthalmitis (infection in the eye), inflammation, bleeding into the vitreous gel and retinal detachment that comes with injections.

​

As a result of these limitations, there is a significant unmet need for technologies that will allow for a longer duration of effect and an overall reduced number of injections.

​

​

Ocular Wound Closure

​

According to the World Health Organization, cataracts are the leading cause of visual impairment eventually progressing to blindness. According to the American Academy of Ophthalmology Cataract and Anterior Segment Panel’s 2011 Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines, cataract extraction is the most commonly performed eye surgery in the United States. Market Scope has estimated that in 2019 there were approximately 4.0 million cataract extractions performed in the United States.

​

A cataract is a clouding of the lens inside the front of the eye. During cataract surgery, a patient’s cloudy natural lens is removed and replaced with a prosthetic intraocular lens. Clear corneal incision that allows entry to the eye is the typical method for performing cataract surgery. The most common post-surgical approach is to allow the incisions to self-seal, or close, through normal biological processes. However, self-sealing incisions can open spontaneously, especially within 12 to 24 hours following surgery, when IOP fluctuates or as a result of the application of external pressure or manipulation. In addition, incisions that are left to self-seal may leak, which can sometimes result in complications. Complications from fluid leakage include the development of hypotony, or low IOP, which can lead to corneal decompensation and vision loss, as well as the potential for infection. The implanted intraocular lens also may shift in position due to hypotony, leading to reduced visual outcomes following surgery.

​

Sutures are the most widely used alternative method of wound closure. However, sutures do not completely prevent fluid leakage, are time-consuming to place and have been associated with patient discomfort, corneal distortion, and shallowing of the interior chamber. Sutures may also lead to astigmatism, a distortion of the cornea. An additional visit may be required to remove sutures, thus adding time, inconvenience and expense to the surgical process. These shortcomings limit the use of sutures in ophthalmic surgery. In a 2012 survey of ophthalmologists in the United States conducted by Lachman Consulting LLC, a healthcare consulting firm, respondents indicated that they use sutures in approximately 14% of cataract surgeries.

​

Table of Contents

The Ocular Therapeutix Approach

​

Our Hydrogel Technology Platform

​

We apply our expertise with an established bioresorbable hydrogel technology to the development of products for local programmed-release of known, FDA-approved therapeutic agents for a variety of ophthalmic diseases and conditions and to ophthalmic wound closure.

​

Our bioresorbable hydrogel technology is based on the use of a proprietary form of PEG. Our technical capabilities include a deep understanding of the polymer chemistry of PEG-based hydrogels and the design of the highly specialized manufacturing processes required to achieve a reliable, preservative-free and pure product. We tailor the hydrogel to act as a vehicle for local programmed-release drug delivery to the eye and as an ocular tissue sealant.

​

We create our hydrogels by cross-linking PEG molecules to form a network that resembles a three-dimensional mesh on a molecular level. Our PEG molecules are branched, with four to eight branches or arms. Each arm bears a reactive site on its end. Our cross-linking chemistry uses a second molecule with four arms, bearing complimentary reactive sites on each end, such that when combined with the PEG molecules, a network spontaneously forms. When swollen with water, this molecular network forms a hydrogel. We design these hydrogels to slowly degrade in the presence of water, a process called hydrolysis, by inserting a biodegradable linkage between the PEG molecule and the cross-linked molecule. By appropriately selecting the number of arms of the PEG molecule and the biodegradable linkage, we can design hydrogels with varying mechanical properties and bioresorption rates. Because the body has an abundance of water at a constant temperature and pH level, hydrolysis provides a predictable and reproducible degradation rate. Our technology enables us to make hydrogels that can bioresorb over days, weeks or several months. The figure below depicts the formation and bioresorption of the hydrogel for ReSure Sealant.

​

​

Intracanalicular Inserts

​

A punctum is a natural opening located in the inner portion of the eyelid near the nose. There is a punctum in each of the lower eyelids and the upper eyelids. The puncta open into nasolacrimal ducts, which collect and drain tears produced by the eyes’ lacrimal glands. Tears produced in the lacrimal glands sweep across the eye surface and drain through the puncta to the nasal cavity. The section of the nasolacrimal duct immediately beyond the puncta is called the vertical canaliculus. Intracanalicular inserts that do not contain an active drug are commonly used for treatment of dry eye disease by physically blocking tear drainage. Because intracanalicular inserts stay in contact with the tear film, they are well suited for local programmed-release of drug to the eye.

​

Table of Contents

Intracanalicular insert shown positioned in the vertical canaliculus

​

Our intracanalicular inserts utilize our proprietary hydrogel technology and are embedded with an active drug. Following insertion through the punctum, our inserts swell in tear fluid to fill the vertical canaliculus, which secures the inserts in place. We design our inserts to release drug in a programmed fashion, tailored to each disease state, back through the punctum to the surface of the eye. Over time the inserts liquefy and are cleared through the nasolacrimal duct. If necessary due to excessive tearing, discomfort or improper placement, a healthcare professional can remove an intracanalicular insert by a process of pushing the soft insert back through the punctum.

​

Our inserts allow incorporation of a variety of drugs with a controllable range of delivery durations and delivery rates. For acute conditions, such as post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain and ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis, we have designed our intracanalicular inserts to provide a local programmed-release of therapeutic levels of drug for the duration of treatment. For chronic diseases, such as glaucoma, we have designed our intracanalicular inserts for repeat administration with extended dosing periods. We are concentrating our initial development efforts on intracanalicular inserts incorporating active pharmaceutical ingredients that are approved by the FDA for the targeted indication and that satisfy other specific selection criteria that we have developed.

​

We manufacture our intracanalicular inserts from dried PEG-based hydrogel formed into tiny rods that hold an active pharmaceutical ingredient in a preservative-free formulation. We embed the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the pre-hydrogel liquid formulation, which then solidifies to form a hydrogel containing the drug within. The relative size of one of our intracanalicular inserts is shown in the figure below.

​

​

We provide the intracanalicular insert as a thin dry rod to facilitate insertion through the narrow punctal opening. Upon hydration with tear fluid, the insert swells, softens, and conforms to roughly the size and shape of the vertical canaliculus, to secure it in place. We incorporate the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the form of micronized particles embedded directly in the hydrogel or as bioresorbable microspheres.

Table of Contents

​

We have included a fluorescent label, or marker, in our intracanalicular insert hydrogel to serve as a visualization aid for the healthcare professional to confirm the insert’s presence. The viewer applies a blue handheld light and a clear yellow filter aid to see the insert in the eyelid as shown in the figure below.

​

​

Because intracanalicular inserts stay in contact with the tear film, other companies have pursued the development of intracanalicular punctum plugs containing active drugs for local programmed release to the ocular surface. However, these earlier product designs had significant limitations with respect to drug capacity, drug release kinetics and patient comfort and used non-degradable punctum plugs with a clear silicone hard rubber shell containing only a core with active drug. These plugs typically extended outside of the punctal opening and secured themselves in place with an external cap. The external cap was in constant contact with the surface of the eye, which may cause irritation and discomfort in some cases. In addition, some prior designs resorted to plugging both the upper and lower puncta, which could cause excessive tearing and patient discomfort. These designs did not incorporate a visualization agent to allow the patient and physician to assess the presence of the plug.

​

In contrast to these prior approaches, we have designed our intracanalicular inserts to:

Table of Contents

​

We select the active pharmaceutical ingredients for our local programmed-release drug delivery product candidates, including our intracanalicular inserts, based on criteria we have developed through our extensive experience with hydrogel insert systems. Our active pharmaceutical ingredient selection criteria include:

​

​

​

​

​

​

We believe our intracanalicular insert, intracameral implant and intravitreal implant product candidates may offer a range of favorable attributes as compared to eye drops and immediate release back-of-the-eye injections, including:

​

​

​

​

​

Intracameral Implants

​

We are engaged in the clinical development of our hydrogel administered via intracameral injection to address retinal diseases.

​

Intracameral implants refer to biodegradable or bioresorbable implants placed into the anterior chamber or front of the eye for the treatment of ocular conditions. The implants are designed to be held in place by currents and gravity present in the anterior chamber of an eye. As an example, in the case of OTX-TIC, the implant is designed to infuse with

Table of Contents

liquid, settle into the inferior angle of the eye and demonstrate little to no movement. The implants are preferably polymeric, biodegradable and provide sustained release of at least one therapeutic agent to both the trabecular meshwork and associated ocular tissue and the fluids within the anterior chamber of an eye.

​

Intravitreal Implants

​

We are engaged in the clinical development of our hydrogel administered via intravitreal injection to address the large and growing markets for diseases and conditions of the back of the eye. Our intravitreal implant product candidates consist of a PEG-based hydrogel suspension, which contains embedded micronized particles of active drug. We designed the intravitreal implant to be injected and retained in the vitreous humor, as depicted in the figure below, to provide local programmed-release intravitreal delivery of anti-VEGF compounds.

​

Our initial intravitreal implant development efforts are focused on the use of our programmed-release hydrogel in combination with anti-angiogenic compounds such as protein-based anti-VEGF drugs or small molecule drugs, such as TKIs, for the treatment of retinal diseases, including wet AMD, RVO and DME. Our initial goal for these programs is to provide extended delivery of a protein-based large molecule or small molecule TKI targeting VEGF and other indications over a six-month period or longer following administration of a bioresorbable hydrogel incorporating the drug by an injection into the vitreous humor. This approach would reduce the frequency of the current monthly or bi-monthly intravitreal injection regimen for wet AMD and other retinal diseases and potentially provide a more consistent, uniform release of drug over the treatment period.

​

We believe TKIs are well suited for use with our platform given their high potency, multi-target capability, and compatibility with a hydrogel vehicle. In the absence of a sophisticated drug delivery system, these drugs have been difficult to deliver to the eye for acceptable timeframes at therapeutic levels without causing local and systemic toxicity due to low drug solubility and notably short half-lives in solution. We believe our local drug delivery technology gives us potential advantages in this regard.

​

We have designed our intravitreal implant for delivery using typically available syringes and fine gauge needles compatible with the current standard of care. Once in the vitreous humor, the hydrogel is designed to retain properties of

Table of Contents

TKI and anti-VEGF compounds until they are released. We have designed the hydrogel to liquefy, dissolve and be cleared from the eye through hydrolysis over time. We design our hydrogels to control the hydrogel biodegradation rate and, as a result, the timing of TKI and anti-VEGF compound release.

​

By selecting a compound that is compatible with our hydrogel platform technology and that will have expiration of relevant patents within the timeline of our development program, we avoid the need to license the TKI molecule, thus retaining full worldwide rights to any products we develop.

​

Suprachoroidal Injections

​

The suprachoroidal space, which we refer to as the SCS, is a potential space between the sclera and choroid that traverses the circumference of the posterior segment of the eye. The SCS is believed to be an attractive site for drug delivery because drugs are able to target the choroid, retinal pigment endothelium and retina with high bioavailability while maintaining low levels of drug elsewhere in the eye.

ReSure Sealant for Ocular Wound Closure

​

ReSure Sealant is our bioresorbable hydrogel device for wound closure following cataract surgery. A surgeon applies ReSure Sealant as a liquid painted onto the corneal incision. Within about 15 seconds, the sealant cross-links and transforms into a smooth, lubricious hydrogel that seals the wound. ReSure Sealant dissipates as healing progresses and does not require removal. In the pivotal clinical trials that formed the basis for FDA approval, ReSure Sealant provided superior wound closure and a better safety profile than sutured closure.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Development Pipeline and Marketed Products

​

The following table summarizes important information about our key product development programs and our marketed products, DEXTENZA and ReSure Sealant. We hold worldwide commercial rights to each of our product candidates, DEXTENZA and ReSure Sealant.

​

​

Retinal Disease Programs

​

OTX-TKI (axitinib intravitreal implant)

​

Our current intravitreal implant development efforts are focused on the use of our sustained-release hydrogel in combination with anti-angiogenic compounds, including anti-VEGF compounds, for the treatment of wet AMD. Our

Table of Contents

initial implants have delivered anti-VEGF compounds in vitro over our targeted four to six month period, which we believe could make it possible to reduce the frequency of the current monthly or bi-monthly intravitreal injection regimen for wet AMD. In addition, our preclinical studies demonstrated a sustained pharmacodynamic effect in vivo of over six months with a small molecule TKI.

​

We believe axitinib is well suited for use with our platform given its high potency, multi-target capability, and compatibility with a hydrogel vehicle. In the absence of a sophisticated drug delivery system, TKIs have been difficult to deliver to the eye for acceptable time frames at therapeutic levels without causing local and systemic toxicity due to low drug solubility and very short half-lives in solution. We believe our local programmed-release drug delivery technology gives us potential advantages in this regard.

​

In Vitro and preclinical results

​

We have conducted in vivo pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies with hydrogels loaded with axitinib injected intravitreally. Pharmacokinetic data showed retinal tissue drug concentrations in excess of 3,000 times the published concentration needed to inhibit VEGF by 50% after six months and pharmacodynamic results show sustained efficacy for six months.

​

Phase 1 clinical development

​

We are conducting an open-label, proof-of-concept Phase 1 clinical trial of OTX-TKI for the treatment of patients with neovascular age related macular degeneration, or wet AMD, caused by excessive blood vessel growth in the back of the eye due to VEGF. OTX-TKI is a bioresorbable hydrogel implant incorporating axitinib that is designed to be delivered via intravitreal injection into the vitreous humor of the eye and has an initial target duration of drug release for approximately six to nine months. Preclinical studies to date have demonstrated suppression of vascular leakage and good pharmacokinetics in the relevant ocular tissues.  The Phase 1 clinical trial was submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia’s regulatory authority for therapeutic goods, in July 2018.

​

In the first quarter of 2019, we began dosing subjects in a Phase 1 clinical trial in Australia. This clinical trial is a prospective, multi-center, open-label, does escalation study designed to evaluate the safety, durability, tolerability, and biological activity of OTX-TKI. We are evaluating biological activity by following visual acuity over time and measuring retinal thickness using standard optical coherence tomography, or OCT. Two cohorts have been enrolled, a lower dose cohort of 200 μg of six subjects and a higher dose cohort of 400 μg of seven subjects. In the first two fully enrolled cohorts, OTX-TKI was generally well tolerated and observed to have a favorable safety profile with no ocular serious adverse events noted. In the higher dose cohort, OTX-TKI showed a decrease in central subfield retinal thickness as measured by mean change in central subfield thickness values by decreases in intraretinal and/or subretinal fluid in some subjects.

​

We amended our clinical trial protocol to enroll two additional cohorts, cohort 3a consisting of six patients being administered a 600 µg dose and cohort 3b consisting of six patients being administered a 400 µg dose plus an induction injection of the anti-VEGF drug aflibercept. Cohort 3a is fully enrolled and patients are being monitored while cohort 3b is still enrolling.

​

In February, interim data from this Phase 1 clinical trial of OTX-TKI was presented at the Angiogenesis, Exudation and Degeneration 2021 Virtual conference hosted by the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Health System. We believe that OTX-TKI has demonstrated a preliminary signal of biological activity as observed by a clinically-meaningful decrease in retinal fluid as measured by high resolution OCT that provides cross-sectional images of the anatomical structure of the retina. As observed in cohort 2 (400 µg dose) and cohort 3a (600 µg dose), some subjects showed a decrease in intraretinal or subretinal fluid by two months after injection. In cohort 3b (400 µg dose plus anti-VEGF induction injection of aflibercept), two subjects were observed to have a decrease in intraretinal and/or subretinal fluid as early as a week after injection.

In addition, the OTX-TKI implants in cohort 1 were observed to have biodegraded in all subjects within 9 to 10.5 months of injection. It has also been observed that the implants are able to be adequately monitored and that there is limited to no movement of the implant in the anterior segment of the eye.

Table of Contents

These findings are supported by the graphs below that present the mean change in central subfield thickness, or CSFT, and in best corrected visual acuity, or BCVA, across the four cohorts as well as specific patient images from cohorts 2, 3a and 3b showing declines in intraretinal and/or subretinal fluid over time.

​

​

Table of Contents

OTX-TKI has been observed to have a favorable safety profile and be generally well-tolerated to date. There have been no ocular serious adverse events reported. Plasma concentrations of the active drug (axitinib) were measured to be below the limit of quantification of assay, or BLQ < 0.1 ng/ml, at all sampled time points for all patients in cohorts 1 and 2. This assessment indicates that there is no measurable systemic exposure to axitinib.

​

​

​

We believe that the interim data suggests that OTX-TKI is durable and may extend the duration of action beyond several months. As noted in the table below, 50% of cohort 1 (200 µg dose) subjects, or 3 out of 6, and 57% of cohort 2 (400 µg dose) subjects, or 4 out of 7, did not require rescue medication at or before six months post-injection. Further, several subjects in cohort 2 demonstrated durability of therapy for over 6 months and one subject demonstrated

Table of Contents

durability out to 13.5 months without rescue. In cohort 3a, one subject has demonstrated durability of therapy up to six months so far. Follow-up remains ongoing for all cohorts.

​

​

​

Planned Phase 1 Clinical Trial (United States)

​

We also plan to initiate a randomized, masked Phase 1 clinical trial of up to 20 subjects in the United States under an eIND application in mid-2021 to evaluate 15 subjects dosed with a 600 µg dose of OTX-TKI in comparison to 5 subjects receiving a 2 mg dose of aflibercept every eight weeks for the treatment of wet AMD, DME and RVO. The clinical trial will evaluate biological activity, as measured by CSFT and BCVA, tolerability and durability. We have requested a pre-IND meeting with the FDA to discuss a possible plan to transition from an eIND application to a traditional IND application.

​

Planned Phase 2 Clinical Trial (Australia)

​

Pending our receipt and review of the topline data from the Phase 1 clinical trial in Australia and related regulatory discussions, we plan to initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial in Australia to compare the administration of a single dose of 600 µg OTX-TKI in combination with an anti-VEGF induction injection of a 2 mg dose of aflibercept, a current standard of care anti-VEGF therapy, to a 2mg dose of aflibercept alone as the comparator. The Phase 2 clinical trial is anticipated to include approximately 100 subjects with wet AMD but who have responded to current standard of care anti-VEGF treatment and currently show an absence of fluid. The Phase 2 clinical trial will be designed to evaluate efficacy, as measured by CSFT and BCVA, tolerability and durability.

​

Regulatory Pathway

​

If we receive positive data from the Phase 1 clinical trial in the United States, we plan to initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial and two Phase 3 clinical trials in the United States for the treatment of wet AMD, DME and RVO. If our development efforts are successful, we expect that we would submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. See “—Government Regulation—Section 505(b)(2) NDAs” for additional information.

​

Table of Contents

OTX-AFS (aflibercept suprachoroidal implant) in Collaboration with Regeneron

​

Regeneron Collaboration Agreement

​

In October 2016, we entered into a strategic collaboration, option and license agreement with Regeneron for the development and potential commercialization of products using our extended-delivery hydrogel formulation in combination with Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds for the treatment of retinal diseases, with the initial focus on the VEGF trap aflibercept, currently marketed under the brand name Eylea. We and Regeneron amended this agreement in May 2020 to, among other things, transition joint efforts under the collaboration to the research and development of an extended-delivery formulation of aflibercept to be delivered to the suprachoroidal space. We refer to the collaboration, option and license agreement, as amended to date, as the Collaboration Agreement.

​

Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, we granted Regeneron an option, or the Option, to enter into an exclusive, worldwide license under our intellectual property to develop and commercialize products using our hydrogel in combination with Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds, or Regeneron Licensed Products. The Collaboration Agreement does not cover the development of any products that deliver small molecule drugs, including TKIs, for any target including VEGF, or any products that deliver large molecule drugs other than those that target VEGF proteins. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, we and Regeneron agreed to conduct a joint research program with the aim of developing an extended-delivery formulation of aflibercept that is suitable for advancement into clinical development. Regeneron has agreed to pay our personnel and material costs of ours for specified preclinical development activities in connection with the revised workplan, as well as costs of certain specialty equipment.

​

Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, Regeneron is responsible for funding an initial preclinical tolerability study. If the Option is exercised, Regeneron will be obligated to conduct further preclinical development and an initial clinical trial under a collaboration plan. We are obligated to reimburse Regeneron for certain development costs during the period through the completion of the initial clinical trial, subject to a cap of $25 million, which cap may be increased by up to $5 million under certain circumstances. We do not expect our funding requirements under the collaboration to be material over the next twelve months. If Regeneron elects to proceed with further development beyond the initial clinical trial, it will be solely responsible for conducting and funding further development and commercialization of product candidates. If the Option is exercised, Regeneron is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop and commercialize at least one Regeneron Licensed Product. Such efforts shall include initiating the dosing phase of a subsequent clinical trial within specified time periods following the completion of the first-in-human clinical trial or the initiation of preclinical toxicology studies, subject to certain extensions.

​

Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, Regeneron has agreed to pay us $10 million upon exercise of the Option. If Regeneron elects to exercise the Option, we are also eligible to receive up to $145 million per Regeneron Licensed Product upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, including successful results from the first-in-human clinical trial; $100 million per Regeneron Licensed Product upon first commercial sale of such Regeneron Licensed Product; and up to $50 million based on the achievement of specified sales milestones for all Regeneron Licensed Products. In addition, we are entitled to tiered, escalating royalties, in a range from a high-single digit to a low-to-mid teen percentage of net sales of Regeneron Licensed Products.

​

As amended, the Option is exclusive for twenty-four months following May 8, 2020. The field of the potential license remains limited to Regeneron Licensed Products delivered by local administration to or around the eye for diagnostic, therapeutic, or prophylactic purposes relating to ophthalmic diseases or conditions.

​

The Collaboration Agreement will automatically terminate upon the failure of Regeneron to conduct or complete certain preclinical activities within specified timeframes or provide required notices regarding such certain preclinical activities to us, in each case subject to specified exceptions, unless Regeneron exercises its Option, the matter has been referred to the joint research committee, or the parties have otherwise agreed in writing. The Agreement will also terminate if Regeneron has not exercised its Option prior to the expiration of the Option Period. If Regeneron has timely exercised its Option, the Collaboration Agreement will expire on a Regeneron Licensed Product-by-Regeneron Licensed Product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the later of 10 years from the date of first commercial sale in such country or the expiration of all patent rights covering a Regeneron Licensed Product in such country. We have agreed to grant Regeneron a fully paid-up, non-exclusive license to continue to develop and commercialize the Regeneron Licensed Products following expiration. The Collaboration Agreement is terminable by Regeneron at its convenience, for any or all of the Regeneron Licensed Products, upon prior written notice. Either party may, subject to a

Table of Contents

cure period, terminate the Collaboration Agreement in the event of the other party’s uncured material breach, in addition to other specified termination rights.

​

Glaucoma Program

OTX-TIC (travoprost intracameral implant)

Our development efforts for our glaucoma program have focused on the use of our extended-delivery hydrogel in combination with travoprost, an FDA-approved prostaglandin analog designed to lower elevated IOP. Our product candidate OTX-TIC is a bioresorbable hydrogel implant incorporating travoprost that is designed to be administered by a physician as an intracameral injection into the anterior chamber of the eye with an initial target duration of drug release of four to six months.

​

In Vitro and Preclinical results

​

Preclinical studies to date have demonstrated clinically meaningful IOP lowering and good pharmacokinetics in the aqueous humor. 

​

Phase 1 clinical development

​

We are conducting a prospective, multi-center open-label, dose-escalation proof-of-concept Phase 1 clinical trial of OTX-TIC in the United States that we initiated in the second quarter of 2018 for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The clinical trial is designed to evaluate the safety, biological activity, durability and tolerability of OTX-TIC compared to topical travoprost (daily eye drops) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The clinical trial consists of four patient cohorts: cohort 1 is 5 subjects who are receiving a 15 µg dose, cohort 2 is 4 subjects who are receiving a 26 µg dose, cohort 3 is 5 subjects who are receiving a 15 µg dose with a fast-degrading implant, and cohort 4 is 5 subjects who are receiving a 5 µg dose with a fast-degrading implant. We presented initial results from the first cohort, comprised of five patients, in this clinical trial at the Association of Research and Vision of Ophthalmology (ARVO) meeting in April 2019 and the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery annual meeting in May 2019. This data demonstrated that, with a single implant, subjects were able to achieve IOP lowering for up to thirteen months at a level at least as good as standard of care topical eye drop that was placed in each subject’s non-study eye. In addition, the hydrogel carrier, as designed, biodegraded in five to seven months. There were no clinically meaningful changes in corneal health as measured by endothelial cell evaluation and corneal pachymetry. Several subjects reported low-grade inflammation and peripheral anterior synechiae that we believe may be addressable with modifications to the implants.

​

At the Glaucoma360 2021 Virtual Conference, we presented interim results, presented below, from all four patient cohorts in the Phase 1 clinical trial. We believe that OTX-TIC shows potential as a sustained-release therapy with a long duration of action. OTX-TIC has demonstrated a clinically meaningful mean change from baseline as measured by IOP at 8:00 am, 10:00 am and 4:00 pm comparable to topical travoprost therapy as early as two days following injection across all four cohorts. With regard to duration, three out of five subjects (60%) in cohort 1 and four out of four subjects (100%) in cohort 2 exhibited duration of IOP-lowering effect comparable to travoprost therapy at six months. Two out of five subjects (40%) in cohort 3 and one out of 2 subjects (50%) in cohort 4 assessed to date exhibited duration of IOP-lowering effect comparable to travoprost at six months.

​

The OTX-TIC implant was observed to biodegrade in between five and seven months in cohorts 1 and 2. In cohorts 3 and 4, the fast-degrading implants biodegraded between three and five months. Within all four cohorts, implants were not observed to move when viewed with a slit lamp biomicroscope and were visible at all examinations in all patients using gonioscopy. Corneal health as measured by endothelial cell counts, pachymetry assessments, and slit lamp examinations indicated no clinically meaningful changes from baseline in any of the four cohorts. IOP elevation were observed in three subjects in cohort 3 at the approximate time of the implant resorption.

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

Planned Phase 2 Clinical Trial

​

In mid-2021, we plan to initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate formulations of OTX-TIC for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in patients. Certain subjects in the Phase 2 clinical trial will receive the same formulation used in cohort 1 of the Phase 1 clinical trial, containing a 26 µg dose of drug and utilizing a standard implant, and others will receive the same formulation used in cohort 4 of the Phase 1 clinical trial, containing a 5 µg dose of drug and utilizing a fast-degrading implant. The Phase 2 clinical trial will be a randomized, double-masked, active-controlled study with a total of approximately 105 subjects between three arms of approximately 35 subjects each. The control arm will receive an injection of Durysta™. The non-study eye of each patient will receive topical prostaglandin daily. The trial will evaluate IOP changes from baseline among other endpoints.

​

Regulatory Pathway

​

If our planned Phase 2 clinical trial is successful, we would then be required to successfully complete two well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials conducted under an IND to obtain marketing approval from the FDA. If we were to obtain favorable results from these two pivotal clinical trials, we expect that we would submit an NDA to the FDA for marketing approval of OTX-TIC under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. See “—Government Regulation—Section 505(b)(2) NDAs.”

​

Ocular Surface Disease Programs

​

We are engaged in the development of formulations of our hydrogel administered via intracanalicular inserts to address large markets for diseases and conditions of the surface of the eye. Our initial development efforts are focused on the use of our extended-delivery hydrogel in combination with well-known and well-understood corticosteroids and cyclosporine for the treatment of dry eye disease, allergic conjunctivitis and inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery.

Dry Eye Disease

​

OTX-CSI (cyclosporine intracanalicular insert)

​

OTX-CSI incorporates the FDA-approved immunomodulator cyclosporine as a preservative-free active pharmaceutical ingredient into a hydrogel, drug-eluting, intracanalicular insert. The product candidate is designed for patients suffering from moderate to severe dry eye and to be administered by a physician as a bioresorbable

Table of Contents

intracanalicular insert. OTX-CSI is designed to release cyclosporine to the ocular surface for approximately three to four months to increase tear production for the chronic treatment of dry eye disease.

​

Phase 1 clinical development

​

We filed an IND for OTX-CSI in the United States in December 2019 and initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial in the first quarter of 2020. The Phase 1 clinical trial was a U.S.-based, open-label, single-center trial that included five subjects (ten eyes) who were followed for approximately four months. The study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability and durability of OTX-CSI and assess the biological activity by measuring signs and symptoms of dry eye disease over this time period.

​

On October 8, 2020, we announced topline data from our Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating OTX-CSI in the chronic treatment of dry eye disease. All subjects completed the 16-week study period with no drop-outs. There were no serious adverse effects reported. The inserts were observed to be well-tolerated, and there were no adverse events of stinging, irritation, blurred vision or tearing reported or observed.

​

Tear production as measured by the Schirmer’s test improved from mean values of 4.2 mm at baseline to 8.2 mm at Week 12. One of five subjects (20%) had a greater than 10 mm increase from baseline in Schirmer’s score at Week 12. Subjects saw an improvement in signs of dry eye disease as measured by corneal total fluorescein staining (a mean value of 6.7 at baseline, improved to a mean value of 2.7 at Week 12, on a scale of 0 to 15). Further, subjects saw an improvement in symptoms of dry eye disease as measured by the VAS eye dryness severity score (a mean value of 51 at baseline, improved to a mean value of 33 at Week 12, on a scale of 0 to 100) and the VAS dry eye frequency score (a mean value of 51 at baseline, improved to a mean value of 31 at Week 12, on a scale of 0 to 100). The onset of action of OTX-CSI was seen as early as two weeks for both signs and symptoms of dry eye disease and was observed to continue over the sixteen-week study period.

​

Phase 2 clinical development

​

In September 2020, we dosed the first patients in a Phase 2 clinical trial designed to assess the safety, tolerability and durability and to evaluate the efficacy of OTX-CSI in the chronic treatment of dry eye disease. The Phase 2 clinical trial is a U.S.-based, randomized, double-masked, multi-center, vehicle-controlled trial evaluating two different formulations of OTX-CSI compared with a hydrogel vehicle insert in approximately 140 subjects who are to be followed for a period of 16 weeks. Included patients must have been diagnosed with dry eye disease in both eyes for a period of greater than six months and have a visual analog scale, or VAS, eye dryness severity score of greater than 30. The primary endpoints are incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and the absolute value and change from baseline at week 12 in tear production as measured by the Schirmer’s test. Secondary endpoints include signs of dry eye disease as measured by corneal fluorescein staining and symptoms of dry eye disease as measured by the VAS eye dryness severity score and the VAS dry eye frequency score.

​

Regulatory Pathway

​

We anticipate receiving topline data from our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial in the fourth quarter of 2021. If our planned Phase 2 clinical trial is successful, we would then be required to successfully complete two well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials conducted under an IND to obtain marketing approval from the FDA. If our development efforts are successful, we expect that we would submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. See “—Government Regulation—Section 505(b)(2) NDAs” for additional information.

​

OTX-DED (dexamethasone intracanalicular insert)

​

One of the causes of dry eye disease is inflammation. Topical anti-inflammatory drugs are used as one of several therapies to treat dry eye disease and are administered by eye drops. As the understanding of dry eye disease, specifically the inflammatory components of dry eye disease, has evolved, the use of corticosteroids has become a common to offer short-term relief of signs and symptoms of the disease. Physicians typically prescribe a topical corticosteroid for a period of two to four weeks, tapered over the course of delivery as the inflammation and symptoms subside. However, safety limitations associated with the use of corticosteroids for dry eye disease have limited widespread adoption. We believe that OTX-DED has potential as a short-term treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease caused by inflammation.

Table of Contents

​

OTX-DED incorporates the FDA-approved corticosteroid dexamethasone, its preservative-free active pharmaceutical ingredient, into a hydrogel, drug-eluting intracanalicular insert. OTX-DED incorporates the same active drug as DEXTENZA, but it includes a lower dose of the drug, delivers it via a smaller insert, and is designed to release it over a period of two to three weeks.

​

Phase 2 clinical trial

​

We filed an IND in December 2020 for OTX-DED. In February 2021, we initiated a U.S.-based, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, multi-center Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating two different-strength formulations of OTX-DED (0.2 mg and 0.3 mg of dexamethasone) versus hydrogel implant in a total of approximately 150 subjects with dry eye disease, approximately 50 patients per arm. The subjects will be followed for approximately two months after randomization. This trial is designed to assess the safety and efficacy of these two formulations of OTX-DED for the short-term treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. Included patients will be required to have diagnosed dry eye disease in both eyes for at least six months, a VAS eye dryness severity score of at least 30 and bulbar conjunctival hyperemia grade of at least 2 (Cornea Contact Lens Research Unit scale). The primary endpoint is mean change in bulbar conjunctival hyperemia from baseline measured at 15 days post treatment by central reading center photographic assessment. Secondary endpoints include eye dryness symptoms using VAS, total corneal fluorescein staining using the National Eye Institute scale and adverse events, both ocular and non-ocular.

​

Regulatory Pathway

​

We anticipate receiving topline data from our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial in the first half of 2022. If our planned Phase 2 clinical trial is successful, we would then be required to successfully complete two well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials conducted under an IND to obtain marketing approval from the FDA. If our development efforts are successful, we expect that we would submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. See “—Government Regulation—Section 505(b)(2) NDAs” for additional information.

​

Allergic Conjunctivitis

​

We believe that allergic conjunctivitis represents a discrete potential market opportunity for preservative-free DEXTENZA because it is a physician-administered, hands-free, therapy administered in the office setting and designed to release the FDA-approved corticosteroid dexamethasone to the ocular surface for up to 30 days.

​

Although dexamethasone is clinically effective in the treatment of late-phase inflammatory allergic reactions, the safety limitations associated with eye drop administration, including the potential to generate spikes in IOP due to the high levels of drug due to potential patient abuse to treat this symptomatic condition, have limited its widespread adoption. These elevations in IOP can lead to drug-induced glaucoma, although the incidence is low. Further, use of oral anti-histamine medications as well as anti-histamine eye drops for allergic conjunctivitis may dry out the eye and exacerbate the discomfort to some patients. Based on our clinical trial results to date, we believe that using DEXTENZA for allergic conjunctivitis could create a low, tapered, consistent dose of dexamethasone, potentially minimizing or eliminating side effects associated with the eye drop formulation, while retaining the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

​

Completed Phase 2 Clinical Trial

​

In November 2014, we completed a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, vehicle-controlled, multicenter, double-masked Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of DEXTENZA for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. We conducted this trial using a modified version of a controlled exposure model commonly used to assess anti-allergy medications, Ora, Inc.’s modified Conjunctival Allergen Challenge (Ora-Cac^®), which we refer to as the CAC Model. The modified CAC achieves a very high transient dose exposure by placing allergen directly into the space between the eyelid and the surface of the eye of the patient. We initially exposed patients to specified allergens to determine which allergens resulted in an allergic response for the patients. If patient was responsive to a particular allergen, we continued to expose the patient to that same allergen prior to each evaluation.

​

We enrolled 68 patients at two sites in the United States. We randomized patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either DEXTENZA or a placebo vehicle control intracanalicular insert without active drug. We evaluated patients using three

Table of Contents

allergen challenges in series for each of the two efficacy measures at 14, 28 and 42 days following placement of the intracanalicular insert.

​

The primary efficacy measures for this trial were ocular itching graded by the patient and conjunctival redness graded by the trial investigator, in each case based on a five point scale from zero to four. The primary efficacy measures were differences between treatment groups of at least 0.5 units on the five point scale on day 14 for all three time points measured in a day for both ocular itching and conjunctival redness and differences between treatment groups of at least 1.0 unit for the majority of the three time points measured on 14 days post insertion for both ocular itching and conjunctival redness. The secondary endpoints for this trial were similar to the primary efficacy endpoints, except that each variable was assessed at 28 days and 42 days following placement of the intracanalicular insert.

​

We enrolled patients in this trial who were at least 18 years of age with a positive history of ocular allergies and a positive skin test reaction to a perennial allergen and a seasonal allergen. We excluded patients from this trial if, among other reasons, they had an active ocular infection or itching or conjunctival redness at screening.

​

We evaluated safety in all patients at each study visit with an assessment of general eye conditions, including visual acuity and IOP, along with any adverse events.

​

Efficacy: In this trial, there was a statistically significant mean difference (p<0.05) between the DEXTENZA treatment group and the vehicle group for both ocular itching and conjunctival redness at all three time points measured on 14, 28, and 42 days following placement of the intracanalicular insert. DEXTENZA met one of the two primary efficacy endpoints. The DEXTENZA treatment group achieved a mean difference compared to the vehicle control group of more than 0.5 units on a five point scale at 14 days post insertion for all three time points measured in a day for both ocular itching and conjunctival redness. The DEXTENZA group did not achieve a mean difference compared to the vehicle control group of 1.0 unit for the majority of the three time points measured on 14 days post insertion for either ocular itching or conjunctival redness. However, in a pre-specified analysis group of a second site in the clinical trial, in which DEXTENZA intracanalicular inserts were placed 48 to 72 hours following exposure to the allergen, rather than on the same day, we observed a mean difference in ocular itching between the DEXTENZA group and the vehicle control group of approximately 1.0 unit for the majority of three time points measured on 14 days.

​

The results of this trial for each of the three time points on day 14 following the insertion of the intracanalicular insert for the DEXTENZA group and the vehicle control group are shown in the table below:

​

​

Safety: In this trial, there was one serious adverse event in the treatment arm, which was depression. This event was not suspected to be related to treatment. The serious adverse event was not ocular in nature. In addition, there were a variety of adverse events in both the DEXTENZA group and the vehicle control group, with nine ocular adverse events and two non-ocular related adverse events in the DEXTENZA group and eight ocular adverse events and two non-ocular adverse events in the vehicle control group. In the DEXTENZA group, the only adverse events that occurred more than once were reduction in visual acuity and increased IOP, both of which occurred twice. The most common adverse events in the vehicle control group were erythema of the eyelid, discharge from the eye and an increase in lacrimation, all of which occurred twice. All adverse events were transient in nature and completely resolved by the end of the trial.

​

Table of Contents

Phase 3 Clinical Program

​

We met with the FDA in December 2014 to review the Phase 2 clinical trial results of DEXTENZA for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis and to discuss our planned Phase 3 clinical development program. Based on these discussions, we have completed two Phase 3 clinical trials and initiated a third Phase 3 clinical trial in August 2019. Our first Phase 3 clinical trial assessed both ocular itching and conjunctival redness associated with allergic conjunctivitis. Our second and third Phase 3 clinical trials have focused on the ocular itching indication.

​

First Phase 3 Clinical Trial

​

We initiated our first planned Phase 3 clinical trials in June 2015, and we reported topline efficacy results in October 2015. This first Phase 3 clinical trial was a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, vehicle-controlled, multicenter, double-masked trial. A total of 73 patients were enrolled in this trial and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either DEXTENZA or a placebo vehicle control intracanalicular insert without active drug. This trial was conducted using the CAC Model. We evaluated patients using three allergen challenges in series for each of two efficacy measures at days 7, 14 and 28 following placement of intracanalicular insert as described below. In this Phase 3 clinical trial, we placed the intracanalicular inserts 48 to 72 hours after exposure to the allergen. In our completed Phase 2 clinical trial, we obtained better efficacy results with this design protocol as noted in the description of the Phase 2 efficacy results above.

​

The primary efficacy measures for this trial were ocular itching graded by the patient and conjunctival redness graded by the trial investigator, in each case based on a five point scale from zero to four. The primary efficacy endpoints were the differences between the treatment group and the vehicle group of at least 0.5 units on the five point scale measured on 7 days post-insertion of the intracanalicular insert for all three time points measured for both ocular itching and conjunctival redness and differences of at least 1.0 unit for the majority of the three time points measured on 7 days post-insertion of the intracanalicular insert for both ocular itching and conjunctival redness. The secondary endpoints were similar to the primary efficacy endpoints except that each variable was assessed at day 14 and day 28 following insertion of the intracanalicular insert. The primary efficacy measure of conjunctival redness is typically included in Phase 3 trials for allergic conjunctivitis but has not been required for FDA approval of drugs for allergic conjunctivitis. Most commercially available prescription medications for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis have an ocular itching indication only. As described below, ocular itching was the only primary efficacy endpoint in the second Phase 3 trial of DEXTENZA for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis, with conjunctival redness being moved to a secondary efficacy endpoint.

​

We enrolled patients in this trial who were at least 18 years of age with a positive history of ocular allergies and a positive skin test reaction to a perennial allergen and a seasonal allergen. We excluded patients from this trial if, among other reasons, they had an active ocular infection or itching or conjunctival redness at screening.

​

We evaluated safety in all patients at each study visit with an assessment of general eye conditions, including visual acuity and IOP, along with any adverse events.

​

Efficacy: In this trial, there was a statistically significant mean difference (p<0.0001) between the DEXTENZA treatment group and the placebo vehicle group for ocular itching at all three time points measured on 7 days post-placement of the intracanalicular insert. DEXTENZA also met the primary efficacy endpoint for ocular itching. The DEXTENZA treatment group achieved a mean difference compared to the vehicle group of greater than 0.5 units on a five point scale on 7 days post-insertion at each time point and greater than 1.0 unit at a majority of the time points on 7 days post-insertion for ocular itching. There was a statistically significant mean difference (p=0.01 or less) between the DEXTENZA treatment group and the placebo vehicle group for conjunctival redness at all three time points measured on 7 days post-placement of the intracanalicular insert. However, the DEXTENZA group did not achieve the pre-specified primary efficacy endpoints on 7 days post-insertion with respect to conjunctival redness.

​

Table of Contents

The results of this trial for each of the three time points on day 7 following placement of the intracanalicular insert for the DEXTENZA group and the vehicle control group are shown in the table below:

​

​

Safety: There were no serious adverse events reported in this trial. There were a variety of adverse events in both the DEXTENZA group and the vehicle control group, with three patients in the DEXTENZA treatment group with a total of three ocular adverse events and one non-ocular adverse event and four patients in the vehicle control group with a total of six ocular adverse events and one non-ocular adverse events. The most common ocular adverse event was increased lacrimation, which was experienced by one patient in the DEXTENZA group and two patients in the vehicle control group. Other treatment-related ocular adverse events included increased IOP in the DEXTENZA group, and blepharospasm in the vehicle control group.

​

Second Phase 3 Clinical Trial

​

We initiated our second Phase 3 clinical trial of DEXTENZA for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in November 2015, and we reported topline efficacy results in June 2016. This second Phase 3 clinical trial was a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, vehicle-controlled, multicenter, double-masked trial. A total of 72 patients were enrolled in this trial and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either DEXTENZA or a placebo vehicle control intracanalicular insert without active drug. This trial was conducted using the CAC Model. Patients were evaluated using three allergen challenges in series for each of two efficacy measures at days 7, 14 and 28 following insertion of the intracanalicular insert. In this Phase 3 clinical trial, we placed the intracanalicular inserts 48 to 72 hours after exposure to the allergen.

​

The single primary efficacy measure for this trial was ocular itching graded by the patient based on a five point scale from zero to four. The primary efficacy endpoints were the differences between the treatment group and the vehicle group of at least 0.5 units on the five point scale 7 days post-insertion of the intracanalicular insert for all three time points measured for ocular itching and differences of at least 1.0 unit for the majority of the three time points measured 7 days post-insertion of the intracanalicular insert for ocular itching. The secondary endpoints for ocular itching were similar to the primary efficacy endpoints except that each variable was assessed at day 14 and day 28 following placement of the intracanalicular insert. The secondary endpoints for conjunctival redness were the differences between the treatment group and the vehicle group of at least 0.5 units on the five point scale 7 days post-insertion of the intracanalicular insert for all three time points measured and differences of at least 1.0 unit for the majority of the three time points measured 7 days post-insertion of the intracanalicular insert.

​

We enrolled patients in this trial who are at least 18 years of age with a positive history of ocular allergies and a positive skin test reaction to a perennial allergen and a seasonal allergen. We excluded patients from this trial if, among other reasons, they had an active ocular infection or itching or conjunctival redness at screening.

​

We evaluated safety in all patients at each study visit with an assessment of general eye conditions, including visual acuity and IOP, along with any adverse events.

​

Efficacy: In this trial, DEXTENZA did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of ocular itching at the three time points measured on day 7 post-placement of the intracanalicular insert. The mean difference in ocular itching in the

Table of Contents

DEXTENZA treatment group compared to the placebo group measured 7 days following insertion of the inserts, at 3, 5, and 7 minutes was -0.18, -0.29, and -0.29 units, respectively, on a five point scale and did not achieve statistical significance. In addition, the trial did not achieve the requirement of at least a 0.5 unit difference at all three time points 7 days following insertion of the inserts and at least a 1.0 unit difference at a majority of the three time points between the treatment group and the placebo group 7 days following insertion of the inserts.

​

The trial also assessed conjunctival redness as a secondary endpoint. The differences in the mean scores in conjunctival redness between the DEXTENZA treatment group and the placebo group 7 days following insertion of the inserts at 7, 15 and 20 minutes were -0.35, -0.39 and -0.42, respectively.

​

The results of this trial for each of the three time points on day 7 following placement of the intracanalicular insert for the DEXTENZA group and the vehicle control group are shown in the table below:

​

Safety: There were no serious adverse events reported in this trial. There were a variety of adverse events in both the DEXTENZA group and the vehicle control group, with six patients in the DEXTENZA treatment group with a total of six ocular and one non-ocular adverse events and 11 patients in the vehicle control group with a total of nine ocular and eight non-ocular adverse events. The lower rate of ocular adverse events in the DEXTENZA group could potentially be due to the presence of an anti-inflammatory active pharmaceutical ingredient. Ocular adverse events reported more than one patient in either treatment group included increased IOP, which was experienced by two patients in the DEXTENZA group, as well as dacryostenosis acquired and dacryocanaliculitis, each experienced by two patients in the vehicle control group. Both cases of IOP increased were considered treatment related, as were both cases of dacryocanaliculitis and a single case of dacryostenosis. All other ocular adverse events were reported by single patients in either the DEXTENZA or vehicle control group, with most in the PV group considered treatment related.

​

Third Phase 3 Clinical Trial

​

In the third quarter of 2019, we began dosing patients in a 96-subject, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. This Phase 3 clinical trial was a U.S.-based, multi-center, 1:1 randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEXTENZA versus a punctum plug using the CAC Model. The trial was designed to assess the effect of DEXTENZA compared with a placebo on allergic reactions using a series of successive allergen challenges over a 30-day period. The primary efficacy endpoint for this trial was ocular itching (subject-reported 5-point scale (0 to 4)) on day 8 at 3 minutes, 5 minutes and 7 minutes post-challenge and included subjects with seasonal and perennial allergens.

​

Efficacy: DEXTENZA-treated subjects demonstrated a statistically significant (p-value < 0.0001) difference in mean ocular itching scores, compared to vehicle-treated subjects, at all three pre-specified time points (see the figure below). An assessment of the secondary endpoint of ocular itching at all other visits (day 7, day 8 (morning), day 8 (afternoon at 10 minutes following exposure), day 14, and day 15 (morning and afternoon)) also showed that DEXTENZA-treated subjects reported lower itching scores than vehicle-treated subjects at 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 7 minutes and 10 minutes post-exposure to the allergen challenge (p-value <0.05 for all 21 time points except day 7 at 3 minutes).

​

Table of Contents

Primary Efficacy Endpoint Ocular Mean Itching Scores at Day 8 (PM)

*Statistically significant; P≤0.0001; Least Squared Means; Population: ITT = MCMC; Bars represent Standard Error

​

Safety: In the trial, DEXTENZA was generally observed to have a favorable safety profile and be well-tolerated. No serious adverse events were observed. No subjects required rescue medication and no subjects experienced elevated IOP. There were 8 ocular treatment-emergent adverse events in this trial (2 in the DEXTENZA group and 6 in the vehicle group).

Overview of clinical trial data

​

Data received from the third Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating DEXTENZA for ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis was generally consistent with our observations in our prior Phase 2 and Phase 3a clinical trials using a similar repeat CAC Model as reflected in the two figures below. For all analyses we have conducted, the subject is the unit of analysis. For the Phase 2 clinical trial, the data shown is for the prespecified primary endpoint of ocular itching at day 15 using the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) population and utilizing the last observation carried forward (LOCF) methodology to impute missing data. For the Phase 3 trials, the data shown is for the prespecified primary endpoint of ocular itching at day 8 using the ITT population and imputing missing data using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) multiple imputation method. The two figures below reflect the Phase 3 data using the MCMC method with different bases for imputation. In the first figure, the basis for imputation for the MCMC method is at the individual eye level. In the second figure, the basis for imputation for the MCMC method is at the subject level (average of the two eyes). Both methods may be appropriate and, in this case, yield similar conclusions. In certain data we have previously disclosed, we have presented analyses using the MCMC method with the individual eye as the basis for imputation. However, the statistical analysis plan for each of the three Phase 3 trials specifies that the basis for imputation for the MCMC method should be the subject level. Multiple other methods of imputation were also performed in some of the Phase 3 studies—including LOCF, baseline observation carried forward (BOCF), worse case observation (WCO), and observation only with no imputation—with similar clinical conclusions.

​

Table of Contents

Primary Efficacy Endpoint – Eye Level Imputation

Mean Ocular Itching Scores Across All Studies

* Statistically Significant; P≤0.0025; Population: ITT + LOCF (Phase 2) & ITT + MCMC (Phase 3)

​

​

Primary Efficacy Endpoint – Subject Level Imputation

Mean Ocular Itching Scores Across All Studies

* Statistically Significant; P≤0.0025; Population: ITT + LOCF (Phase 2) & ITT + MCMC (Phase 3)

​

Regulatory Pathway

​

In the fourth quarter of 2020, we submitted an sNDA for DEXTENZA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA (See “—Government Regulation—Section 505(b)(2) NDAs” for additional information) to include the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis as an additional approved indication. The FDA has accepted our sNDA for filing and has established a target action date under PDUFA of October 18, 2021. We believe that the totality of the efficacy and safety data across the Phase 2 trial and the three Phase 3 trials (n = 323 subjects), as well as the safety data associated with the prior approval of DEXTENZA for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery, represent a strong data package in support of the sNDA.

Table of Contents

​

If our sNDA is approved, we expect to launch DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the first half of 2022.

​

Post-Surgical Ocular Inflammation and Pain

​

DEXTENZA (dexamethasone intracanalicular insert)

​

DEXTENZA incorporates the FDA-approved corticosteroid dexamethasone as a preservative-free active pharmaceutical ingredient into a hydrogel, drug-eluting intracanalicular insert. Following FDA approval, we commercially launched DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical inflammation and pain in July 2019.

We selected dexamethasone as the active pharmaceutical ingredient for DEXTENZA because it:

​

​

​

​

​

​

Embedded within our DEXTENZA intracanalicular insert are dexamethasone drug particles that gradually erode and release the drug in a programmed fashion until the drug is depleted. As the dexamethasone drug particles erode and the hydrogel degrades by hydrolysis, the intracanalicular insert softens, liquefies and is cleared through the nasolacrimal duct. We provide the DEXTENZA drug product in a preservative-free formulation in a sterile, single use package.

​

The standard regimen for dexamethasone eye drops following cataract surgery is an initial administration of four times daily for one week, with a gradual tapering in the number of eye drops over a four-week period. Such a regimen is often confusing to patients as they must remember to taper the number of times per day they administer the steroid, while also taking multiple drops of other drugs, such as antibiotics and NSAIDs. We believe that local programmed-release of drug to the eye may result in better control of ocular inflammation and pain as compared to prescription eye drops and that a low dose amount may provide enhanced safety by eliminating spikes in IOP associated with high-dose steroid eye drops.

​

Overview of Clinical Development for Post-Surgical Ocular Inflammation and Pain

​

In March and April 2015, we reported topline results from two Phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain. In the first Phase 3 clinical trial, DEXTENZA met both primary efficacy endpoints, absence of pain at day 8 and absence of inflammatory cells at day 14, with statistical significance. In the second Phase 3 clinical trial, DEXTENZA met the primary efficacy endpoint for absence of pain at day 8 with statistical significance but did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint for absence of inflammatory cells at day 14. We met with the FDA in April 2015 to discuss the path forward for seeking marketing approval of DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain.

​

In this pre-NDA clinical meeting, the FDA indicated that the existing data from our Phase 2 and two Phase 3 clinical trials are appropriate to support an NDA submission for DEXTENZA for a post-surgical ocular pain indication. The FDA further indicated that we would need additional data from a third Phase 3 clinical trial for the inflammation endpoint to support the potential labeling expansion of DEXTENZA’s indications for use. We initiated a third Phase 3 clinical trial for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain in October 2015. In September 2015, we submitted to the FDA an NDA for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular pain. In July 2016, we received a complete response letter, or CRL, from the FDA regarding our NDA for DEXTENZA. We

Table of Contents

resubmitted our NDA for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular pain in June 2018. In November 2018, we received approval for the pain indication. In June 2019, we received approval for the inflammation indication.

​

Completed Phase 3 Clinical Trials

​

In 2014, we initiated a pivotal clinical trial program that consisted of two prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, vehicle-controlled, multicenter, double-masked Phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of DEXTENZA for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery. We initiated the first of these Phase 3 clinical trials in February 2014 and the second trial in April 2014. Patient enrollment was completed in September 2014, and the topline efficacy data from these clinical trials was reported in March and April 2015. We initiated a third Phase 3 clinical trial in the October 2015. Patient enrollment in the third Phase 3 clinical trial was completed in May 2016 and the topline efficacy data was reported in November 2016.

​

We enrolled 247 patients at 16 sites in the first Phase 3 clinical trial, 241 patients at 16 sites in the second Phase 3 clinical trial and 438 patients at 21 sites in the third Phase 3 clinical trial in the United States pursuant to our effective IND. We randomized patients in a 2:1 ratio in the first two Phase 3 clinical trials and in a 1:1 ratio in the third Phase 3 clinical trial to receive either DEXTENZA or a placebo vehicle control intracanalicular insert without active drug. We evaluated patients at days 2, 4, 8, 14, 30 and 60 following surgery in the first two Phase 3 trials and at days 2, 4, 8, 14, and 30 in the third Phase 3 clinical trial.

​

The two primary efficacy measures in these trials were absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye when measured with a slit lamp biomicroscope and absence of pain in the study eye. To meet the efficacy end point for absence of inflammatory cells, there needed to be a complete absence of inflammatory cells. In these trials, absence of pain was based on a patient reported score of zero on a scale from zero to ten of ocular pain assessment. The first primary efficacy endpoint for these trials was the difference in the proportion of patients in each treatment group with absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye at day 14 following surgery. Pivotal clinical trials for other ophthalmic steroid drugs approved by the FDA for marketing in the United States also have evaluated this endpoint at day 14. The second primary efficacy endpoint for these trials was the difference in the proportion of patients in each treatment group with absence of pain in the study eye at day 8 following surgery. For clarification of the endpoints, the day of surgery and insertion of DEXTENZA or the placebo is considered to be day 1.

​

We evaluated as secondary efficacy measures the level of flare, an indicator of inflammation in the anterior chamber of the study eye at each evaluation date until day 30 and absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye and absence of pain in the study eye at each evaluation date other than the day used for the primary efficacy measure until day 30. The secondary analyses on primary endpoints were intended to be exploratory assessments that can be used to support the results from the primary endpoints. We enrolled patients in these two trials who were at least 18 years of age undergoing unilateral clear corneal cataract surgery. We excluded patients from these trials if, among other reasons, they had intraocular inflammation or ocular pain in the study eye at screening or had glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

​

We evaluated safety in all patients at each study visit with an assessment of general eye conditions, including visual acuity and IOP, along with any adverse events.

​

Efficacy: In the first Phase 3 clinical trial, DEXTENZA met the primary efficacy endpoint with statistical significance for the absence of cells in the anterior chamber compared to the vehicle control at day 14. 33.1% of DEXTENZA treated patients showed an absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye on day 14 following drug product insertion, compared to 14.5% of those receiving placebo vehicle control intracanalicular inserts (p=0.0018). DEXTENZA also met the primary efficacy endpoint with statistical significance for absence of pain compared to the vehicle control at day 8. 80.4% of patients receiving DEXTENZA reported absence of pain in the study eye on day 8 following insertion of the drug product, compared to 43.4% of those receiving placebo vehicle control intracanalicular inserts (p< 0.0001).

​

In the second Phase 3 clinical trial, DEXTENZA met the primary efficacy endpoint for absence of pain at day 8 with statistical significance but did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint for absence of inflammatory cells at day 14. In the second Phase 3 clinical trial, 77.5% of patients receiving DEXTENZA reported an absence of pain in the study eye on day 8 following insertion of the drug product, compared to 58.8% of those receiving placebo vehicle control intracanalicular inserts, a difference which was statistically significant (p=0.0025). However, 39.4% of DEXTENZA

Table of Contents

treated patients showed an absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye on day 14 following drug product insertion, compared to 31.3% of those receiving placebo vehicle control intracanalicular inserts, a difference which was not statistically significant (p=0.2182).

​

In the third Phase 3 clinical trial, DEXTENZA met the primary efficacy endpoint with statistical significance for the absence of cells in the anterior chamber compared to the vehicle control at day 14. 52.1% of DEXTENZA treated patients showed an absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye on day 14 following drug product insertion compared to 31.2% of those receiving placebo vehicle control intracanalicular inserts (p< 0.0001). DEXTENZA also met the primary efficacy endpoint with statistical significance for absence of pain compared to the vehicle control at day 8. 79.3% of patients receiving DEXTENZA reported absence of pain in the study eye on day 8 following insertion of the drug product, compared to 61.3% of those receiving placebo vehicle control intracanalicular inserts (p< 0.0001).

​

Secondary analyses on primary endpoints for the three Phase 3 clinical trials were also completed. In the first Phase 3 clinical trial, statistically significant differences were seen for absence of pain at all time points (days 2, 4, 8, 14, 30 and 60) in the DEXTENZA treatment group compared to the vehicle control group. Statistically significant differences were seen for the absence of inflammatory cells at day 30 in the DEXTENZA treatment group compared to the vehicle control group, and there were no statistically significant differences seen at the other time points. Statistically significant differences between the DEXTENZA treatment group and the vehicle control group were seen for flare at days 8, 14 and 30.

​

In the second Phase 3 clinical trial, statistically significant differences were seen for absence of pain at days 2, 4, 14 and 30 in the DEXTENZA treatment group compared to the vehicle control group. A similar proportion of patients in the DEXTENZA treatment group and the vehicle control group were observed to have an absence of inflammatory cells at days 2, 4, 8, and 30. A statistically significant difference between treatment groups was not seen for the absence of inflammatory cells until the day 60 visit, at which time a greater proportion of patients in the DEXTENZA treatment group compared to the vehicle control group were observed to have an absence of inflammatory cells at day 60 (p=0.0012). Statistically significant differences between the DEXTENZA treatment group and the vehicle control group were seen for flare at days 14, 30 and 60.

​

In the third Phase 3 clinical trial, statistically significant differences were seen for absence of pain at all time points (days 2,4, 14, and 30) in the DEXTENZA treatment group compared to the vehicle control group. Statistically significant differences were seen for the absence of inflammatory cells at days 4, 8, and 30 but not seen at day 2. Statistically significant differences between the DEXTENZA treatment group and the vehicle control group were seen for flare at all measured time points (days 2, 4, 8, 14, and 30).

​

Safety: There were no ocular or treatment-related serious adverse events in the DEXTENZA treatment group in either of the first two completed Phase 3 clinical trials. There was one ocular serious adverse event in the vehicle control group in the first two completed Phase 3 clinical trials: hypopyon, or inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber. There were two patients with three serious adverse events in the DEXTENZA treatment group in the first Phase 3 clinical trial (1.2% incidence), compared with two patients with four serious adverse events in the vehicle control group (2.4% incidence). There were two serious adverse events in the DEXTENZA treatment group in the second Phase 3 clinical trial (1.3% incidence), compared with three serious adverse events in the vehicle control group (3.8% incidence). There were three serious adverse events in the DEXTENZA treatment group in the third Phase 3 clinical trial (1.4% incidence), compared with two serious adverse events in the vehicle control group (0.9% incidence). One serious adverse event in the DEXTENZA group was ocular in nature (retinal detachment). None of the serious adverse events in either group were deemed to be treatment-related.

​

Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio in the first two Phase 3 clinical trials and in a 1:1 ratio in the third Phase 3 clinical trial between the treatment group and the vehicle control group. In the first Phase 3 clinical trial, 98 adverse events were noted in the DEXTENZA group and 59 adverse events were noted in the vehicle control group. In the second Phase 3 clinical trial, 74 adverse events were noted in the DEXTENZA group and 47 adverse events were noted in the vehicle control group. In the third Phase 3 clinical trial, 91 adverse events were noted in the DEXTENZA group and 109 adverse events were noted in the vehicle control group. All adverse events were either resolved or considered chronic/stable at the time of subject exit from the study. We expect to be able to use the safety data from these Phase 3 trials to support our other DEXTENZA clinical development programs, including for allergic conjunctivitis.

​

Table of Contents

Investigator-Initiated Trials

​

We have received proposals for, and plan to support, several investigator-initiated trials evaluating DEXTENZA in different clinical situations. To date, third-party clinical investigators have initiated over 25 trials to study the use of DEXTENZA in cataract surgery and other potential indications. Seven of the trials have completed enrollment, the remaining trials are actively enrolling and treated patients are being followed.

​

Regulatory Pathway

​

In November 2018, we received FDA approval for DEXTENZA for the pain indication. In January 2019, we submitted a sNDA for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation. In June 2019, we received FDA approval for DEXTENZA for the inflammation indication. Although we conducted our Phase 3 clinical trials of DEXTENZA in patients who have undergone cataract surgery, these trials were intended to support, and DEXTENZA ultimately received, a label for patients who have undergone any ocular surgery.

​

Post-Approval Studies

​

In September 2020, we announced that we had dosed the first pediatric patients in a Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain in children following cataract surgery. This planned clinical trial is a post-approval requirement of the FDA in accordance with the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, in connection with the FDA’s prior approval of DEXTENZA for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ophthalmic surgery in adults. The Phase 3 clinical trial is a U.S.-based, randomized, multicenter clinical trial in which we intend to enroll approximately 60 subjects. It is designed to evaluate the safety and biological activity of DEXTENZA compared to an active control, prednisolone acetate suspension eye drops, for the treatment of inflammation and pain following ocular surgery for pediatric cataract in children between zero and three years of age. The primary endpoint is the absence of pain at day eight post-treatment as measured by a FLACC (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability) score of zero.

​

Foreign Approvals

​

Outside the United States, we continue to assess whether to seek regulatory approval for DEXTENZA in markets such as the European Union, Australia and Japan based on the market opportunity, particularly pricing, and the requirements for marketing approval. Given our prioritization of the clinical development of our sustained-release product candidates and our planned commercialization efforts for our initial intracanalicular insert product candidates in the United States, we will need to engage a third parties to assist us in the approval process. We have entered into a license agreement and collaboration with AffaMed for the development and commercialization of DEXTENZA, along with OTX-TIC, in specified Asian markets. From time to time, we may consider additional arrangements with other companies to address markets outside of the United States.

​

If we or our collaborators obtain regulatory approval to market and sell DEXTENZA in international markets, we expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize DEXTENZA. See “—Government Regulation—Review and Approval of Medical Devices in the European Union” for additional information.

​

ReSure Sealant

​

ReSure Sealant is a topical liquid hydrogel that creates a temporary, adherent, soft and lubricious sealant to prevent post-surgical leakage from clear corneal incisions that are made during cataract surgery. The main components of ReSure hydrogel are water and PEG. ReSure hydrogel is completely synthetic, with no animal or human derived components. The FDA granted marketing approval for ReSure Sealant in January 2014. We commercially launched ReSure Sealant in the United States in February 2014.

​

ReSure Sealant provides a novel means of definitive wound closure in situations in which the surgeon observes a wound leak at the conclusion of surgery and/or would otherwise use sutures. We believe ReSure Sealant offers important benefits over sutures, including superior wound closure, a better safety profile and less follow-up.

​

Table of Contents

The market opportunity for a surgical sealant following cataract surgery may be modest because sutures are used in a minority of cataract surgeries and, currently, there is no direct reimbursement for ReSure Sealant. While ReSure Sealant remains commercially available in the United States, there is no sales support and only limited commercial support for this product at this time. As a result, we do not expect to generate meaningful levels of revenue from the sale of ReSure Sealant.

​

Product Design

​

A surgeon forms ReSure Sealant hydrogel by combining three components: PEG, a cross-linker and a diluent buffer solution. The cross-linker interacts with the PEG molecules to form a molecular network that comprises the hydrogel. The components are mixed to initiate the cross-linking reaction to form a biocompatible, resorbable hydrogel. The hydrogel is approximately 90% water and is blue in color to help the surgeon visualize the sealant during application. The surgeon applies the sealant to the corneal incision as a liquid using a soft foam-tipped applicator. The sealant forms a conformal coating that adheres to the ocular tissue through mechanical interlocking of the hydrogel with the tissue surfaces. The blue color fades within a few hours following surgery. The soft, pliable hydrogel remains on the corneal surface during the critical wound healing period of one to three days and provides a barrier to fluid leakage. ReSure Sealant softens over time, detaches and is sloughed off in the tears as a liquid or extremely soft gel pieces. ReSure Sealant is designed to completely liquefy over a five to seven day duration. Complete epithelial healing takes place over this time period, providing long-term wound closure.

​

We provide ReSure Sealant in a sterile, single patient use package. The package contains a tray with two elongated mixing wells. Each well contains dried deposits of reactants, separated within the well. The package also contains one plastic dropper bottle filled with diluent solution and two applicators. The device is stored at room temperature for easy access.

​

ReSure Sealant Clinical Development

​

We conducted a pivotal clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of ReSure Sealant compared to sutures for preventing incision leakage from clear corneal incisions. In connection with FDA approval of ReSure Sealant in January 2014, we have agreed to conduct two post-approval studies. The first post-approval registry study was designed to confirm whether ReSure Sealant can be used safely by physicians in a standard cataract surgery practice and to confirm the incidence of pre-specified adverse ocular events in eyes treated with ReSure Sealant. The second post-approval study is designed to ascertain the incidence of endophthalmitis in patients treated with ReSure Sealant.

​

Pivotal Clinical Trial

​

In 2013, we completed a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, controlled, multicenter, subject-masked pivotal clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of ReSure Sealant. In this trial, we enrolled 488 patients at 24 sites across the United States. One patient was excluded prior to treatment because the surgeon was unable to achieve a dry ocular surface for application of ReSure Sealant. As a result, we randomized 304 patients for treatment with ReSure Sealant and 183 patients for treatment with sutures. Based on the trial protocol, 295 patients treated with ReSure Sealant and 176 patients treated with sutures completed study follow-up without a significant protocol deviation that directly affected the primary efficacy endpoint.

​

The primary efficacy endpoint was non-inferiority of ReSure Sealant to sutures for preventing incision leakage from clear corneal incisions within the first seven days following cataract surgery. A non-inferiority determination requires that the test product is not worse than the comparator by more than a small pre-specified margin. The non-inferiority margin for the ReSure Sealant pivotal clinical trial was a percentage difference in leak rates between ReSure Sealant and sutures of 5%.

​

We randomized patients in a 5:3 ratio to receive either ReSure Sealant or sutures. All patients received a standardized self-sealing incision.

​

Surgeons assessed incision leakage during the operation and during follow-up visits on days 1, 3, 7 and 28 after the procedure. During the pre-randomization intraoperative evaluation, the surgeons assessed whether there was any leakage based on a standard test called a Seidel test in conjunction with an application of force near the incision using a standardized tool and technique. The surgeon slowly applied force using the standardized tool that we provided until a

Table of Contents

leak was observed or until a pre-specified maximum force of one ounce of force was reached. In the assessments conducted during the operation, approximately 50% of leaks occurred spontaneously without application of force and 76% of leaks occurred with the application of 0.25 ounces of force or less.

​

​

Based on assessments conducted immediately following surgery, using the same standardized leak testing tool and technique, eyes receiving sutures leaked more frequently than eyes sealed with ReSure Sealant by a statistically significant margin of more than 8 to 1 (p<0.0001). In this trial, ReSure Sealant demonstrated both non-inferiority and superiority relative to the suture control based on the proportion of eyes with leakage within the first seven days after surgery. These results are shown in the figures below.

​

​

​

ReSure Sealant treated patients had significantly lower adverse event and device-related adverse event rates than patients treated with suture wound closure. We determined statistical significance based on a widely used, conventional statistical method that establishes the p-value of clinical results. Typically, a p-value of 0.05 or less represents statistical significance. In adverse events related to the study device, ReSure Sealant had a lower occurrence rate by a statistically significant margin of 1.6% for ReSure Sealant compared to 30.6% for sutures (p<0.0001). There were no significant or clinically relevant differences in the other safety endpoints, including slit lamp examination findings, between ReSure Sealant and suture patients, thus indicating that ReSure Sealant is well tolerated. Only one ReSure Sealant treated patient out of 299 (0.3%) had a wound healing assessment characterized as outside of normal limits at the day 7 assessment due to the presence of mild stromal edema. No ReSure Sealant treated subjects were outside of normal limits at the day 28 assessment. In this trial, surgeons rated ReSure Sealant as “easy” or “very easy” to use for 94.1% of patients treated with ReSure Sealant.

​

Post-Approval Studies

​

ReSure Sealant is classified in the United States as a class III medical device subject to the rules and regulation of premarket approval by the FDA. Following our submission of a PMA application to the FDA for review and during the

Table of Contents

review process, the FDA completed compliance audits of our manufacturing facility and several of our pivotal clinical trial sites. Before granting approval of the PMA application, the FDA sought input from the Ophthalmic Devices Advisory Committee, a panel of physicians charged with reviewing results from our pivotal clinical trial. The FDA approved our PMA application for ReSure Sealant in January 2014.

​

The FDA required two post-approval studies as a condition for approval of our premarket approval, or PMA, application for ReSure Sealant. The first post-approval study, identified as the Clinical PAS, was to confirm that ReSure Sealant can be used safely by physicians in a standard cataract surgery practice and to confirm the incidence of the most prevalent adverse ocular events identified in our pivotal study in eyes treated with ReSure Sealant. We submitted the final study report to the FDA in June 2016 and the FDA has confirmed the Clinical PAS has been completed.

​

The second post-approval study, which we refer to as the Device Exposure Registry Study, was a retrospective analysis of the IRIS Registry, comparing endophthalmitis rates from sites that purchased ReSure Sealant versus those sites that did not. We completed the retrospective study in accordance with our agreement with the FDA and submitted the final study report for the Device Exposure Registry Study to the FDA in January 2021. We anticipate that the FDA will review the report within 90 days of our submission and notify us as to whether our obligation to conduct the post-approval study has been satisfied. Failure by us to conduct the required post-approval trial for ReSure Sealant to the FDA’s satisfaction may result in withdrawal of the FDA’s approval of ReSure Sealant or other regulatory action.

​

Foreign Approvals

​

Outside the United States, we plan to assess whether to seek regulatory approval for ReSure Sealant in markets such as the European Union, Australia and Japan based on the market opportunity, particularly pricing, and the requirements for marketing approval. Given our prioritization of the clinical development of our sustained-release product candidates and our planned commercialization efforts for our initial intracanalicular insert product candidates in the United States, we do not currently plan to seek CE Mark approval to commercialize ReSure Sealant in the European Union. Outside of the United States and the European Union, we will need to engage a third party to assist us in the approval process. If we obtain regulatory approval to market and sell ReSure Sealant in international markets, we expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize ReSure Sealant. See “—Government Regulation—Review and Approval of Medical Devices in the European Union” for additional information.

​

Sales, Marketing and Distribution

​

We plan to prioritize our commercialization efforts in the United States. We generally expect to retain commercial rights in the United States to any of our local programmed-release drug delivery product candidates for front-of-the-eye diseases and conditions for which we may receive marketing approvals and which we believe we can successfully commercialize. In general, if we receive approval to market any of our product candidates in the United States, we plan to then evaluate the regulatory approval requirements and commercial potential for any such product candidate in Europe, Japan and other selected geographies. If we decide to commercialize our products outside of the United States, we expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize any product of ours that receives marketing approval.

​

ReSure Sealant

​

We commercially launched ReSure Sealant in the United States in February 2014. While ReSure Sealant remains commercially available in the United States, there is no sales support and only modest commercial support for this product at this time. We may decide to actively promote ReSure Sealant in the future with the current sales force that supports DEXTENZA.

​

DEXTENZA

​

We sell DEXTENZA in the United States to a network of specialty distributors, who then resell DEXTENZA to ASCs and hospital outpatient departments, or HOPDs. In connection with our commercial launch of DEXTENZA, we have built a highly targeted, key account sales force that focuses on the ASCs responsible for the largest volumes of cataract surgery in the United States and their affiliates, with an initial emphasis on the approximately two million cataract procedures performed annually under Medicare Part B.

Table of Contents

​

We expect to grow our salesforce in 2021 to increase our active number of accounts and penetrate each account more deeply. Our current field sales team consists of approximately 30 key account managers, or KAMs; nine Field Reimbursement Managers, or FRMs; and three Regional Directors, or RDs. We intend to add up to six KAMs and up to two FRMs, and we may add one RD, during the course of 2021.

​

We have entered into a license agreement and collaboration with AffaMed for the development and commercialization of DEXTENZA, along with OTX-TIC, in specified Asian markets.

​

If our sNDA to include the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis as an additional approved indication for DEXTENZA is approved, we expect to launch DEXTENZA for that indication in the first half of 2022. We expect initially to support the launch of DEXTENZA for this indication with our existing field force given the high degree of overlap between surgeons performing cataract surgery and those that treat severe allergic conjunctivitis. Following launch, we will consider the potential need for additional resources that may be required to support continued commercialization.

​

Manufacturing

​

We fabricate devices and drug products for use in our clinical trials, research and development and commercial efforts for all of our therapeutic product candidates using current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, at our facility located in Bedford, Massachusetts. In June 2016, we entered into a new lease agreement for approximately 71,000 square feet of a new facility in Bedford, Massachusetts that will include additional manufacturing space. We are evaluating the potential relocation of our manufacturing operations to the new leased premises. We plan to maintain our existing manufacturing space of approximately 20,000 square feet and extended the operating lease until June 2023.

​

We purchase active pharmaceutical ingredient drug substance from independent suppliers on a purchase order basis for incorporation into our drug product candidates. We purchase our PEG and other raw materials from different vendors on a purchase order basis according to our specifications. Multiple vendors are available for each component we purchase. We qualify vendors according to our quality system requirements. We do not have any long term supply agreements in place for any raw materials or drug substances. We do not license any technology or pay any royalties to any of our drug or raw material vendors for the front-of-the-eye products.

​

We believe that our strategic investment in manufacturing capabilities allows us to advance product candidates at a more rapid pace and with more flexibility than a contract manufacturer, although we will continue to evaluate outsourcing unit operations for cost advantages. Our manufacturing capability also enables us to produce products in a cost-effective manner while retaining control over the process and prioritize the timing of internal programs.

​

Our manufacturing capabilities encompass the full manufacturing process through quality control and quality assurance and are integrated with our project teams from discovery through development and commercial release. This structure enables us to efficiently transfer research stage product concepts into manufacturing. We have designed our manufacturing facility and processes to provide flexibility for the manufacture of different product candidates. We outsource sterilization services for our products.

​

We believe that we can scale our manufacturing processes to support DEXTENZA and ReSure Sealant sales as well as development of our drug product candidates and the potential commercialization of such product candidates.

​

Intellectual Property

​

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our products, product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We rely on patent protection, trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

We actively protect our innovations by seeking patents and other forms of intellectual property to cover our inventions. We also seek to in-license and acquire intellectual property to provide additional protection. As a result, we have patents and/or patent applications pending for all of our commercial products and product candidates, as well as trade secrets to protect proprietary manufacturing processes.

Table of Contents

Several patents and applications have been in-licensed from Incept. The license from Incept is limited to the fields of human ophthalmic diseases and conditions, acute post-surgical pain and ear, nose and/or throat diseases or conditions. As of February 26, 2021, we have licensed from Incept a total of 16 U.S. patents, 8 U.S. patent applications and foreign counterparts of some of these patents and patent applications.

The following is a summary of patents and patent applications that cover our commercial products and potentially cover our product candidates:

OTX-TKI (axitinib intravitreal implant) for Wet AMD, DME and RVO

​

We have licenses to several U.S. patents and patent applications with the potential to cover this product candidate: three U.S. patents and issued patents in Australia, the European Union and Japan covering certain drug-release features of the hydrogel implant in combination with its hydrogel composition, all of which are expected to expire in 2027; two granted U.S. patents which are expected to expire in 2033 and 2034; and issued patents in Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, the European Union, India, Japan and South Korea covering the process of making the hydrogel implant with its drug release features and the resultant compositions that are expected to expire in 2032.

We own a pending patent application in the United States with the potential to cover this product candidate that, if granted, is expected to expire in 2041.

OTX-TIC (travoprost intracameral implant) for glaucoma or ocular hypertension

​

We have licenses to a pending U.S. application and foreign patent applications pending in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Israel, India, Japan and Korea that potentially cover this product candidates that, if granted, are expected to expire in 2037.

We own a pending patent application in the United States and under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, with the potential to cover this product candidate that, if granted, is expected to expire in 2042.

OTX-CSI (cyclosporine intracanalicular insert) for dry eye disease

​

We have licenses to three U.S. patents, patents which have issued in Australia, Canada, China and Japan, and pending applications in the European Union and India that potentially cover this product candidate, all of which are expected to expire in 2030 and cover compositions and methods of use of this product candidate.  We own a pending patent application in the United States with the potential to cover this product candidate that, if granted, is expected to expire in 2041.

OTX-DED (dexamethasone intracanalicular insert) for episodic dry eye disease

​

We have licenses to three U.S. patents, patents which have issued in Australia, Canada, China and Japan, and pending applications in the European Union and India that potentially cover this product candidate, all of which are expected to expire in 2030 and cover compositions and methods of use of this product candidate.  We own a pending patent application in the United States with the potential to cover this product candidate that, if granted, is expected to expire in 2041.

DEXTENZA ® (dexamethasone ophthalmic insert) 0.4 mg

​

We have licenses to three U.S. patents, patents which have issued in Australia, Canada, China and Japan, and pending applications in the European Union and India, that cover this product, all of which are expected to expire in 2030 and cover compositions and methods of use of this product candidate.

We also recently acquired a U.S. patent application with the potential to cover this product that, if granted, is expected to expire in 2036.

Table of Contents

DEXTENZA ® (dexamethasone ophthalmic insert) 0.4 mg for allergic conjunctivitis

​

We have licenses to three U.S. patents, patents which have issued in Australia, Canada, China and Japan, and pending applications in the European Union and India, that potentially cover this product candidate, all of which are expected to expire in 2030 and cover compositions and methods of use of this product candidate.  We own a pending patent application in the United States with the potential to cover this product candidate that, if granted, is expected to expire in 2041.

ReSure® Sealant

​

We have licenses to two U.S. patents that cover ReSure Sealant. One U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2024 and covers the process of making and using hydrogel compositions. Our second U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2032 and covers certain features of the ReSure Sealant package.

The existence of patent applications does not guarantee that a patent will issue, or that any patent that does issue will cover the product or product candidate. Issued patents are subject to validity and infringement challenges by third parties with uncertain chances of success.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date of a U.S. patent as partial compensation for the length of time the drug is under regulatory review while the patent is in force. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent applicable to each regulatory review period may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended.

Similar provisions are available in the European Union and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those products, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each drug and other factors. The expiration dates referred to above are without regard to potential patent term extension or other market exclusivity that may be available to us.

For patent applications covering our products and developmental candidates, we typically file patent applications under the PCT which provides for the filing of a single application that preserves the right to file in national patent offices in other countries up to 30 months from the first priority date.

We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data.

Licenses

​

Incept, LLC

​

In January 2012, we entered into an amended and restated license agreement, which we refer to as either the Prior Agreement or Original License, with Incept under which we hold an exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable license under specified patents and technology owned or controlled by Incept to make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell, sublicense, have sublicensed, offer for sublicense and import, products delivered to or around the human eye for diagnostic, therapeutic or prophylactic purposes relating to all human ophthalmic diseases or conditions. This license covers a significant portion of the patent rights and the technology for ReSure Sealant and our hydrogel platform technology product candidates. The agreement supersedes an April 2007 license agreement between us and Incept. Amar

Table of Contents

Sawhney, our former President and Chief Executive Officer and former Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, is a general partner of Incept.

​

On September 13, 2018, or the Effective Date, we entered into a second amended and restated license agreement, or the Second Amended Agreement, with Incept. The Second Amended Agreement amends and restates in full the Prior Agreement, to expand the scope of our intellectual property license and modify future intellectual property ownership and other rights thereunder.

​

License Rights; Ownership of Intellectual Property.    We and Incept have agreed to expand the field of use of the exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable license held by us under the Prior Agreement to include specified intellectual property rights and technology owned or controlled by Incept to make, have made, use, offer for sale, sell, sublicense, have sublicensed, offer for sublicense and import, (i) consistent with the Prior Agreement, products delivered to or around the human eye for diagnostic, therapeutic or prophylactic purposes relating to all human ophthalmic diseases or conditions, or the Ophthalmic Field of Use, and (ii) as a result of the expansion of the scope of the Original License, products delivered for the treatment of acute post-surgical pain or for the treatment of ear, nose and/or throat diseases or conditions, subject to specified exceptions, or the Additional Field of Use. We and Incept have further agreed to expand the field of use of the Original License for certain patents, patent applications and other rights pertaining to shape-changing hydrogel formulations thereunder, or the Shape-Changing IP, to include all fields except those involving the nerves and associated tissues specified in the Second Amended Agreement.

​

We will solely own, without a license to Incept, all intellectual property rights conceived solely by one or more individuals from our company, or the Company Individuals, after the Effective Date, subject to exceptions specified therein. Subject to certain exceptions specified in the Second Amended Agreement, Incept will own and license to the us (i) all intellectual property rights included in the Original License, or the Original IP, in the Ophthalmic Field of Use and the Additional Field of Use, (ii) intellectual property rights in the field of drug delivery conceived solely by the Company Individuals on or before the Effective Date, or Incept IP, and (iii) intellectual property rights in the field of drug delivery conceived by one or more Company Individuals jointly with one or more individuals from Incept, including Dr. Sawhney, or the Incept Individuals, after the Effective Date. These intellectual property rights are referred to as Joint IP, and, collectively with the Original IP and the Incept IP, as the Licensed IP.

​

Financial Terms. We and any of our sublicensees are obligated to pay Incept royalties as follows under the Agreement: (i) consistent with the Prior Agreement, a royalty equal to a low single-digit percentage of net sales by the us or our affiliates of products, devices, materials, or components thereof, or Licensed Products, including or covered by Original IP, excluding the Shape-Changing IP, in the Ophthalmic Field of Use; (ii) a royalty equal to a mid-single-digit percentage of net sales by us or our affiliates of Licensed Products including or covered by Original IP, excluding the Shape-Changing IP, in the Additional Field of Use; and (iii) a royalty equal to a low single-digit percentage of net sales by us or our affiliates of Licensed Products including or covered by Incept IP or Joint IP in the field of drug delivery. Royalty obligations under the Second Amended Agreement commence with the first commercial sale of a Licensed Product described above and terminate upon the expiration of the last-to-expire patents included in the Licensed IP, as applicable. Any sublicensee of us also will be obligated to pay Incept royalties on net sales of Licensed Products made by it and will be bound by the terms of the Second Amended Agreement to the same extent as us. Additionally, at its sole discretion, Incept may require, as a condition of any sublicense by us in the Additional Field of Use and in exchange for a reduction in the royalties owed on net sales of Licensed Products described above, payments equal to a mid-teen percentage of any upfront payment and, subject to certain conditions, other payments received by us from the sublicensee.

​

Patent Prosecution and Litigation. Incept will continue to have sole control and responsibility for ongoing prosecution of patents included in the Original IP, and we will have sole control and responsibility for ongoing prosecution of patents and patent applications included in or arising under the Incept IP or Joint IP. The parties have agreed to work together in good faith to enter into a separate agreement under which, subject to certain limitations, we would assume control of the prosecution of patents and patent applications included in or arising under the Shape-Changing IP. We have the right, subject to certain conditions, to bring suit against third parties who infringe the patents included in the Original IP in the Ophthalmic Field of Use or the Additional Field of Use, patents included in the Incept IP in the drug delivery filed, patents included in the Joint IP in the drug delivery field, and patents included in the Shape-Changing IP in all fields except as described above. We have also agreed, if requested by Incept, to enter into a joint defense and prosecution agreement for the purpose of allowing the parties to share confidential and attorney-client

Table of Contents

privileged information regarding the possible infringement of one or more patents covered by the Second Amended Agreement. We are responsible for all costs incurred in prosecuting any infringement action it brings.

​

Term and Termination. The Second Amended Agreement will expire on the later of (i) the expiration or disclaimer by us of the last valid claim of an issued and unexpired patent included in the Licensed IP or (ii) the final unappealable rejection or abandonment of the last pending patent application arising under the Licensed IP. Either party may terminate the Second Amended Agreement in the event of the other party’s insolvency, bankruptcy or comparable proceedings, or if the other party materially breaches the agreement and does not cure such breach during a specified cure period.

​

AffaMed License Agreement

​

On October 29, 2020, we entered into a license agreement, or the License Agreement, with AffaMed for the development and commercialization of DEXTENZA regarding ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery and allergic conjunctivitis, or collectively, the DEXTENZA Field, and for OTX-TIC, or collectively with DEXTENZA, the AffaMed Licensed Products, regarding open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension, or collectively, the TIC Field and, with the DEXTENZA Field, each a Field, in each case in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea, and the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or collectively, the Territories. We retain development and commercialization rights for the AffaMed Licensed Products in the rest of the world.

​

Under the License Agreement, we granted AffaMed (i) a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-sublicensable license under certain of our intellectual property rights and know-how to use the AffaMed Licensed Products in connection with specified activities in accordance with a development plan agreed between the parties and (ii) an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable, non-transferable (subject to specified exceptions), license under certain of our intellectual property rights and know-how to commercialize the AffaMed Licensed Products in the applicable Field in the Territories. We have further agreed not to, and to cause its affiliates or agents not to, develop or commercialize in the Territories (i) the AffaMed Licensed Products outside of the applicable Fields and (ii) any other product containing the same active pharmaceutical ingredients as the AffaMed Licensed Products and administered into the anterior chamber of the eye, in each case without AffaMed’s prior written consent. AffaMed has agreed not to, and to cause its affiliates or agents not to, engage in the development, manufacture, or commercialization of any competing product in the Territories.

​

Under the terms of the License Agreement, we received upfront payments totaling $12 million in the fourth quarter of 2020. We are also eligible to receive up to an additional $91 million in aggregate, inclusive of a low-seven-figure clinical support payment, upon the achievement of certain development and commercial milestones. There can be no guarantee, however, that any of these milestones will be achieved. We are also entitled to receive tiered, escalating royalties on the net sales of the AffaMed Licensed Products ranging from a low-teen to low-twenties percentage. Royalties under the License Agreement are payable on an AffaMed Licensed Product-by-AffaMed Licensed Product and jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis and are subject to potential reductions in specified circumstances, subject to a specified floor.

​

Pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement, we are generally responsible for expenses related to the development of the AffaMed Licensed Products in the applicable Fields in the Territories, provided that AffaMed (i) reimburse us a low-teen percentage of expenses incurred in connection with certain clinical trials conducted by us and designed to support marketing approval of the AffaMed Licensed Product by FDA or the European Medicines Agency, or the Global Studies; (ii) is solely responsible for expenses incurred in connection with territory-specific clinical trials that it conducts in furtherance of the development plan agreed between the parties in the applicable Fields in the Territories, or the Local Studies; and (iii) reimburse us in full for expenses incurred in connection with obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals of the AffaMed Licensed Products in the applicable Fields in the Territories. In the event AffaMed declines to participate in a Global Study or to conduct a Local Study in any jurisdiction in which we determine to conduct such a study, we are relieved of our obligation to provide AffaMed clinical data from such study, other than safety data, unless AffaMed subsequently reimburses us in the amounts described above plus a prespecified premium.

​

AffaMed is further obligated, at its sole cost and expense, to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the AffaMed Licensed Products in the applicable Fields in the Territories. The License Agreement contemplates that the parties negotiate and enter into a future agreement requiring us to use commercially reasonable efforts to manufacture

Table of Contents

and supply finished drug products in sufficient quantity for clinical development and commercialization of the AffaMed Licensed Products in the applicable Fields in the Territories.

​

In accordance with its terms, the License Agreement expires upon the expiration of the last royalty term for the last AffaMed Licensed Product in any applicable Field in the Territories. Either party may, subject to specified cure periods, terminate the License Agreement in the event of the other party’s uncured breach. Either party may also terminate the License Agreement under specified circumstances relating to the other party’s insolvency. During an established period following a change of control of us or our entry into a global licensing agreement that includes the Territories with a third party, we have the option to terminate the License Agreement, subject to a specified notice period and the repayment of any costs and expenses incurred by AffaMed in connection with the License Agreement, including upfront and milestone payments AffaMed has previously paid to us, at a prespecified premium. AffaMed has the right to terminate the License Agreement at any time following the completion of a Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate OTX-TIC.

​

Competition

​

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technologies, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, and compounding pharmacies. 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. Many of our potential competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

​

The key competitive factors affecting the success of each of our product candidates, if approved for marketing, are likely to be efficacy, safety, method of administration, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

​

Because the active pharmaceutical ingredients in our product candidates are available on a generic basis, or are soon to be available on a generic basis, competitors will be able to offer and sell products with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient as our products so long as these competitors do not infringe the patents that we license. For example, our licensed patents related to our intracanalicular insert product candidates largely relate to the hydrogel composition of the intracanalicular inserts and certain drug-release features of the intracanalicular inserts. As such, if a third party were able to design around the formulation and process patents that we license and create a different formulation using a different production process not covered by our licensed patents or patent applications, we would likely be unable to prevent that third party from manufacturing and marketing its product.

​

Competitors of our Intracanalicular Insert Product Candidates

​

Several competitors are developing sustained drug release products for the same ophthalmic indications as our retinal implants, intracameral implants, intracanalicular insert and wound sealant products and product candidates, as set forth below.

​

Competitors of our Retinal Implants

​

Our intravitreal implant for the treatment of wet AMD will compete with anti-VEGF compounds administered in their current formulation and prescribed for the treatment of wet AMD as these agents can in some instances deliver one to two months or more of therapeutic effect. They include Lucentis, Eylea, Beovu and off-label use of the cancer therapy Avastin. Multiple companies, although all in early stages of development, are exploring ways to deliver anti-VEGF products in a sustained-release fashion, including Clearside Biomedical, Inc., which is pursuing a TKI (axitinib) administered into the suprachoroidal space; Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which is pursuing a sustained-release bioerodible device containing a TKI (vorolanib) using its Durasert™ technology; Aerie Pharmaceuticals, which is

Table of Contents

pursuing development of a 4-6 month TKI implant (axitinib) using its Print® manufacturing technology; Graybug Vision, Inc. which is pursuing a sustained-release microparticle depot TKI formulation (sunitinib) to extend therapeutic drug levels in ocular tissue for up to six months; and Kodiak Sciences Inc., which is pursuing sustained release therapies based on its anti-VEGF biopolymer conjugate technology. In addition, there are several companies pursuing gene therapy to treat retinal diseases including Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc. and REGENXBIO Inc. There also are a number of companies with products in development targeting the inhibition of the complement system to address retinal diseases, specifically geographic atrophy including Apellis Pharmaceuticals, IVERIC bio, Inc., Annexion Biosciences, Gyroscope Therapeutics, Genentech/Ionis and Janssen Pharmaceutical, among others.

​

Competitors of OTX-TIC

​

Allergan PLC, now owned by AbbVie, Inc., received approval in March 2020 of DURYSTA™, a biodegradable bimatoprost intracameral implant consisting of a PGA and a biodegradable polymer matrix for the reduction of IOP in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Allergan purchased ForSight VISION5 who was conducting a Phase 2 clinical development of the Helios insert, a sustained-release ocular insert placed below the eyelid that delivers bimatoprost for the treatment of glaucoma. Glaukos, Inc. is in Phase 3 trials with its iDose technology to deliver travoprost for the treatment of glaucoma. In addition, several other companies have announced their intention to develop products for treatment of glaucoma using sustained-release therapy, although each of these is at an early stage of development. Mati Therapeutics has conducted a Phase 2 clinical development of an intracanalicular insert for the treatment of glaucoma.

​

Competitors of OTX-CSI and OTX-DED

​

A number of therapies are currently available for the treatment of DED in the United States. The most commonly used treatments for DED in the United States are over-the-counter eye drops, often referred to as “artificial tears,” and three FDA-approved prescription eye drop therapies: Restasis, Xiidra and Cequa. Artificial tears are intended to supplement insufficient tear production or improve tear film instability, but are primarily saline-based and provide only temporary relief. Restasis and Cequa, both calcineurin inhibitor immunosuppressants, and Xiidra, a LFA-1 antagonist, address chronic inflammation associated with DED. Kala Pharmaceuticals received approval in 2020 and launched EYESUVIS™, (loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension) 0.25% for the short term (up to two weeks) treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. Other treatment options include ointments, gels, warm compresses, omega-3 fatty acid supplements and a number of medical devices. We are aware of many other companies developing therapies for DED, including Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Alcon, Aldeyra Therapeutics, Allergan, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Azura Ophthalmics, Bausch Health (Novaliq), HanAll BioPharma, Johnson & Johnson, Mitotech, Novartis, Oyster Point Pharma, Parion Sciences, ReGenTree, Silk Technologies, Sylentis, TearSolutions, and TopiVert Pharma.

​

Competitors of DEXTENZA

​

Icon Biosciences, Inc. received FDA approval of DEXYCU in February 2018. DEXYCU is an injection of dexamethasone at the time of surgery into the posterior chamber of the eye (behind the iris) to treat inflammation associated with cataract surgery. Icon Biosciences Inc. was subsequently bought by pSvidia Corporation in March 2018 and, at the same time, the new entity was renamed Eyepoint. Eyepoint launched DEXYCU commercially in the first quarter of 2019.

​

Competitors of ReSure Sealant

​

ReSure Sealant is the first and only surgical sealant approved for ophthalmic use in the United States. Outside the United States, Beaver Visitec is commercializing its product OcuSeal, which is designed to provide a protective hydrogel film barrier to stabilize ocular wounds. This product has received a CE Mark in Europe but is not approved for use in the United States. Sutures are the primary alternative for closing ophthalmic wounds. In addition, a technique called stromal hydration, which involves the localized injection of a balanced salt solution at the wound edges, is often used to facilitate the self-sealing of a wound.

​

Government Regulation

​

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development,

Table of Contents

testing, manufacture, quality control, clearance, approval, pricing, sales, reimbursement, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

​

Review and Approval of Drugs and Biologics in the United States

​

In the United States, the FDA approves and regulates drugs under the FDCA and related regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Biological products are licensed for marketing under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and subject to regulation under the FDCA and related regulations, and other federal, state and local statutes and regulations.

​

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug or biological product in the United States must typically undertake the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Preclinical Studies

​

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of the purity and stability of the manufactured drug substance or active pharmaceutical ingredient and the formulated product, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the investigational product for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND.

​

Table of Contents

Companies usually must complete some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the investigational product and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the candidate product and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the candidate product does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

​

The IND and IRB Processes

​

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their voluntary informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

​

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer an investigational drug to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any new drug or biologic that is not the subject of an approved NDA or BLA. In support of a request for an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period, or thereafter, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin. For our intracanalicular insert product candidates, we have typically conducted our initial and earlier-stage clinical trials outside the United States. We generally plan to conduct our later stage and pivotal clinical trials of our intracanalicular insert product candidates in the United States.

​

In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

​

The FDA’s primary objectives in reviewing an IND are to assure the safety and rights of patients and to help assure that the quality of the investigation will be adequate to permit an evaluation of the drug’s effectiveness and safety and of the biological product’s safety, purity and potency. The decision to terminate development of an investigational drug or biological product may be made by either a health authority body such as the FDA, an IRB or ethics committee, or by us for various reasons. Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by us based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

​

Information about clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website.

​

Table of Contents

Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use

​

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

​

When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.

​

Drug and biologic companies are required to make publicly available their policies for expanded access for individual patient access to products intended for serious diseases. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

​

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

​

Human Clinical Studies in Support of an NDA or BLA

​

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.

​

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the trial complies with certain regulatory requirements of the FDA in order to use the trial as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. Specifically, the FDA requires such trials to be conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and informed consent from subjects. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical trials. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign trials are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for IND trials.

​

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

Phase 3 clinical trials are commonly referred to as “pivotal” trials, which typically denotes a trial which presents the data that the FDA or other relevant regulatory agency will use to determine whether to approve a drug.

​

Progress reports detailing the safety results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product candidate; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

​

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies often complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

​

Pediatric Studies

​

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, an application or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. With enactment of the Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act, or the FDASIA, in 2012, sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time. For drugs intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, the FDA must, upon the request of an applicant, meet to discuss preparation of the initial pediatric study plan or to discuss deferral or waiver of pediatric assessments.

​

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA. The FDA maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population. Congress amended the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA. Previously, drugs that had been granted orphan drug designation were exempt from the requirements of the Pediatric Research Equity Act. Under the amended section 505B, beginning on August 18, 2020, the submission of a pediatric assessment, waiver or deferral will be required for certain molecularly targeted cancer indications with the submission of an application or supplement to an application.

​

Table of Contents

Review of an NDA or BLA by the FDA

​

In order to obtain approval to market a drug or biological product in the United States, a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides data establishing the safety and effectiveness of the proposed drug product for the proposed indication, and the safety, purity and potency of the biological product for its intended indication. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product and the safety, purity and potency of the biological product to the satisfaction of the FDA.

​

The NDA and BLA are thus the vehicles through which applicants formally propose that the FDA approve a new product for marketing and sale in the United States for one or more indications. Every new product candidate must be the subject of an approved NDA or BLA before it may be commercialized in the United States. Under federal law, the submission of most applications is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2021 is $2,875,842 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of an approved application is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2021 is $336,432. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for product candidates with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.

​

Following submission of an NDA or BLA, the FDA conducts a preliminary review of the application generally within 60 calendar days of its receipt and strives to inform the sponsor by the 74th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept the application for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs and BLAs. Under that agreement, 90% of applications seeking approval of New Molecular Entities, or NMEs, are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date on which FDA accepts the application for filing, and 90% of applications for NMEs that have been designated for “priority review” are meant to be reviewed within six months of the filing date. For applications seeking approval of products that are not NMEs, the ten-month and six-month review periods run from the date that FDA receives the application. The review process and the Prescription Drug User Fee Act goal date may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

​

Before approving an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA or BLA submission, including drug component manufacturing (e.g., active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished drug product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Under the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, the FDA must implement a protocol to expedite review of responses to inspection reports pertaining to certain applications, including applications for products in shortage or those for which approval is dependent on remediation of conditions identified in the inspection report.

​

In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require an applicant to develop a REMS. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease, expected benefit of the product, expected duration of treatment, seriousness of known or potential adverse events, and whether the product is a new molecular entity.

​

The FDA may refer an application for a novel product to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and

Table of Contents

under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

​

Accelerated Approval Pathway

​

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a drug for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the drug has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Drugs granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

​

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints, but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval where the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate clinical benefit of a drug.

​

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a drug, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

​

The FDA’s Decision on an Application

​

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter, or CRL. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the application, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

​

If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the product candidate’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

​

Table of Contents

Post-Approval Regulation

​

Drugs and biologics manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

​

In addition, manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

​

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

​

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

​

​

​

​

​

​

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products.

​

Table of Contents

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, and its implementing regulations, as well as the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCA, which regulate the distribution and tracing of prescription drugs and prescription drug samples at the federal level, and set minimum standards for the regulation of drug distributors by the states. The PDMA, its implementing regulations and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples, and the DSCA imposes requirements to ensure accountability in distribution and to identify and remove counterfeit and other illegitimate products from the market.

​

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

​

NDAs for most new drug products are based on two full clinical studies which must contain substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of the proposed new product. These applications are submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. The FDA is, however, authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. This type of application allows the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and efficacy for a similar product, or published literature. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) applies to NDAs for a drug for which the investigations made to show whether or not the drug is safe for use and effective in use and relied upon by the applicant for approval of the application “were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted.”

​

Thus, Section 505(b)(2) authorizes the FDA to approve an NDA based on safety and effectiveness data that were not developed by the applicant. NDAs filed under Section 505(b)(2) may provide an alternate and potentially more expeditious pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous approval is scientifically appropriate, the applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all or some of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

​

If we obtain favorable results in our clinical trials, we plan to submit NDAs for our intracanalicular insert product candidates under Section 505(b)(2).

​

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

​

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved by the FDA under the NDA provisions of the statute.

​

Specifically, in order for an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the reference listed drug, or RLD, with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to an RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.”

​

Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

​

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. An NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

Table of Contents

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication.

​

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product. The FDA typically makes decisions about awards of data exclusivity shortly before a product is approved.

​

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

​

Upon approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the Orange Book. When an ANDA applicant files its application to the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

​

Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

​

​

​

​

​

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicate that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

​

If the ANDA applicant or 505(b)(2) applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

​

To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on trials conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. As a result, approval of a Section 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Table of Contents

​

Biosimilars

​

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law on March 23, 2010, or ACA, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 or BPCIA. That Act established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. As of January 1, 2021, the FDA has approved 29 biosimilar products for use in the United States. No interchangeable biosimilars, however, have been approved. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars. Additional guidance is expected to be finalized by FDA in the near term.

​

Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and for products administered multiple times that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

​

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

​

Pediatric Exclusivity

​

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. With regard to patents, the six-month pediatric exclusivity period will not attach to any patents for which an ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant submitted a paragraph IV patent certification, unless the NDA sponsor or patent owner first obtains a court determination that the patent is valid and infringed by the proposed product.

​

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

​

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple drugs for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

​

Table of Contents

Review and Approval of Medical Devices in the United States

​

Medical devices in the United States are strictly regulated by the FDA. Under the FDCA, a medical device is defined as an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component part, or accessory which is, among other things: intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals; or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of any of its primary intended purposes. This definition provides a clear distinction between a medical device and other FDA regulated products such as drugs. If the primary intended use of the product is achieved through chemical action or by being metabolized by the body, the product is usually a drug. If not, it is generally a medical device.

​

Unless an exemption applies, a new medical device may not be marketed in the United States unless and until it has been cleared through filing of a 510(k) premarket notification, or 510(k), or approved by the FDA pursuant to a PMA application. The information that must be submitted to the FDA in order to obtain clearance or approval to market a new medical device varies depending on how the medical device is classified by the FDA. Medical devices are classified into one of three classes on the basis of the controls deemed by the FDA to be necessary to reasonably ensure their safety and effectiveness.

​

Class I devices are low risk devices for which reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness can be provided by adherence to the FDA’s general controls for medical devices, which include applicable portions of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, or QSR, facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse medical events and malfunctions and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling, advertising and promotional materials. Many Class I devices are exempt from premarket regulation; however, some Class I devices require premarket clearance by the FDA through the 510(k) premarket notification process.

​

Class II devices are moderate risk devices and are subject to the FDA’s general controls, and any other special controls, such as performance standards, post-market surveillance, and FDA guidelines, deemed necessary by the FDA to provide reasonable assurance of the devices’ safety and effectiveness. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA for Class II devices are accomplished through the 510(k) premarket notification procedure, although some Class II devices are exempt from the 510(k) requirements. Premarket notifications are subject to user fees, unless a specific exemption applies.

​

Class III devices are deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk, such as those for which reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness cannot be assured solely by the general controls and special controls described above and that are life-sustaining or life-supporting. A PMA application must provide valid scientific evidence, typically extensive preclinical and clinical trial data and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications (and supplemental PMA applications) are subject to significantly higher user fees than are 510(k) premarket notifications.

​

510(k) Premarket Notification

​

To obtain 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device, which is a previously cleared 510(k) device or a pre-amendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of a PMA application. The FDA’s 510(k) clearance pathway usually takes from three to 12 months from the date the application is submitted and filed with the FDA, but it can take significantly longer and clearance is never assured. The FDA has issued guidance documents meant to expedite review of a 510(k) and facilitate interactions between applicants and the agency. To demonstrate substantial equivalence, a manufacturer must show that the device has the same intended use as a predicate device and the same technological characteristics, or the same intended use and different technological characteristics and does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness than the predicate device.

​

Most 510(k)s do not require clinical data for clearance, but the FDA may request such data.

​

Table of Contents

The FDA seeks to review and act on a 510(k) within 90 days of submission, but it may take longer if the agency finds that it requires more information to review the 510(k). If the FDA determines that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the subject device may be marketed. However, if the FDA concludes that a new device is not substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the new device will be classified in Class III and the manufacturer will be required to submit a PMA application to market the product. Devices of a new type that the FDA has not previously classified based on risk are automatically classified into Class III by operation of section 513(f)(1) of the FDCA, regardless of the level of risk they pose. To avoid requiring PMA review of low- to moderate-risk devices classified in Class III by operation of law, Congress enacted section 513(f)(2) of the FDCA. This provision allows the FDA to classify a low- to moderate-risk device not previously classified into Class I or II, a process known as the de novo process. A company may apply directly to the FDA for classification of its device as de novo or may submit a de novo petition within 30 days of receiving a not substantially equivalent determination.

​

Modifications to a 510(k)-cleared medical device may require the submission of another 510(k). Modifications to a 510(k)-cleared device frequently require the submission of a traditional 510(k), but modifications meeting certain conditions may be candidates for FDA review under a Special 510(k). If a device modification requires the submission of a 510(k), but the modification does not affect the intended use of the device or alter the fundamental technology of the device, then summary information that results from the design control process associated with the cleared device can serve as the basis for clearing the application. A Special 510(k) allows a manufacturer to declare conformance to design controls without providing new data. When the modification involves a change in material, the nature of the “new” material will determine whether a traditional or Special 510(k) is necessary.

​

Any modification to a 510(k)-cleared product that would constitute a major change in its intended use or any change that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device may, in some circumstances, requires the submission of a PMA application, if the change raises complex or novel scientific issues or the product has a new intended use. A manufacturer may be required to submit extensive pre-clinical and clinical data depending on the nature of the changes.

​

The FDA requires every manufacturer to make the determination regarding the need for a new 510(k) submission in the first instance, but the FDA may review any manufacturer’s decision. If the FDA disagrees with the manufacturer’s determination and requires new 510(k) clearances or PMA application approvals for modifications to previously cleared products for which the manufacturer concluded that new clearances or approvals are unnecessary, the manufacturer may be required to cease marketing or distribution of the products or to recall the modified product until it obtains clearance or approval, and the manufacturer may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties. In addition, the FDA is currently evaluating the 510(k) process and may make substantial changes to industry requirements.

​

Premarket Approval Application

​

The PMA application process for approval to market a medical device is more complex, costly, and time- consuming than the 510(k) clearance procedure. A PMA application must be supported by extensive data, including technical information regarding device design and development, preclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and controls information and labeling information that demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After a PMA application is submitted, the FDA has 45 days to determine whether it is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If the PMA application is complete, the FDA will file the PMA application. If the FDA accepts the application for filing, the agency will begin an in-depth substantive review of the application. By statute, the FDA has 180 days to review the application although, generally, review of the application often takes between one and three years, and may take significantly longer. If the FDA has questions, it will likely issue a first major deficiency letter within 150 days of filing. It may also refer the PMA application to an FDA advisory panel for additional review, and will conduct a preapproval inspection of the manufacturing facility to ensure compliance with the QSR, either of which could extend the 180-day response target. In addition, the FDA may request additional information or request the performance of additional clinical trials in which case the PMA application approval may be delayed while the trials are conducted and the data acquired are submitted in an amendment to the PMA. Even with additional trials, the FDA may not approve the PMA application.

​

If the FDA’s evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter authorizing commercial marketing or an approvable letter that usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval. If the FDA’s evaluations are not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA application or issue a not approvable letter. The PMA application process, including the

Table of Contents

gathering of clinical and nonclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years, and the process can be expensive and uncertain. Moreover, even if the FDA approves a PMA application, the FDA may approve the device with an indication that is narrower or more limited than originally sought. The FDA can impose post-approval conditions that it believes necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution. After approval of a PMA application, a new PMA application or PMA application supplement may be required for a modification to the device, its labeling, or its manufacturing process. PMA application supplements often require submission of the same type of information as an initial PMA application, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the approved PMA application and may or may not require as extensive technical or clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel. The time for review of a PMA application supplement may vary depending on the type of change, but it can be lengthy. In addition, in some cases the FDA might require additional clinical data.

​

PMA applications are subject to an application fee. For federal fiscal year 2021, the standard fee is $365,657 and the small business fee is $91,414.

​

Investigational Device Exemption

​

A clinical trial is typically required for a PMA application and, in a small percentage of cases, the FDA may require a clinical study in support of a 510(k) submission. A manufacturer that wishes to conduct a clinical study involving the device is subject to the FDA’s IDE regulation. The IDE regulation distinguishes between significant and non-significant risk device studies and the procedures for obtaining approval to begin the study differ accordingly. Also, some types of studies are exempt from the IDE regulations. A significant risk device presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a subject. Significant risk devices are devices that are substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or treating disease or in preventing impairment to human health. Studies of devices that pose a significant risk require both FDA and an IRB approval prior to initiation of a clinical study. Non-significant risk devices are devices that do not pose a significant risk to the human subjects. A non-significant risk device study requires only IRB approval prior to initiation of a clinical study.

​

An IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory testing results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. An IDE application is considered approved 30 days after it has been received by the FDA, unless the FDA otherwise informs the sponsor prior to 30 calendar days from the date of receipt, that the IDE is approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. The FDA typically grants IDE approval for a specified number of subjects to be enrolled at specified study centers. The clinical trial must be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including but not limited to the FDA’s IDE regulations and GCP. The investigators must obtain subject informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan and study protocol, control the disposition of investigational devices, and comply with all reporting and record keeping requirements. A clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by the FDA, the IRB or the sponsor at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to the study participants outweigh the benefits of participation in the trial. Approval of an IDE does not bind the FDA to accept the results of the trial as sufficient to prove the product’s safety and efficacy, even if the trial meets its intended success criteria.

​

Post-Marketing Restrictions and Enforcement

​

After a device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements apply. These include but are not limited to:

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

Under the FDA medical device reporting, or MDR, regulations, medical device manufacturers are required to report to the FDA information that a device has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or has malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury if the malfunction of the device or a similar device of such manufacturer were to recur. The decision to file an MDR involves a judgment by the manufacturer. If the FDA disagrees with the manufacturer’s determination, the FDA can take enforcement action.

​

Additionally, the FDA has the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture. The authority to require a recall must be based on an FDA finding that there is reasonable probability that the device would cause serious injury or death. Manufacturers may, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found. The FDA requires that certain classifications of recalls be reported to the FDA within 10 working days after the recall is initiated.

​

The failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include any of the following sanctions:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

To ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, medical device manufacturers are subject to market surveillance and periodic, pre-scheduled and unannounced inspections by the FDA, and these inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of subcontractors.

​

Review and Approval of Combination Products in the United States

​

Certain products may be comprised of components that would normally be regulated under different types of regulatory authorities, and frequently by different Centers at the FDA. These products are known as combination products. Specifically, under regulations issued by the FDA, a combination product may be:

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

Under the FDCA, the FDA is charged with assigning a center with primary jurisdiction, or a lead center, for review of a combination product. That determination is based on the “primary mode of action” of the combination product. Thus, if the primary mode of action of a device-drug combination product is attributable to the drug product, the FDA Center responsible for premarket review of the drug product would have primary jurisdiction for the combination product. The FDA has also established an Office of Combination Products to address issues surrounding combination products and provide more certainty to the regulatory review process. That office serves as a focal point for combination product issues for agency reviewers and industry. It is also responsible for developing guidance and regulations to clarify the regulation of combination products, and for assignment of the FDA center that has primary jurisdiction for review of combination products where the jurisdiction is unclear or in dispute.

​

Review and Approval of Medical Products in the European Union

​

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of drug products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, the company would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

​

Clinical Trial Approval

​

Pursuant to the European Clinical Trials Directive, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented through national legislation of the member states. Under this system, an applicant must obtain approval from the competent national authority of a European Union member state in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. Clinical trial application must be accompanied by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by the European Clinical Trials Directive and corresponding national laws of the member states and further detailed in applicable guidance documents.

​

In April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new Clinical Trials Regulation will become directly applicable to and binding in all 28 EU Member States without the need for any national implementing legislation. It will overhaul the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. Specifically, the new legislation aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial will be required to submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial to a reporting EU Member State (RMS) through an EU Portal. The submission procedure will be the same irrespective of whether the clinical trial is to be conducted in a single EU Member State or in more than one EU Member State.

​

The Regulation was published on June 16, 2014 but has not yet become effective. In January 2020, the website of the European Commission reported that the implementation of the Clinical Trials Regulation was dependent on the development of a fully functional clinical trials portal and database, which would be confirmed by an independent audit, and that the new legislation would come into effect six months after the European Commission publishes a notice of this confirmation. The website indicated that the audit was expected to commence in December 2020. In late 2020, the EMA indicated that it plans to focus on the findings of a system audit; improving the usability, quality and stability of the clinical trial information system; and knowledge transfer to prepare users and their organizations for the new clinical trial system. The EMA has indicated that the system will go live in December 2021.

Table of Contents

​

Marketing Authorization

​

To obtain marketing approval of a drug under European Union regulatory systems, an applicant must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA, either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all European Union member states. The centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional.

​

Under the centralized procedure, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or the CHMP, established at the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a drug. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. In this circumstance, the EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days.

​

The decentralized procedure is available to applicants who wish to market a product in various European Union member states where such product has not received marketing approval in any European Union member states before. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more other, or concerned, member states of an assessment of an application performed by one member state designated by the applicant, known as the reference member state. Under this procedure, an applicant submits an application based on identical dossiers and related materials, including a draft summary of product characteristics, and draft labeling and package leaflet, to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment report and drafts of the related materials within 210 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report and related materials, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials.

​

If a member state cannot approve the assessment report and related materials on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are subject to a dispute resolution mechanism and may eventually be referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states.

​

Regulatory Data Protection in the European Union

​

In the EU, innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC. Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 repeats this entitlement for medicinal products authorized in accordance the centralized authorization procedure. Data exclusivity prevents applicants for authorization of generics of these innovative products from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abridged) application for a period of eight years. During an additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization application can be submitted and authorized, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be placed on the EU market until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

​

Table of Contents

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

​

A marketing authorization has an initial validity for five years in principle. The marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU Member State. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU Member States may decide, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five-year period of marketing authorization. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the marketing authorization shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the European Union market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

​

Regulatory Requirements after a Marketing Authorization has been Obtained

​

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

​

​

​

​

Review and Approval of Medical Devices in the European Union

​

The European Union has adopted numerous directives and standards regulating, among other things, the design, manufacture, clinical trials, labeling, approval and adverse event reporting for medical devices. In the European Union, or the EU, medical devices must comply with the Essential Requirements in Annex I to the currently applicable EU Medical Devices Directive (Council Directive 93/42/EEC), or the Essential Requirements. Compliance with these requirements is a prerequisite to be able to affix the CE Mark of Conformity to medical devices, without which they cannot be marketed or sold in the European Economic Area, or EEA, comprised of the European Union member states plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

​

To demonstrate compliance with the Essential Requirements a manufacturer must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. Except for low risk medical devices, where the manufacturer can issue a CE Declaration of Conformity based on a self-assessment of the conformity of its products with the Essential Requirements, a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a third-party organization designated by competent authorities of a European Union country to conduct conformity assessments, or a Notified Body. Notified Bodies are independent testing houses, laboratories, or product certifiers typically based within the European Union and authorized by the European member states to perform the required conformity assessment tasks, such as quality system audits and device compliance testing. The Notified Body would typically audit and examine the product’s Technical File and the quality system for the manufacture, design and final inspection of the product before issuing a CE Certificate of Conformity demonstrating compliance with the relevant Essential Requirements.

Table of Contents

​

Medical device manufacturers must carry out a clinical evaluation of their medical devices to demonstrate conformity with the relevant Essential Requirements. This clinical evaluation is part of the product’s Technical File. A clinical evaluation includes an assessment of whether a medical device’s performance is in accordance with its intended use, and that the known and foreseeable risks linked to the use of the device under normal conditions are minimized and acceptable when weighed against the benefits of its intended purpose. The clinical evaluation conducted by the manufacturer must also address any clinical claims, the adequacy of the device labeling and information (particularly claims, contraindications, precautions and warnings) and the suitability of related Instructions for Use. This assessment must be based on clinical data, which can be obtained from clinical studies conducted on the devices being assessed, scientific literature from similar devices whose equivalence with the assessed device can be demonstrated or both clinical studies and scientific literature.

​

With respect to implantable devices or devices classified as Class III in the European Union, the manufacturer must conduct clinical studies to obtain the required clinical data, unless relying on existing clinical data from similar devices can be justified. As part of the conformity assessment process, depending on the type of devices, the Notified Body will review the manufacturer’s clinical evaluation process, assess the clinical evaluation data of a representative sample of the device’s subcategory or generic group, or assess all the clinical evaluation data, verify the manufacturer’s assessment of that data and assess the validity of the clinical evaluation report and the conclusions drawn by the manufacturer.

​

Even after a manufacturer receives a CE Certificate of Conformity enabling the CE mark to be placed on it products and the right to sell the products in the EEA countries, a Notified Body or a competent authority may require post-marketing studies of the products. Failure to comply with such requirements in a timely manner could result in the withdrawal of the CE Certificate of Conformity and the recall or withdrawal of the subject product from the European market.

​

A manufacturer must inform the Notified Body that carried out the conformity assessment of the medical devices of any planned substantial changes to the devices which could affect compliance with the Essential Requirements or the devices’ intended purpose. The Notified Body will then assess the changes and verify whether they affect the product’s conformity with the Essential Requirements or the conditions for the use of the devices. If the assessment is favorable, the Notified Body will issue a new CE Certificate of Conformity or an addendum to the existing CE Certificate of Conformity attesting compliance with the Essential Requirements. If it is not, the manufacturer may not be able to continue to market and sell the product in the EEA.

​

In the European Union, medical devices may be promoted only for the intended purpose for which the devices have been CE marked. Failure to comply with this requirement could lead to the imposition of penalties by the competent authorities of the European Union Member States. The penalties could include warnings, orders to discontinue the promotion of the medical device, seizure of the promotional materials and fines. Promotional materials must also comply with various laws and codes of conduct developed by medical device industry bodies in the European Union governing promotional claims, comparative advertising, advertising of medical devices reimbursed by the national health insurance systems and advertising to the general public.

​

Additionally, all manufacturers placing medical devices in the market in the European Union are legally bound to report any serious or potentially serious incidents involving devices they produce or sell to the competent authority in whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. In the European Union, manufacturers must comply with the EU Medical Device Vigilance System. Under this system, incidents must be reported to the relevant authorities of the European Union countries, 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 a 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 European Authorized Representative to its customers and to the end users of the device through Field Safety Notices.

​

The legal framework currently applicable for medical devices in the European Union will soon be amended by Medical Devices Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/745) adopted in 2017, which we refer to as the MDR and which

Table of Contents

repeals and replaces the EU Medical Devices Directive. Unlike directives, which must be implemented into the national laws of the European Economic Area, or EEA, member states, the MDR will be directly applicable (i.e., without the need for adoption of EEA member State laws implementing them) in all EEA member states and are intended to eliminate current differences in the regulation of medical devices among EEA member states. The MDR, among other things, is intended to establish a uniform, transparent, predictable and sustainable regulatory framework across the EEA for medical and ensure a high level of safety and health.

​

Currently, the MDR is scheduled to become applicable on May 26, 2021. Once applicable, the MDR will, among other things:

​

​

​

​

​

​

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

​

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. Following protracted negotiations, the United Kingdom left the EU on January 31, 2020. Under the withdrawal agreement, there is a transitional period until December 31, 2020 (extendable by up to two years). On December 24, 2020, the United Kingdom and the European Union entered into a Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The agreement sets out certain procedures for approval and recognition of medical products in each jurisdiction. Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the UK, as the UK legislation now has the potential to diverge from EU legislation. It remains to be seen how Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the UK in the long-term. The MHRA has recently published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021 now the transition period is over, which will be updated as the UK’s regulatory position on medicinal products evolves over time.

​

Furthermore, while the Data Protection Act of 2018 in the United Kingdom that “implements” and complements the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, has achieved Royal Assent on May 23, 2018 and is now effective in the United Kingdom, it is still unclear whether transfer of data from the European Economic Area, or EEA, to the United Kingdom will remain lawful under GDPR. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides for a transitional period during which the United Kingdom will be treated like an European Union member state in relation to processing and transfers of personal data for four months from January 1, 2021. This may be extended by two further months. After such period, the United Kingdom will be a “third country” under the GDPR unless the European Commission adopts an adequacy decision in respect of transfers of personal data to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has already determined that it considers all of the EU 27 and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the United Kingdom to the EU/EEA remain unaffected.

​

General Data Protection Regulation

​

The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that

Table of Contents

process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.

​

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

​

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Sales of products will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered by third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results.

​

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development.

​

Section 1833(t)(6) of the Social Security Act provides for temporary additional payments or “transitional pass-through payments” for certain drugs and biological agents. As originally enacted by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, this provision required Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, to make additional payments to hospitals for current orphan drugs, as designated under section 526 of the FDCA; current drugs and biological agents and brachytherapy sources used for the treatment of cancer; and current radiopharmaceutical drugs and biological products. Transitional pass-through payments are also provided for certain new drugs, devices and biological agents that were not paid for as a hospital outpatient department service as of December 31, 1996, and whose cost is “not insignificant” in relation to the Outpatient Prospective Payment System payment for the procedures or services associated with the new drug, device, or biological. Under the statute, transitional pass-through payments can be made for at least two years but not more than three years.

​

We applied for a transitional pass-through reimbursement status on November 30, 2018 for DEXTENZA from CMS. In May 2019, we received formal notification from CMS that it had approved transitional pass-through payment status and established an interim billing code, known as a C-Code, for DEXTENZA that subsequently became effective on July 1, 2019. We also submitted an application to CMS for a J-Code for DEXTENZA in December 2018 and received a specific and permanent J-Code J1096 in July 2019 which became effective on October 1, 2019. With the effectiveness of our permanent J-Code for DEXTENZA as of October 1, 2019, our C-code is no longer in effect. J-Codes are familiar to both medical practices and their billing staffs, as well as Medicare (Part B and Part C) and commercial insurers. As a result, J-Codes generally allow for a simpler and more convenient reimbursement process.  We expect pricing for DEXTENZA while in pass-through payment status to be approximately $538 per insert, and we expect pass-through status to remain in effect for up to three years from the effective date of the C-code, or July 1, 2019.

Table of Contents

​

To date, four of seven Medicare Administrative Contractors, or MACs, have established physician fee schedules for the Category III Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, procedure code 0356T currently in effect for the administration of drug-eluting intracanalicular inserts, including DEXTENZA: Novitas Solutions, Inc., or Novitas; First Coast Service Options, Inc., or First Coast; National Government Services, Inc., or NGS; and Wisconsin Physician Services, Inc, or WPS. The professional fee for CPT code 0356T is now eligible for physician payment for each insertion, in accordance with the applicable MAC’s fee schedule.  Novitas covers Medicare patients in New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia. First Coast covers Medicare patients in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. NGS covers Medicare patients in Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Wisconsin Physician Services, Inc. covers Medicare beneficiaries in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Indiana and Michigan. Combined, Novitas, First Coast, NGS and WPS cover over 60% of all Medicare beneficiaries. As of March 1, 2021, all seven MACs were reimbursing providers for intracanalicular insertions under CPT code 0356T despite only four of them having published physician fee schedules for the procedure.

​

On November 4, 2020, we announced that our application to the American Medical Association CPT Editorial Panel, or the Panel, for the creation of a Category I CPT procedure code had been granted. Category I CPT codes normally have a standardized Medicare physician fee schedule. As a result, they can improve coverage and payment across all payers for procedures performed in both the ASC and physician office settings. The Panel has agreed to create a permanent Category I CPT procedure code, effective January 1, 2022, to replace CPT code 0356T currently in effect for the administration of drug-eluting intracanalicular inserts including DEXTENZA.

​

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of drug products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a drug product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the drug product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

​

Healthcare Law and Regulation

​

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. Such restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign 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 preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

​

Healthcare Reform

​

A primary trend in the United States healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States.

​

In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs.

​

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

​

Table of Contents

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Further, on December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On December 18, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is unconstitutional and it remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of the severability question and additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA. Thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear this case. Oral argument in the case took place on November 10, 2020. On February 10, 2021, the Biden Administration withdrew DOJ’s support for this lawsuit. A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is expected sometime this year. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

​

The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden rescinded those orders and issued a new Executive Order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care, and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

​

The costs of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States To date, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. To those ends, President Trump issued five executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription drug products but it is unclear whether, and to what extent, these orders will remain in force under the Biden Administration. Further, on September 24, 2020, the Trump Administration finalized a rulemaking allowing states or certain other non-federal government entities to submit importation program proposals to the FDA for review and approval. Applicants are required to demonstrate that their importation plans pose no additional risk to public health and safety and will result in significant cost savings for consumers. The FDA has issued draft guidance that would allow manufacturers to import their own FDA-approved drugs that are authorized for sale in other countries (multi-market approved products).

​

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Human Capital

​

As of December 31, 2020, we had 181 full-time employees. The following table provides an overview of the distribution of those employees:

​

​

We are committed to inclusion and diversity and believe that these are important elements of our culture that enables us to attract and retain a high quality workforce. As of December 31, 2020, our workforce was composed of 48% female and 52% male, and 25% of the workforce was non-white.

​

The development, attraction and retention of employees is a critical success factor for us for the execution of our business strategy and succession planning. To support the advancement of our employees, we offer training and development programs encouraging advancement from within and continue to fill our team with strong and experienced management talent. We leverage both formal and informal programs to identify, foster, and retain top talent at both the corporate and operating unit level.

​

We provide employee wages and benefits that are competitive and consistent with the employee positions, skill levels, experience, knowledge and geographic location. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

​

We value the health, safety and wellbeing of our employees and their families. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have implemented significant changes that we determined were in the best interest of our employees, as well as the communities in which we operate, and which comply with government regulations. This includes allowing a number of our corporate employees to work remotely, as appropriate, while implementing significant safety measures designed to protect the health of all those entering our office.

​

​

Our Corporate Information

​

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 2006. Our principal executive offices are located at 24 Crosby Drive, Bedford, MA 01730, and our telephone number is (781) 357-4000. Our manufacturing is located at 36 Crosby Drive, Suite 101, Bedford, MA 01730 and our research and development operations are located at 15 Crosby Drive, Bedford, MA 01730. Our website address is www.ocutx.com.

​

Available Information

We make available free of charge through our website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. The information contained on, or that can be access through, our website is not a part of or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

Table of Contents