PYPD PolyPid Ltd

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 20-F

☐ REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANTTO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

OR

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

OR

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

OR

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

Commission File No.: 001-38428

POLYPID LTD.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Translation of registrant’s name into English: Not applicable

State of Israel

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

18 Hasivim Street

Petach Tikva 495376, Israel

(Address of principal executive offices)

Dikla Czaczkes Akselbrad
Chief Executive Officer

PolyPid Inc.

372 Franklin Ave.

P.O. Box 558

Nutley, NJ 07110

Telephone: (908) 858-5995

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person)

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

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

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report:

1,653,559 ordinary shares as of December 31, 2023.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes ☐    No ☒

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934.

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 Exchange Act 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 every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months.

Yes ☒    No ☐

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

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, 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.

Yes ☐    No ☒

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing.

U.S. GAAP ☒

International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board o

Other ☐

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow.

☐ Item 17   ☐ Item 18

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company.

Yes ☐    No ☒

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

We are a Phase 3 clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing targeted, locally administered and prolonged-release therapeutics using our proprietary PLEX technology. Our product candidates are designed to address diseases with high unmet medical needs by pairing our PLEX technology with drugs already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or innovative drug candidates to achieve a novel therapeutic effect. Our PLEX technology is designed to deliver drugs directly to targeted treated sites in the body at predetermined release rates and predetermined durations ranging from several days to several months. We believe that our PLEX technology and product candidates have the potential to significantly improve the management of a variety of medical conditions, including surgical site infections, or SSIs, and cancer. Our lead product candidate, D-PLEX₁₀₀, is in a pivotal Phase 3 confirmatory trial for the potential approval for prevention of SSIs in patients undergoing abdominal colorectal surgery with large incisions. D-PLEX₁₀₀ pairs our novel proprietary PLEX technology with doxycycline, a first-line, broad spectrum and FDA-approved antibiotic. D-PLEX₁₀₀ is administered directly into the surgical site during surgery, and provides a prolonged and continuous release of the broad-spectrum antibiotic, resulting in high local concentration of the drug for a period of 30 days for the prevention of SSIs, including SSIs caused by standard of care, or SoC, antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Infections resulting from surgery can be fatal and create a significant public health burden despite the extensive use of systemically administered antibiotics both pre- and post-operatively and other measures taken to reduce infection risk in the intra-operative setting.

The World Health Organization, or WHO, estimates that SSIs result in up to $10 billion of additional hospital costs per year in the United States alone, and a further €11 billion per year in the European Union, or the EU. The Centers for Disease Control, or CDC, estimates that SSIs are the costliest hospital acquired infection, or HAI, type of event in the United States. SSIs occur in approximately 2% to 5% of all patients undergoing inpatient surgery worldwide and account for 20% of all HAIs in United States. In their last guidelines, the WHO and the CDC have labeled SSIs as a high priority unmet medical need due to the associated morbidity, mortality and economic cost burden.

We believe that D-PLEX₁₀₀, if approved, would be a significant improvement over the current SoC, which includes systemic administration of antibiotics.

We initiated two Phase 3 trials of D-PLEX₁₀₀, which we refer to as SHIELD I and SHIELD II, for the prevention of abdominal (soft tissue) SSIs in the third and fourth quarters of 2020, respectively. In May 2021, the FDA agreed in a Type B meeting that a single pivotal Phase 3 study is sufficient, provided the study results are adequate, for potential approval of a D-PLEX₁₀₀ NDA for the prevention of SSIs in colorectal surgery.

In September 2022, we announced top-line results from the SHIELD I Phase 3 study of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs in abdominal surgery. The SHIELD I study did not achieve its primary endpoint of reduction in SSIs, re-interventions due to SSIs and mortality: in the intent to treat, or ITT, population, the local administration of D-PLEX₁₀₀ and SoC (n=485) resulted in a decrease in the primary endpoint of 23% compared to SoC alone (n=489) (p=0.1520). That said, in a pre-specified subgroup ITT analysis requested by the FDA of a total of 423 subjects with large incisions (>20 centimeters), the local administration of D-PLEX₁₀₀ resulted in a significant reduction of 54% in the primary endpoint, compared to SoC alone (p=0.0032). Within the first 30 days post-surgery, SSIs decreased from 9.7% in the SoC treatment arm (n=211), as compared to 4.4% in the D-PLEX₁₀₀ treatment arm (n=212). In addition, in exploratory post hoc analysis, the SHIELD I study also showed a 34% reduction in the primary endpoint in patients with one or more patient-specific risk factors (documented obesity- body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/smoking) compared to SoC (post hoc analysis; p=0.047; n=680). Together, these results suggest potential prophylactic efficacy when D-PLEX is administered concomitantly with systemic antibacterial prophylaxis in patients with increased SSI risk factors, whether procedural or patient-specific comorbidities. Patients with either of these risk profiles are readily identifiable by the surgeon in the pre- and intra-operative periods, offering the option to apply D-PLEX after fascial closure but before skin closure. The SHIELD I study demonstrated a good safety profile of D-PLEX₁₀₀: the overall incidence of treatment emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, was similar between study arms with numerically lower incidences of severe and serious TEAEs, and any TEAEs requiring surgical reinterventions in the D-PLEX arm compared to the SoC arm.

In November 2022, we provided the FDA with available data from the SHIELD I study as part of a Type D meeting request. Following positive Type D meeting communication with the FDA, which took place in January 2023 on the SHIELD I Phase 3 data, we now have a clear regulatory pathway towards a potential NDA submission. Based on the data, particularly the 54% reduction observed in the primary endpoint in complex surgeries in a pre-specified subgroup analysis of patients with large open incisions (p=0.0032, n=423) compared to SoC, the FDA acknowledged that the SHIELD I results may provide supportive evidence on this population and recommended that we conduct an additional study to support a potential NDA submission. The FDA stated that the ongoing SHIELD II study could potentially serve as such a study. The FDA also recognized that D-PLEX₁₀₀’s proposed indication is for the prevention of infection and has the potential for wide use.

In March 2023, we received feedback in a national scientific advice meeting from the Swedish Medical Products Agency (MPA) similar to the Type D meeting feedback previously received from the FDA.
Swedish Medical Products Agency, or MPA, recommended that we confirm the results with an additional Phase 3 study to support a marketing authorisation application, or MAA, submission and confirmed that clinical safety data obtained to date in abdominal surgery studies is sufficient for a MAA submission.

SHIELD II is a prospective, multinational, randomized, double blind Phase 3 trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of D-PLEX₁₀₀ administered concomitantly with SoC, compared to SoC alone arm, in the prevention of post abdominal-surgery incisional infection in patients undergoing surgeries with incisions greater than 20 cm. The primary endpoint of the trial is measured by the proportion of subjects with either an SSI event as determined by a blinded and independent adjudication committee, reintervention, or mortality for any reason within 30 days post-surgery. Patient safety will be monitored for an additional 30 days. The trial will enroll patients in centers in the United States, Europe and Israel.

We resumed recruitment into SHIELD II trial in June 2023. As of March 6, 2024, approximately 120 patients were already enrolled. Unblinded interim analysis is planned to be conducted once approximately 400 patients complete their 30-day follow-up, which is expected in mid-2024. Top-line results are expected in the second half of 2024.

In September 2022, we received confirmation from the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, that D-PLEX₁₀₀ is eligible for submission of a MAA in the EU under the EMA’s centralized procedure. The centralized process eligibility is granted to D-PLEX₁₀₀ under the Therapeutic Innovation criteria which underscores that D-PLEX₁₀₀ potentially provides a new alternative to patients in preventing post abdominal SSIs.

In addition to our lead program D-PLEX₁₀₀, our pipeline includes an early-stage oncology program, OncoPLEX, PolyPid’s lead intra-tumoral cancer therapy drug candidate. OncoPLEX utilizes our PLEX technology to provide controlled local exposure to docetaxel, one of the most widely used chemotherapy agents, directly at the tumor site for several weeks. OncoPLEX may be used as an adjuvant and applied at the intra-operative setting post-tumor resection to potentially reduce local tumor reoccurrence, the potential spreading of cancer cells, and ultimately improve the overall survival rate of cancer patients. OncoPLEX may also be used as a neoadjuvant and injected directly into the tumor to potentially reduce tumor volume and improve survival. Local delivery of drugs directly into the tumor site, especially in difficult to access tumors such as in the brain, may significantly improve the clinical outcome. The OncoPLEX intra-tumoral cancer therapy program has been evaluated successfully in various animal tumor models, both as adjuvant and neoadjuvant, including murine colon carcinoma, melanoma and glioblastoma animal models. We are currently finalizing chemistry, manufacturing and controls, or CMC, processes for OncoPLEX as we continue our efforts to begin clinical development. The intratumoral injection of the PLEX platform could be used as an interventional oncology treatment with additional chemotherapies or other types of molecules, such as antibodies, bispecific antibodies and nucleic acids.

We are an Israeli corporation based in Israel near Tel Aviv, and were incorporated in 2008. Our Ordinary Shares are currently traded in the United States on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “PYPD”.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain information included or incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 20-F may be deemed to be “forward-looking statements”. Forward-looking statements are often characterized by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “continue,” “believe,” “should,” “intend,” “project” or other similar words, but are not the only way these statements are identified.

These forward-looking statements may include, but are not limited to, statements relating to our objectives, plans and strategies, statements that contain projections of results of operations or of financial condition, expected capital needs and expenses, statements relating to the research, development, completion and use of our products, and all statements (other than statements of historical facts) that address activities, events or developments that we intend, expect, project, believe or anticipate will or may occur in the future.

Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties. We have based these forward-looking statements on assumptions and assessments made by our management in light of their experience and their perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors they believe to be appropriate.

Important factors that could cause actual results, developments and business decisions to differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements include, among other things:

Readers are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made throughout this annual report on Form 20-F which are designed to advise interested parties of the risks and factors that may affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

You should not put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements in this annual report on Form 20-F are made as of the date hereof, and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

In addition, the section of this annual report on Form 20-F entitled “Item 4. Information on the Company” contains information obtained from independent industry sources and other sources that we have not independently verified.

Unless otherwise indicated, all references to “Company,” “we,” “our” and “PolyPid” refer to PolyPid Ltd., its wholly owned subsidiaries, PolyPid Inc., a Delaware corporation with operations in New Jersey, and PolyPid Pharma SRL, a company organized and existing under the laws of Romania. References to “U.S. dollars” and “$” are to currency of the United States of America, and references to “shekel”, “Israeli shekel” and “NIS” are to New Israeli Shekels. References to “Ordinary Shares” are to our Ordinary Shares, no par value. We report our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, or U.S. GAAP.

On September 20, 2023, we announced a reverse share split, or the Reverse Share Split, of our Ordinary Shares, at the ratio of 1-for-30, such that each thirty (30) Ordinary Shares, shall be consolidated into one (1) Ordinary Share. We obtained shareholders’ approval for the Reverse Share Split at a ratio of between 1:10 and 1:30 at an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, which took place on September 18, 2023. Our Board then approved the Reverse Share Split ratio of 1-for-30 on September 18, 2023. The first date when our Ordinary Shares traded on the Nasdaq on a post- reverse split basis was September 21, 2023. Unless the context expressly dictates otherwise, all references to share and per share amounts referred to herein reflect the Reverse Share Split.

PolyPid, BonyPid, Bacfenssi, Baczenssi, Opzifend, Ssisurg, Elyfssi and Bacyssio are our proprietary trademarks. These trademarks are important to our business. Although we have omitted the ^“®^” and ^“TM” trademark designations for such marks in this annual report on Form 20-F, all rights to such trademarks and service marks are nevertheless reserved.

Summary Risk Factors

The risk factors described below are a summary of the principal risk factors associated with an investment in us. These are not the only risks we face. You should carefully consider these risk factors, together with the risk factors set forth in Item 3D. of this annual report on Form 20-F and the other reports and documents filed by us with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC.

PART I

ITEM 1. IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS

Not applicable.

ITEM 2. OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE

Not applicable.

ITEM 3. KEY INFORMATION

A. Selected Financial Data.

[Reserved]

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness.

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds.

Not applicable.

D. Risk Factors.

Our business faces significant risks. You should carefully consider the risks described below, together with all of the other information in this annual report on Form 20-F. The risks described below are not the only risks facing us. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our business operations. If any of these risks actually occurs, our business and financial condition could suffer, and the price of our Ordinary Shares could decline. This report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our results could materially differ from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements, as a result of certain factors including the risks described below and elsewhere in this report and our other SEC filings. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” above.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We are a Phase 3 clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. We have incurred operating losses each year since our inception, including operating losses of $22.9 million and $38.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $238.3 million. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources to designing and developing our PLEX product candidates, including conducting clinical trials and preclinical studies and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We expect that we will continue to incur expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future as we continue clinical development of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs and develop other product candidates using our PLEX technology. Our ability to ultimately achieve revenues and profitability is dependent upon our ability to successfully complete the development of D-PLEX₁₀₀ and any future product candidates, obtain necessary regulatory approvals for and successfully manufacture, market and commercialize our products.

We anticipate that we will continue to incur expenses based on a number of factors, including to the extent that we:

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities, convertible loans made by certain of our shareholders or other loan facilities, royalty-bearing and non-royalty bearing grants that we received from the Israeli Innovation Authority, or the IIA, and non-royalty bearing grants under the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Program for Research, or the FP7. The amount of any future operating losses will depend, in part, on the rate of our future expenditures and our ability to obtain funding through equity or debt financings, strategic collaborations or grants. Even if we obtain regulatory approval to market one or more product candidates, our future revenue will depend upon the size of any markets in which such product candidates receive approval and our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, pricing, reimbursement from third-party payors for such product candidates. Further, the operating losses that we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. Other unanticipated costs may also arise.

We have never generated any revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.

We have no products approved for marketing in any jurisdiction and we have never generated any revenue from product sales. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with strategic collaboration partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory and marketing approvals necessary to commercialize, D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future product candidates. We do not anticipate generating revenue from product sales for at least the next few years. Our ability to generate future revenue from product sales will depend heavily on our ability to:

Even if D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future product candidates are approved for marketing and sale, we anticipate incurring significant incremental costs associated with commercializing such product candidates. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory agencies, domestic or foreign, or ethical committees in medical centers, to change our manufacturing processes or assays or to perform clinical, nonclinical or other types of studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are successful in obtaining regulatory approvals to market D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future product candidates, our revenue earned from such product candidates will be dependent in part upon the breadth of the product label, the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval for such products, the accepted price for such products, our ability to obtain reimbursement for such products at any price, whether we own the commercial rights for that territory in which such products have been approved and the expenses associated with manufacturing and marketing such products for such markets. Therefore, we may not generate significant revenue from the sale of such products, even if approved. Further, if we are not able to generate significant revenue from the sale of our approved products, we may be forced to curtail or cease our operations. Due to the numerous risks and uncertainties involved in product development, it is difficult to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses, or when, or if, we will be able to achieve or maintain profitability.

The report of our independent registered public accounting firm contains an explanatory paragraph regarding substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, which could prevent us from obtaining new financing on reasonable terms or at all.

The report of our independent registered public accounting firm on our audited consolidated financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2023, contains an explanatory paragraph regarding substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of the uncertainty regarding our ability to continue as a going concern. This going concern opinion could materially limit our ability to raise additional funds through the issuance of equity or debt securities or otherwise. Further reports on our consolidated financial statements may include an explanatory paragraph with respect to our ability to continue as a going concern. Until we can generate significant recurring revenues, we expect to satisfy our future cash needs through debt or equity financing. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available to us on acceptable terms, if at all. If funds are not available, we may be required to delay, reduce the scope of, or eliminate research or development plans for, or commercialization efforts with respect to our products. This may raise substantial doubts about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We expect that we will need to raise substantial additional funding, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain funding on acceptable terms and on a timely basis may require us to curtail, delay or discontinue our product development efforts or other operations.

We are currently advancing D-PLEX₁₀₀ through clinical development in order to obtain regulatory approval. Developing product candidates is expensive, and we expect to continue to incur research and development expenses in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance product candidates through clinical trials and regulatory approval.

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities, convertible loans made by certain of our shareholders or other loan facilities, and royalty-bearing and non-royalty bearing grants that we received from the IIA and FP7. As of March 4, 2024, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term deposits of $15.6 million.  We will require significant additional financing to fund our operations. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including but not limited to:

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if and when approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our product revenues, if any, will be derived from or based on sales of product candidates that may not be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

We cannot guarantee that financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all, and the terms of any financing may adversely affect the interests or rights of our shareholders. Even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or if we have specific strategic considerations. The issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. Further, our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and the disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide.

To the extent that we raise capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of such securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a shareholder. Debt financing, if available, may involve covenants restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt. If we raise funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties, it may be necessary to relinquish certain rights to our technologies or our product candidates, or to grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

If we are unable to obtain funding on acceptable terms and on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research, development or manufacturing programs or the commercialization of any approved product, or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Clinical Testing of Product Candidates

We depend on enrollment of patients in our clinical trials in order to continue development of our product candidates.

Our anticipated time to data in SHIELD II trial for the prevention of SSIs in patients undergoing abdominal colorectal surgery with large incisions is subject to our ability to recruit sufficient eligible patients and the number and size of cohorts that will need to be enrolled prior to observing activity, if achieved at all for the dose escalation and expansion arms of the trial. There can be no assurance that we will complete enrollment or have data from the trial when we anticipate or at all. The timely completion of the clinical trial in accordance with its protocol depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients that are in line with our inclusions and exclusion criteria and our ability to monitor these patients as required.

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. Patient enrollment is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, the size of the patient population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints, the proximity of patients to study sites, our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience, the number of enrolling clinical sites, our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents, the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before completion, and competing clinical trials (including other clinical trials that we are conducting or will conduct in the future) and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, or competing drugs against the same target as well as any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating.

Additionally, we must compete for clinical sites, clinicians and the limited number of patients who fulfill the stringent requirements for participation in clinical trials. Also, due to the confidential nature of clinical trials, we do not know how many of the eligible patients may be enrolled in competing studies and who are consequently not available to us for our clinical trials. Our clinical trials may be delayed or terminated due to the inability to enroll enough patients. The delay or inability to meet planned patient enrollment may result in increased costs and delay or termination of our trials, which could have a harmful effect on our ability to develop products.

We are heavily dependent on the success of D-PLEX₁₀₀, including obtaining regulatory approval to market D-PLEX₁₀₀ in the United States and the EU.

To date, we have invested all of our efforts and financial resources to: (i) research and develop our PLEX technology, our lead product candidate, D-PLEX₁₀₀, and our preclinical and research and development programs, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, and providing general and administrative support for these operations; (ii) develop and secure our intellectual property portfolio for D-PLEX₁₀₀ and our PLEX technology and (iii) invest in our current manufacturing facility. Our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize one or more of our current and future product candidates. Our product candidates’ marketability is subject to significant risks associated with successfully completing current and future clinical trials, including:

Many of these clinical, regulatory and commercial risks are beyond our control. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to advance D-PLEX₁₀₀ and any future product candidates through clinical development, or to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize any product candidates. If we fail to achieve these objectives or overcome the challenges presented above, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize D-PLEX₁₀₀ and any future product candidates. Accordingly, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenues through the sale of our product candidates to enable us to continue our business.

Additionally, approval of a product candidate in the United States by the FDA does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. We may never obtain approval outside of the United States, which would limit our market opportunities and adversely affect our business.

The outcome of our planned unblinded interim analysis in our SHIELD II trial may require that we enroll more patients than would have been the case without an interim analysis, in which case we will need to spend additional time, effort and financial resources on the SHIELD II trial which may not ultimately be successful or support regulatory approval of D-PLEX₁₀₀.

An unblinded interim analysis is planned to be conducted in our SHIELD II trial once approximately 400 patients complete their 30-day follow-up. The anticipated interim analysis will allow for an early trial stopping due to efficacy or futility, or sample size reassessment. This interim analysis may not result in positive findings for the prevention of SSIs in patients undergoing abdominal colorectal surgery with large incisions sufficient to support submission of an NDA for D-PLEX₁₀₀, in which case we may need to significantly increase enrollment in the trial to improve its statistical power. Any increase in enrollment in the trial would cost us significantly more and cause us to delay any final analysis to determine whether or not the trial was successful to support an NDA submission. Increasing the size of the SHIELD II trial because of the interim analysis may result in pursuing further development of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for an indication in which it may ultimately be unsuccessful.

Our decision to implement an interim analysis for the SHIELD II trial may lead to an erroneous decision to stop the trial early or continue the trial with the expenditure of time, effort and financial resources to a conclusion that may ultimately be unsuccessful.

Improvement in SoC infection prevention and control measures being undertaken in hospitals globally as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic may have decreased the rate of SSIs, which may adversely impact the ability of our clinical trials to demonstrate an improvement over the SoC and may ultimately reduce our commercial opportunity even if our trials are successful.

As a result of heightened awareness and attention to infection prevention and control within hospitals and in society at large as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of SSIs may be declining relative to their historic rates. Any reduction in SSIs rates may decrease the likelihood of success for our product candidates to show an improvement over the SoC, and even if successful in clinical trials, a reduction in SSIs, even temporary, may decrease the perceived commercial need for our products if they are approved by regulatory authorities.

Regulatory approval processes of the FDA, EMA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future product candidates, our business may fail.

The research, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, approval, promotion, advertising, storage, recordkeeping, marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting and export and import of drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA and by foreign regulatory authorities in other countries. These regulations differ from country to country. To gain approval to market D-PLEX₁₀₀ and any future product candidates, we must provide data from well-controlled clinical trials that adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product for the intended indication to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authority. We have not yet obtained regulatory approval to market any product candidate in the United States or any other jurisdiction. The FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies can delay, limit or deny approval of D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future product candidate for many reasons, including:

In the United States, we will be required to submit an NDA to obtain FDA approval before marketing any product candidate. An NDA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy for each desired indication. In the case of an NDA covered by Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FFDCA, we may rely in part on data not developed by us and for which we have not obtained a right of reference or use, including published scientific literature or the FDA’s findings of safety and/or effectiveness for a previously approved drug. The NDA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product. The FDA may further inspect our manufacturing facilities to ensure that the facilities can manufacture any product candidate and any product, if and when approved, in compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements, as well as inspect our clinical trial sites to ensure that our trials are properly conducted. Obtaining approval of an NDA is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process, and approval may not be obtained. Upon submission of an NDA, the FDA must make an initial determination that the application is sufficiently complete to accept the submission for filing. We cannot be certain that any submissions will be accepted for filing and review by the FDA, or ultimately be approved. If the application is not accepted for review or approval, the FDA may require that we conduct additional clinical or preclinical trials, or take other actions before it will reconsider our application. If the FDA requires additional trials or data, we would incur increased costs and delays in the marketing approval process, which may require us to expend more resources than we have available. Even if the FDA agrees that results from our SHIELD II trial evaluating D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs in patients undergoing abdominal colorectal surgery with large incisions are sufficient to support the submission of an NDA, the FDA may determine that the data from this trial support a narrower indication than we may propose, if the FDA were to approve such NDA at all. In addition, the FDA may not consider any additional information to be complete or sufficient to support approval.

Regulatory authorities outside of the United States, such as in the EU, also have requirements for approval of drugs for commercial sale with which we must comply prior to marketing in those areas. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of a product candidate. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and obtaining regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. However, the failure to obtain regulatory approval in one jurisdiction could have a negative impact on our ability to obtain approval in a different jurisdiction. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product candidate testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could require additional non-clinical studies or clinical trials, which could be costly and time consuming. Foreign regulatory approval may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. For all of these reasons, if we seek foreign regulatory approval for any product candidate, we may not obtain such approvals on a timely basis, if at all.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of any regulatory filing for a product candidate, the FDA may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly and potentially time-consuming additional post-approval clinical trials or subject to contraindications, black box warnings, restrictive surveillance or Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, or REMS. Further, the FDA, EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities may also approve a product candidate for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested, and these regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of any product candidate. Following any approval for commercial sale of a product candidate, certain changes to the product, such as changes in manufacturing processes and additional labeling claims, as well as new safety information, will be subject to additional FDA notification, or review and approval. Also, regulatory approval for any product candidate may be withdrawn. To the extent we seek regulatory approval in foreign countries, we may face challenges similar to those described above with regulatory authorities in applicable jurisdictions. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval for D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future product candidate would delay or prevent commercialization of such product candidate and would thus negatively impact our business, results of operations and prospects.

Clinical drug development is difficult to design and implement and involves a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. A failure of one or more of our clinical trials can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. We do not know whether future clinical trials, if any, will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll an adequate number of patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed, suspended or terminated for a variety of reasons, including failure to:

We may also experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize any product candidate, including:

In addition, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic caused and may continue to increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties in initiating, enrolling, conducting or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials. We may also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the trial’s data safety monitoring board, by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies. Such authorities may suspend or terminate one or more of our clinical trials due to a number of factors, including our failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with relevant regulatory requirements or clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or site by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Further, conducting clinical trials outside of the United States, as we have done and continue to do and plan to expand for D-PLEX₁₀₀ and any future product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in the countries outside of the United States to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries.

If we experience delays in completing any clinical trial of a product candidate or successfully obtaining regulatory approval, the commercial prospects of such product candidate may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from such product candidate will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business and financial condition. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

The results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results, and our clinical trials may fail to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates.

Results from preclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future clinical trial results. Preclinical tests and Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials are primarily designed to test safety, to study pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and to understand the side effects of product candidates at various doses and schedules. Success in preclinical or animal studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later, large-scale efficacy trials will be successful, nor does it predict final results. Our product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies or after having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials. This failure might cause us to abandon further development of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs, which is currently our most advanced product candidate. Further, data obtained from the SHIELD I pivotal clinical trial are not necessarily predictive of future results from the ongoing SHIELD II pivotal trial, and are susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. For example, even if the ongoing SHIELD II trial focuses on patients undergoing surgeries with incisions greater than 20 cm based on positive results observed in the SHIELD I pre-specified subgroup ITT analysis of a total of 423 subjects with large incisions (>20 centimeters), there is significant risk that we will fail to reproduce the same results or achieve favorable results in SHIELD II at all and receive regulatory approval. Further, data obtained from pivotal clinical studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.

There is a high failure rate for product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including due to changes in regulatory policy during the period of our product candidate development. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will generate the same results or otherwise provide adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of a product candidate. Frequently, product candidates that have shown promising results in early clinical trials have subsequently suffered significant setbacks in later clinical trials. Additionally, even if we are able to complete clinical trials, the results may not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

Interim, “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose top-line or preliminary data from our clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Top-line or preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the top-line or preliminary data we previously published. As a result, top-line and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our Ordinary Shares.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure.

If the interim, top-line or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

If the FDA does not conclude that D-PLEX₁₀₀ satisfies the requirements under Section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA, or Section 505(b)(2), or if we are unable to utilize the hybrid application pathway in the EU, or if the requirements are not as we expect, the approval pathway for D-PLEX₁₀₀ will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and entail significantly greater complications and risks than anticipated, and in either case may not be successful.

We intend to utilize the FDA’s Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, and the hybrid application pathway in the EU, which is analogous to the Section 505(b)(2) pathway, to seek approval of D-PLEX₁₀₀. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, added Section 505(b)(2) to the FFDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from trials or studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant, and for which the applicant has not received a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted, which we believe could expedite the development program for D-PLEX₁₀₀ by potentially decreasing the amount of preclinical and clinical data that we would need to generate in order to obtain FDA approval. However, while we believe that D-PLEX₁₀₀ is a reformulation of an already-approved drug and, therefore, will be eligible for submission of an NDA under Section 505(b)(2), the FDA may disagree and determine that D-PLEX₁₀₀ is not eligible for review under such regulatory pathway.

If we are unable to pursue these regulatory pathways as anticipated, we may need to conduct additional preclinical experiments and clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for D-PLEX₁₀₀, and complications and risks associated with D-PLEX₁₀₀, would likely increase significantly. Moreover, inability to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) or similar regulatory pathway could result in new competitive products reaching the market more quickly than D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future product candidates, which would likely harm our competitive position and prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) or similar regulatory pathway, D-PLEX₁₀₀ may not receive the requisite approvals for commercialization, and there is no guarantee the 505(b)(2) or similar pathway would ultimately lead to faster product development or earlier approval.

In addition, notwithstanding the approval of a number of products by the FDA under Section 505(b)(2) over the last few years, certain competitors and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2). If the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) is successfully challenged, the FDA may be required to change its 505(b)(2) policies and practices, which could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2). In addition, the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. These requirements may give rise to patent litigation and mandatory delays in approval of our potential future NDAs for up to 30 months depending on the outcome of any litigation. It is also not uncommon for a manufacturer of an approved product to file a citizen petition with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products. If successful, such petitions can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. However, even if the FDA ultimately denies such a petition, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition.

Moreover, even if D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future product candidates are approved under the Section 505(b)(2) pathway, as the case may be, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed or to other conditions of approval, or may contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products.

PLEX is a novel technology, which makes it difficult to accurately and reliably predict the time and cost of development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval of D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future PLEX product candidates.

We have concentrated our efforts and product research on our PLEX drug delivery technology, and our future success depends on the successful development of this technology and products based on it. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our product candidates will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. We may be unable to maintain and further develop sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing processes, or transfer these processes to collaborators, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. To our knowledge, no regulatory authority has granted approval to any person or entity, including us, to market and commercialize therapeutics using our novel delivery system. We may never receive approval to market and commercialize any product candidate that utilizes PLEX.

As an organization, we may be unable to successfully complete clinical development for any product candidates we may develop, including D-PLEX₁₀₀.

We will need to successfully complete pivotal clinical trials in order to obtain the approval of the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies to market D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future product candidates. Carrying out clinical trials and the submission of a successful NDA is a complicated process. As an organization, we have limited experience in conducting later stage or pivotal clinical trials and have limited experience in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials, including our ongoing SHIELD II Phase 3 trial, in a way that leads to marketing approval of D-PLEX₁₀₀. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in commercializing D-PLEX₁₀₀. See “Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties”. We rely on third parties to conduct certain elements of our preclinical and clinical trials and perform other tasks for us. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials due to various reasons, including possible disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which could delay or prevent us from proceeding with such trials.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in our clinical trials is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates, and we may experience delays in our clinical trials if we encounter difficulties in enrollment. Patient enrollment and retention in clinical trials depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the trial protocol, our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience, the existing body of safety and efficacy data with respect to the study drug, the number and nature of competing treatments and ongoing clinical trials of competing drugs for the same indication, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating, the eligibility criteria for the trials, our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents and the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before completion. We have experienced and may further continue to experience disruptions in patient enrollment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including difficulties in initiating clinical sites and enrolling and retaining participants, the diversion of healthcare resources away from clinical trials and challenges related to travel or quarantine policies that may be implemented.

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients to complete our clinical trials because of the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under study, the availability and efficacy of competing therapies and clinical trials, the proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients and the patient referral practices of physicians. We may also face challenges in identifying trial sites and enrolling patients in global trials such as our ongoing SHIELD II Phase 3 trial of D-PLEX₁₀₀. If patients are unwilling to participate in our trials for any reason, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products will be delayed.

Our product candidates and the administration of our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects, including toxicology, caused by D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any future product candidates, or the drugs encapsulated by such product candidates, could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. In such an event, our clinical studies could be suspended or terminated, and the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies could order us to cease further development of or deny or withdraw approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Moreover, during the conduct of clinical trials, patients report changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries and discomforts, to their study doctor. Often, it is not possible to determine whether or not the product candidate being studied caused these conditions.

Drug-related, drug-product related, formulation-related and administration-related side effects could affect patient recruitment, the ability of enrolled patients to complete the clinical trials or result in potential product liability claims, which could exceed our clinical trial insurance coverage. We do not currently have product liability insurance and do not anticipate obtaining product liability insurance until such time as we have received FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign authority marketing approval for one of our product candidates and such product is being provided to patients outside of clinical trials.

Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including but not limited to:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Even if we complete the necessary clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize any of our product candidates, and the approval may be for a narrower indication than we seek or be subject to other limitations or restrictions that limit its commercial profile.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Even if our current or future product candidates meet safety and efficacy endpoints in pivotal clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. This may include approval of a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of warnings. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and the review process.

Regulatory authorities also may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of warnings or a REMS. These regulatory authorities may require precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use or they may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of any of our product candidates. For example, the FDA may disagree that our Phase 3 trial evaluating D-PLEX₁₀₀ is sufficient to support either NDA submissions seeking approval for the specific indications under evaluation in our ongoing and potential future Phase 3 trials or NDA submissions seeking approval for broader indications covering the prevention of SSIs. Although we intend to pursue a broad label for D-PLEX₁₀₀, to date we have not had any discussions with, nor received any feedback from, the FDA with respect to the possibility of pursuing a label broader than the prevention of SSIs following abdominal surgery. Even if the FDA were to agree that these trials were sufficient to support one or more NDA submissions, the FDA may determine that the data from these trials support more narrow indications than we may propose, if the FDA were to approve such NDA submissions at all. If the FDA does not agree that our ongoing and potential future Phase 3 trials support the submission of an NDA for any indication, we will be required to conduct additional clinical trials to support our proposed indications. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Although D-PLEX₁₀₀ has been granted Qualified Infectious Disease Product designation by the FDA for the prevention of sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery, for the prevention of post-abdominal surgery incisional infection, and for prevention of post-colorectal SSIs, these designations do not guarantee a shorter FDA review process, or that D-PLEX₁₀₀ will ultimately be approved by the FDA for any indication.

Under the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now Act, or GAIN Act, the FDA may designate a product as a “qualified infectious disease product,” or QIDP. In order to receive this designation, a drug must qualify as an antibacterial or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by either (1) an antibacterial or antifungal resistant pathogen, including novel or emerging infectious pathogens, or (2) a so-called “qualifying pathogen” found on a list of potentially dangerous, drug-resistant organisms established and maintained by the FDA under the GAIN Act. A sponsor must request such designation before submitting a marketing application. We requested and received QIDP designations for D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery, for the prevention of post-abdominal surgery incisional infection and for prevention of post-colorectal SSIs. We anticipate that the QIDP designations will provide, among other benefits, an overall increased level of communication with the FDA during the development process. The benefits of QIDP designation also include eligibility for priority review and an extension by an additional five years of any non-patent market exclusivity period awarded, such as a five-year exclusivity period awarded for a new molecular entity, or a three-year market exclusivity period awarded to an applicant whose application relies on new clinical investigations essential to the approval. This extension is in addition to any pediatric exclusivity extension that may be awarded. GAIN Act exclusivity may not be awarded if the indication for which we obtain approval does not meet the definition of a qualified infectious disease product. However, there is limited precedent for understanding the way in which the GAIN Act will be implemented. Receipt of QIDP designation in practice may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures, and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA or related exclusivity benefits.

Fast Track Designation from the FDA may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We received Fast Track Designation from the FDA for D-PLEX₁₀₀ for topical use for the prevention of post-cardiac surgery sternal infection, for the prevention of post abdominal surgery incisional infection and for prevention of post-colorectal SSIs.

If a product candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product candidate demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the product sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe one of our product candidates is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, such as the Fast Track Designation received for D-PLEX₁₀₀, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

Breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We received a breakthrough therapy designation for D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a product candidate that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Product candidates designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time of the submission of the biologics license application, or BLA.

However, the receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to product candidates considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and it would not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification, or it may decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Eligibility by EMA for submission of a MAA in the EU under the centralized procedure may not eventually lead to an approval for submission of a MAA under the centralized procedure nor a faster regulatory review or approval process.

In September 2022, we received confirmation from the EMA that D-PLEX₁₀₀ is eligible for submission of an application for an EU Marketing Authorisation (centralized Procedure) under Article 3(2)b – Therapeutic innovation (EC) No 726/2004. The centralized process eligibility is granted to D-PLEX₁₀₀ under the Therapeutic Innovation criteria which underscores that D-PLEX₁₀₀ potentially provides a new alternative to patients in preventing post abdominal SSIs.

However, the receipt of a confirmation from the EMA that D-PLEX₁₀₀ is eligible for submission of a MAA in the EU under the EMA’s centralized procedure may not eventually result in an approval by the EMA that D-PLEX₁₀₀ is eligible for submission of a MAA in the EU under the Agency’s centralized procedure nor result in a faster review or approval compared to product candidates considered for approval under conventional EMA national procedures and it would not assure ultimate approval by the EMA. In addition, even if D-PLEX₁₀₀ is eligible for submission of a MAA in the under the Agency’s centralized procedure, the EMA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, our products and business will remain subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and review.

If our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and comparable requirements outside of the United States. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a REMS as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. We will also be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved label. As such, we may not promote our products for indications or uses for which they do not have FDA, EMA or other regulatory agency approval. The holder of an approved NDA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling, or manufacturing process. We could also be asked to conduct post-marketing clinical trials to verify the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in general or in specific patient subsets. An unsuccessful post-marketing trial or failure to complete such a clinical trial could result in the withdrawal of marketing approval. Furthermore, any new legislation addressing drug safety issues could result in delays in product development or commercialization or increased costs to assure compliance. Foreign regulatory authorities impose similar requirements. If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, such regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency or enforcement authority may, among other things:

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our product candidates. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire, retain or deploy key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new or modified products from being developed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs or modifications to approved drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA postponed most foreign and routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. In the absence of in-person surveillance inspections of manufacturing facilities, the FDA relied and may in the future rely on alternative tools to evaluate facilities. Regulatory authorities outside the United States adopted similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may be subject, directly or indirectly, to U.S. federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, healthcare provider payment transparency laws and health information privacy and security laws. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Our current and future operations may be directly or indirectly through our relationships with U.S. healthcare providers, patients and other persons and entities, subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, market, sell and distribute our products in the United States. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

Many states have analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, that may apply to our business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers. In addition, certain states require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the U.S. federal government. Certain states and local jurisdictions require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers and register pharmaceutical sales representatives. Additionally, certain states also require pharmaceutical companies to file reports relating to pricing information or marketing expenditures and have laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, the ACA has strengthened these laws. For example, health care reform legislation, has among other things, amended the intent requirement of the U.S. Anti-Kickback statute and certain criminal healthcare fraud statutes. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. Moreover, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal anti-kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act.

Ensuring that our internal operations and business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will likely be costly. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including arrangements we may have with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom may receive stock options as compensation for services provided, do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations were found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, possible exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could substantially disrupt our operations. If the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Legislative or regulatory healthcare reforms in the United States may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain regulatory clearance or approval of our product candidates and to produce, market and distribute our products after clearance or approval is obtained.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory clearance or approval, manufacture and marketing of regulated products or the reimbursement thereof. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of our product candidates. We cannot determine what effect changes in regulations, statutes, legal interpretation or policies, when and if promulgated, enacted or adopted may have on our business in the future. Such changes could, among other things, require:

In addition, in the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the health care system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. The pharmaceutical industry in the United States, as an example, has been affected by the passage of the ACA, which, among other things, imposed new fees on entities that manufacture or import certain branded prescription drugs and expanded pharmaceutical manufacturer obligations to provide discounts and rebates to certain government programs. There have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. These changes include, among others, aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Congress is considering additional health reform measures.

Further, there has been particular and increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices in recent years, particularly with respect to drugs that have been subject to relatively large price increases over relatively short time periods. There have been several recent U.S. Presidential executive orders, Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

For example, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to President Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. Further, the IRA, among other things (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be implemented but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. Further in response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services, or CMS, Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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. For example, on January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s Section 804 Importation Program (SIP) proposal to import certain drugs from Canada for specific state healthcare programs. It is unclear how this program will be implemented, including which drugs will be chosen, and whether it will be subject to legal challenges in the United States or Canada. Other states have also submitted SIP proposals that are pending review by the FDA. Any such approved importation plans, when implemented, may result in lower drug prices for products covered by those programs. In the future, there will likely continue to be proposals relating to the reform of the U.S. healthcare system, some of which could further limit coverage and reimbursement of drug products, including our product candidates. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Our results of operations could be adversely affected by the ACA and by other health care reforms that may be enacted or adopted in the future.

We face intense competition in an environment of rapid technological change and the possibility that our competitors may develop products and drug delivery systems that are similar, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to successfully market or commercialize our product candidates.

The pharmaceutical industry in which we operate is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We are currently aware of various existing therapies in the market and in development that may in the future compete with our product candidates, including other therapies that address the management of SSIs, as well as other drug delivery mechanisms that utilize polymer and/or lipid technology to deliver APIs at the local level. Other approaches may also emerge for the prevention or treatment of any of the indications on which we focus, and new technologies may emerge in localized drug delivery.

We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies and specialty pharmaceutical companies. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis products that are more effective or less costly than any product candidate that we may develop, or achieve earlier patent protection, regulatory approval, product commercialization and market penetration than we do. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against competitors. See “Item 4. B. — Business Overview — Competition.”

Even if we obtain and maintain approval for D-PLEX₁₀₀ or our other product candidates from the FDA, we may never obtain approval outside of the United States, which would limit our market opportunities and adversely affect our business.

Approval of a product candidate in the United States by the FDA does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. However, the failure to obtain approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities may negatively impact our ability to obtain approval in other foreign countries. Sales of D-PLEX₁₀₀ or our other product candidates outside of the United States will be subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing clinical trials and marketing approval. Even if the FDA grants marketing approval for a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries also must approve the manufacturing and marketing of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and more onerous than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. In many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our product candidates, if approved, is also subject to approval.

We intend to submit a marketing authorization application to the EMA for approval of D-PLEX₁₀₀ in the EU, but obtaining such approval from the European Commission following the opinion of the EMA is a lengthy and expensive process. Even if a product candidate is approved, the applicable regulatory agency may limit the indications for which the product may be marketed, require extensive warnings on the product labeling or require expensive and time-consuming additional clinical trials or reporting as conditions of approval. Regulatory authorities in countries outside of the United States and the EU also have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those countries. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in certain countries.

Further, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Also, regulatory approval for a product candidate may be withdrawn. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of D-PLEX₁₀₀ or our other product candidates will be harmed and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be adversely affected.

The misuse or off-label use of our products may harm our reputation in the marketplace, result in injuries that lead to product liability suits or result in costly investigations, fines or sanctions by regulatory bodies if we are deemed to have engaged in the promotion of these uses, any of which could be costly to our business.

Prescription drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications in accordance with the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. If the FDA does not agree that our data support the submission of an NDA seeking approval for the prevention of SSIs, we will train our marketing and sales personnel to not promote our products, if approved, for any off label uses. We cannot, however, prevent a physician from using our products off-label, when in the physician’s independent professional medical judgment, he or she deems it appropriate. For example, if we obtain approval of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs in patients undergoing abdominal surgery, physicians may nevertheless decide to use D-PLEX₁₀₀ in an attempt to prevent infections in connection with other types of surgeries, and there may be increased risk of injury to patients if physicians attempt to use our products for these uses for which they are not approved. While the FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments, the FDA does restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. Furthermore, the use of our products for indications other than those approved by the FDA, or any foreign regulatory body may not effectively treat such conditions, which could harm our reputation in the marketplace among physicians and patients.

If the FDA, EMA or any foreign regulatory body determines that our promotional materials or training constitute promotion of an off-label use, it could request that we modify our training or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance or imposition of an untitled letter, which is used for violators that do not necessitate a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine or criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action under other regulatory authority, such as false claims laws, if they consider our business activities to constitute promotion of an off-label use, which could result in significant penalties, including, but not limited to, criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and the curtailment of our operations.

Risks Related to our Reliance on Third Parties

We rely on third parties to conduct certain elements of our preclinical studies and clinical trials and perform other tasks for us. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates.

We have relied upon, and plan to continue to rely upon, third-party vendors, including CROs, to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. We rely on these CROs for execution of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the vendors and CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs and other vendors are required to comply with good clinical practice, cGMP, the Helsinki Declaration, the International Conference on Harmonization Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, applicable European Commission Directives on Clinical Trials, laws and regulations applicable to clinical trials conducted in other territories, and good laboratory practices, or GLP, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area, or EEA, and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of study sponsors, principal investigators, study sites and other contractors. If we or any of our CROs or vendors fail to comply with applicable regulations, including Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, and cGMP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical studies may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or vendors terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or vendors or do so on commercially reasonable terms. In addition, our CROs are not our employees, and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing clinical, nonclinical and preclinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. CROs may also generate higher costs than anticipated, which could adversely affect our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates, increase our costs and delay our ability to generate revenue.

Replacing or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, we may encounter similar challenges or delays in the future, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

We rely on third parties to manufacture the raw materials, including the active pharmaceutical ingredient that we use to create our product candidates. Our business could be harmed if existing and prospective third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of these materials and products or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.

We rely on third- party suppliers for certain raw materials necessary to manufacture our product candidates for our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Some of these raw materials are difficult to source. Because there are a limited number of suppliers for these raw materials, we may need to engage alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials, and if approved, ultimately for commercial sale. In several cases, we rely on a sole provider, and there may be a need to identify additional providers in the future. We do not have any control over the availability of raw materials. If we or our manufacturers are unable to purchase these raw materials on acceptable terms, at sufficient quality levels, or in adequate quantities, if at all, the development and commercialization of our product candidates or any future product candidates, would be delayed or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to meet our development objectives for our product candidates or generate revenues from the sale of any approved products.

Even following our establishment of our own cGMP-compliant manufacturing capabilities, we intend to continue to rely on third- party suppliers for these raw materials, which will continue to expose us to manufacturing risks including:

Certain of our raw material suppliers will be required to become cGMP-compliant and establish a drug master file for the applicable ingredient before we can submit our NDA for D-PLEX₁₀₀. If these suppliers do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or manufacture our raw materials in accordance with regulatory requirements, we will not be able to submit our NDA as planned or complete, or may be delayed in completing, the clinical trials required for approval of D-PLEX₁₀₀. In such instances, we may need to locate an appropriate replacement third-party relationship, which may not be readily available or on acceptable terms, which would cause additional delay or increased expense prior to the approval of D-PLEX₁₀₀ and would thereby have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Additionally, we have not yet entered into binding agreements with certain third-party manufacturers to produce the raw materials and products that we use to manufacture our product candidates. Although we intend to rely on third-party manufacturers for the raw materials and products to support the manufacturing of our product candidates for commercialization, we have not yet entered into agreements with certain manufacturers. We may be unable to negotiate binding agreements with the manufacturers to support our commercialization activities at commercially reasonable terms.

Although we have established our own manufacturing facility, we may utilize third parties as needed to conduct our product manufacturing. Therefore, we are subject to the risk that these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

Although we expect that our manufacturing facility will be the primary source of clinical and commercial supply for D-PLEX₁₀₀ for at least the first 48 months following a commercial launch, if approved, we intend to evaluate potential third-party manufacturing capabilities if necessary to meet further commercial demand if and when required. In the event that we engage third-party manufacturers and they do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or manufacture D-PLEX₁₀₀ in accordance with regulatory requirements or if there are disagreements between us and any third-party manufacturer, we may be delayed in producing sufficient clinical and commercial supply of D-PLEX₁₀₀ or other product candidates. In such instances, we may need to locate an appropriate replacement third-party relationship, which may not be readily available or on acceptable terms, which would cause additional delay or increased expense and would thereby have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. We and our contract manufacturers must comply with cGMP requirements. In the event that our contract manufacturers fail to meet cGMP requirements, we may be delayed or unable to supply our products. In addition, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up and validating initial production and contamination controls. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, and shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination.

We also rely or may in the future rely on third- party manufacturers to conduct quality control reviews, packaging and serialization services for our product candidates or any approved products. We cannot assure you that any stability, sterility or other issues relating to the manufacture of any of our product candidates or any approved products will not occur in the future.

Additionally, our third-party manufacturers may experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disputes or unstable political environments. If our third-party manufacturers were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide any products to patients, once approved, would be jeopardized. Any adverse developments affecting commercial manufacturing may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, product withdrawals or recalls or other interruptions in the supply of an approved product. We may also have to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for products that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives. Accordingly, failures or difficulties faced at any level of our supply chain could materially adversely affect our business and delay and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of product manufacture.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets and intellectual property, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets and intellectual property will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we rely on third parties to provide us with the materials that we use to develop and, if appropriate in the future, manufacture our product candidates or approved products, we may, at times, share trade secrets and intellectual property with such third parties. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements, or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets and intellectual property. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets and knowhow, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets by third parties. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets and knowhow would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain effective patent rights for our product candidates or any future product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets. If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets or know-how, such proprietary information may be used by others to compete against us.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and in other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and product candidates.

We have sought to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and in other countries, with respect to our novel technologies and product candidates, which are important to our business. Patent prosecution is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

As of March 6, 2024, our portfolio of owned patents and patent applications consists of eight families that protect our technology, including 153 issued patents, including utility and composition of matter patents, two patent applications that have been allowed, and 19 pending patent applications in the United States, Canada, China, Europe, Japan, Israel, the Eurasian Patent Organization, Hong-Kong, India, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Thailand. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patent or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us after patent issuance could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced.

Further, the patent position of pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions for which legal principles remain unsolved. This renders the patent prosecution process particularly expensive and time-consuming. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patent applications has been found, which can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents do successfully issue, and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability, or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed, found unenforceable or invalidated. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patent applications and any future patents may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates, or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

If we cannot obtain and maintain effective patent rights for our product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business and results of operations would be harmed.

We may not have sufficient patent lifespan to effectively protect our products and business.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its priority date. Although various regulatory exclusivity extensions may be available, including pursuant to the QIDP designations we have received for D-PLEX₁₀₀, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if any of our patent applications mature into issued patents, if we do not have sufficient patent terms or regulatory exclusivity to protect our products, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected.

Patent policy and rule changes could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any issued patents.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of any patents that may issue from our patent applications or narrow the scope of our patent protection. The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. We therefore cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to make the invention claimed in our owned and licensed patent or pending applications, or that we or our licensor were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, for United States patent applications filed prior to March 15, 2013, the first to conceive a claimed invention is entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application is entitled to the patent. After March 15, 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the AIA, the United States has moved to a first to file system. The AIA also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The courts have yet to address many of these provisions and the applicability of the AIA and new regulations on specific patents discussed herein have not been determined and would need to be reviewed. In general, the AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business may be adversely affected. If other entities use trademarks similar to ours in different jurisdictions, or have senior rights to ours, it could interfere with our use of our current trademarks throughout the world.

If we are unable to maintain effective proprietary rights for our product candidates or any future product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.

In addition to the protection afforded by any patents that have been or may be granted, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets and intellectual property by maintaining the physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets and intellectual property may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors.

Although we expect all of our employees and consultants to assign their inventions to us, and all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed or that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets and intellectual property could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets and intellectual property are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret.

Intellectual property rights of third parties could adversely affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, and we might be required to litigate or obtain licenses from third parties in order to develop or market our product candidate. Such litigation or licenses could be costly or not available on commercially reasonable terms.

It is inherently difficult to conclusively assess our freedom to operate without infringing on third- party rights. Our competitive position may suffer if patents issued to third parties or other third- party intellectual property rights cover our product candidates or elements thereof, or our manufacturing or uses relevant to our development plans. In such cases, we may not be in a position to develop or commercialize products or our product candidates unless we successfully pursue litigation to nullify or invalidate the third-party intellectual property right concerned or enter into a license agreement with the intellectual property right holder, if available on commercially reasonable terms. There may also be pending patent applications that if they result in issued patents, could be alleged to be infringed by our product candidates. If such an infringement claim should be brought and be successful, we may be required to pay substantial damages, be forced to abandon our product candidates or seek a license from any patent holders. No assurances can be given that a license will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, U.S. applications filed before November 29, 2000, and certain U.S. applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the U.S. remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing to which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates or platform technology could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our platform technologies, our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. Third- party intellectual property right holders may also actively bring infringement claims against us. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we are unable to successfully settle future claims on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to engage in or continue costly, unpredictable and time-consuming litigation and may be prevented from or experience substantial delays in pursuing the development of and/or marketing of our product candidates. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing our product candidates that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign our product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third- party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There have been many lawsuits and other proceedings involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and reexamination proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. As the pharmaceutical industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture, or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our product candidates, any materials formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidates unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or are finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable.

Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture, or methods of use, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtain a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Because our programs may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license, or use these proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and the rights to these formulations may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources, and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.

For example, we sometimes collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights, we may have to abandon development of that program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property or that of our licensors that we may acquire in the future. If we or a future licensing partner were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Under the AIA, the validity of U.S. patents may also be challenged in post-grant proceedings before the USPTO. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable.

Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patent or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our Ordinary Shares.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

We employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in or right to compensation with respect to our current patent and patent applications, future patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or claiming the right to compensation. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. To the extent that our employees have not effectively waived the right to compensation with respect to inventions that they helped create, they may be able to assert claims for compensation with respect to our future revenue. As a result, we may receive less revenue from future products if such claims are successful which in turn could impact our future profitability.

Changes in United States and international patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

Our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing these patents is costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the United States has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Recent United States Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the United States Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain patents or to enforce patents that we might obtain in the future.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States may be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States.

Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own product candidates and may also export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates. Future patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products or methods of treatment, which could make it difficult for us to stop the marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our future patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Kreos Capital VI (Expert Fund) LP may seize our owned equipment, intellectual property and all shares we hold in PolyPid Inc. and PolyPid Pharma SRL if we fail to repay a loan.

On April 5, 2022, we entered into a secured loan agreement, or the Loan Agreement, for up to $15 million with Kreos Capital VI (Expert Fund) LP, or Kreos. For more information regarding the Loan Agreement please see “Item 5.C- Liquidity and Capital Resources”. Under the Loan Agreement, we granted Kreos a first priority fixed charge over all of our owned equipment and intellectual property, including without limitation, copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade names, as well as all shares we hold in PolyPid Inc. and PolyPid Pharma SRL. That means that our owned equipment, intellectual property assets and our ownership of the shares of PolyPid Inc. and PolyPid Pharma SRL are used as collateral for the loan. Additionally, PolyPid Inc. entered into a guaranty agreement with Kreos, all as security for monies borrowed by us under the Loan Agreement. Kreos may seize our owned equipment, intellectual property all shares we hold in PolyPid Inc. and PolyPid Pharma SRL if we fail to repay the loan, which could materially and adversely affect our operations. On March 29, 2023, we entered into an amendment to the Credit Line. Pursuant to this amendment, 70% of the remaining principal and interest repayments will be delayed and repaid on a monthly equal basis from August 2024 to May 2026. The amended secured loan now bears interest at a rate of 10.00%, and we will pay a restructuring fee to Kreos consisting of 1.00% on close of the amendment and an incremental 3.00% at maturity. In return for this additional deferral of repayment, Kreos has the right to receive a potential claw back payment on account of the then outstanding principal amount. This claw back mechanism will be triggered by additional incoming funds from future partnership agreement or additional financing. If triggered, the minimum claw back to be paid is $1.5 million but will not exceed $3 million. Further, the outstanding warrants Kreos received were repriced to have an exercise price of $12.60 per share.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations

Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must, and have in the past decided to, prioritize development of certain product candidates over other potential candidates. These decisions may prove to have been wrong and may adversely affect our revenues.

Because we have limited resources and access to capital to fund our operations, we must decide which product candidates to pursue and the amount of resources to allocate to each. Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular product candidates may not lead to the development of viable commercial products and may divert resources away from better opportunities. Similarly, our decisions to delay, terminate or collaborate with third parties in respect of certain product development programs may also prove not to be optimal and could cause us to miss valuable opportunities. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the market potential of our product candidates or misread trends in the pharmaceutical industry, in particular for our lead product candidate, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify, discover or license additional product candidates.

Although a substantial amount of our effort will focus on the continued clinical testing, potential approval and commercialization of D-PLEX₁₀₀, the success of our business also depends upon our ability to identify, discover or license additional product candidates. Our research programs or licensing efforts may fail to yield additional product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including: lack of financial or personnel resources to acquire or discover additional product candidates; new product candidates may not succeed in preclinical or clinical testing, or may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make them unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval; our competitors may develop alternatives that render our product candidates obsolete or less attractive; the market for a product candidate may change during our development program so that such product may become unprofitable to continue to develop; new product candidates may not be capable of being produced in commercial quantities at an acceptable cost, or at all; and new product candidates may not be accepted as safe and effective by patients, the medical community, or third-party payors.

We may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or programs that are unsuccessful, or we may not be able to identify, license, or discover additional product candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. Further, research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

European data collection is governed by restrictive regulations governing the collection, use, processing and cross-border transfer of personal information. Failure to comply with such regulations may result in substantial fines, other administrative penalties and civil claims being brought against us.

We may collect, process, use or transfer personal information from individuals located in the EU in connection with our business, including in connection with conducting clinical trials in the EU. Additionally, we intend to commercialize D-PLEX₁₀₀, and any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval, in the EU. The collection and use of personal health data in the EU is governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679), or the GDPR, along with other European Union and country-specific laws and regulations. The United Kingdom and Switzerland have also adopted data protection laws and regulations. These legislative acts (together with regulations and guidelines) impose requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal information relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside of the EEA, including to the United States, providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal information, keeping personal information secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal information, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal information, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments and record-keeping. The GDPR imposes additional responsibilities and liabilities in relation to personal data that we process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and related national data protection laws of the member states of the EU may result in substantial fines, other administrative penalties and civil claims being brought against us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU may adversely impact our ability to obtain regulatory approvals of our product candidates in the United Kingdom, result in restrictions or imposition of taxes and duties for importing our product candidates into the United Kingdom, and may require us to incur additional expenses in order to develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates in the United Kingdom.

Following the result of a referendum in 2016, the United Kingdom left the EU on January 31, 2020, commonly referred to as Brexit. A trade and cooperation agreement that outlines the future and trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU was agreed to in December 2020.

Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom applicable to our business and our product candidates is derived from European Union directives and regulations, Brexit has had, and will continue to have, a material impact on the regulatory regime with respect to the development, manufacture, importation, approval and commercialization of our product candidates in the United Kingdom. For example, Great Britain is no longer covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining European Union-wide marketing authorizations from the EMA, and a separate marketing authorization will be required to market our product candidates, including D-PLEX₁₀₀ in Great Britain. It is currently unclear whether the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom is sufficiently prepared to handle the increased volume of marketing authorization applications that it is likely to receive. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, would delay or prevent us from commercializing our product candidates in the United Kingdom and limit our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. We could face significant additional expenses to obtain regulatory approval for our products in the United Kingdom.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Our research, development and manufacturing activities and our third- party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including the components of our product candidates and other hazardous compounds. We and our manufacturers and suppliers are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our and our manufacturers’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages, such liability could exceed our resources, and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. We do not currently carry biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage.

Our employees and independent contractors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees and independent contractors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards we may establish, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee and independent contractor misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, including individually identifiable information, creating fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials or illegal misappropriation of product candidates, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Under applicable employment laws, we may not be able to enforce covenants not to compete and therefore may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of some of our former employees.

We generally enter into non-competition agreements with our employees and certain key consultants. These agreements prohibit our employees and certain key consultants, if they cease working for us, from competing directly with us or working for our competitors or clients for a limited period of time. We may be unable to enforce these agreements under the laws of the jurisdictions in which our employees work and it may be difficult for us to restrict our competitors from benefitting from the expertise our former employees or consultants developed while working for us.

For example, Israeli courts have required employers seeking to enforce non-compete undertakings of a former employee to demonstrate that the competitive activities of the former employee will harm one of a limited number of material interests of the employer which have been recognized by the courts, such as the secrecy of a company’s confidential commercial information or the protection of its intellectual property. If we cannot demonstrate that such interests will be harmed, we may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of our former employees or consultants and our ability to remain competitive may be diminished.

International expansion of our business exposes us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with doing business outside of the United States or Israel.

Other than our headquarters and other operations which are located in Israel (as further described below), we currently have limited international operations, but our business strategy incorporates potentially significant international expansion, particularly in anticipation of approval of our product candidates. We plan to retain sales representatives and third- party distributors and conduct physician, infectious disease specialist, hospital pharmacist and patient association outreach activities, as well as clinical trials, outside of the United States, European Union and Israel. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:

Any of these factors could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, our results of operations.

Our business and operations have been and may further be adversely affected by the COVID-19 global pandemic.

Our business and operations have been and, although COVID-19 pandemic declined globally, may further be adversely affected by the effects of the COVID-19 virus. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in travel and other restrictions in order to reduce the spread of the disease, including public health directives and orders in Israel, the United States and the EU that, among other things and for various periods of time, directed individuals to shelter at their places of residence, directed businesses and governmental agencies to cease non-essential operations at physical locations, prohibited certain non-essential gatherings and events and ordered cessation of non-essential travel. Government orders or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations related to the COVID-19 pandemic may negatively impact productivity and may disrupt our ongoing research and development activities and our clinical programs and timelines, the magnitude of which will depend, in part, on the length and severity of the restrictions and other limitations on our ability to conduct our business in the ordinary course. Further, such orders also may impact the availability or cost of materials, which would disrupt our supply chain and manufacturing efforts and could affect our ability to conduct ongoing and planned clinical trials and preparatory activities.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

We have limited manufacturing experience and could experience production problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs or otherwise adversely affect our business.

We have limited experience manufacturing D-PLEX₁₀₀. Although we have established our own manufacturing facility to support current and future clinical trials, and have received regulatory approvals for clinical manufacturing, and an initial commercial launch, we may be unable to produce commercial materials or meet demand for D-PLEX₁₀₀ if we are unable to receive or maintain commercial regulatory approvals for our facility. Any such failure could delay or prevent our development of D-PLEX₁₀₀ and would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Although we have increased the scale of our manufacturing process in order to produce sufficient quantities of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for our ongoing and planned clinical trials and at least the first 48 months following a commercial launch, if D-PLEX₁₀₀ is approved, in the future we may need to increase the scale or capacity of our manufacturing process either at our facility or at third-party manufacturers, or both. We may not be successful in producing sufficient quantities of D-PLEX₁₀₀, due to several factors, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, technical process challenges, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims or insufficient inventory. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical- and commercial-grade materials that meet FDA, EMA or other applicable standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs.

Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. There is no assurance we will not experience such failures at our own manufacturing facility or that of a third party in the future. Lot failures or product recalls could cause delays in product supply or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced specialist scientific, quality assurance, quality control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing process, which could result in delays in our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including biopharmaceutical companies, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs.

We currently have no marketing and sales organization. If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may be unable to generate any product revenue.

We have no experience selling and marketing our product candidates, and we currently have no marketing or sales organization. To successfully commercialize any product candidates that may result from our development programs, we will need to develop these capabilities, either on our own or with others. If our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we intend to establish a sales and marketing organization independently or by utilizing experienced third parties with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize our product candidates in major markets, all of which will be expensive, difficult and time consuming. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Further, given our lack of prior experience in marketing and selling pharmaceutical products, our initial estimate of the size of the required sales force may be materially more or less than the size of the sales force actually required to effectively commercialize our product candidates. As such, we may be required to hire sales representatives and third-party distributors to adequately support the commercialization of our product candidates, or we may incur excess costs if we hire more sales representatives than necessary. With respect to certain geographical markets, we may enter into collaborations with other entities to utilize their local marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into such agreements on favorable terms, if at all. We also may enter into collaborations with large pharmaceutical companies to develop and commercialize product candidates. If our future collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to develop and commercialize our future products, if any, and we are unable to develop the necessary marketing capabilities on our own, we will be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. We may compete with companies that currently have extensive and well-funded marketing and sales operations. Without an internal team or the support of a third party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

Our efforts to educate the medical community, including physicians, hospital pharmacists and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. If any of our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients or third-party payors, we will not be able to generate significant revenues from such product, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are subject to significant regulatory oversight with respect to manufacturing our product candidates. Delays in establishing and obtaining regulatory approval of our manufacturing process and facility or disruptions in our manufacturing process may delay or disrupt our product development and commercialization efforts.

The preparation of drug products for clinical trials or commercial sale is subject to extensive regulation. Before we can begin to commercially manufacture D-PLEX₁₀₀ or any product candidate, whether in a third-party facility or in our own facility, we must obtain regulatory approvals from the Israeli Ministry of Health, or MOH, the FDA and similar regulatory agencies, as applicable for our manufacturing process and facility. A manufacturing authorization must also be obtained from the appropriate regulatory authorities in the EU and worldwide. In addition, we must pass a pre-approval inspection of our manufacturing facility by the FDA before D-PLEX_100, or any product candidate can obtain marketing approval. In order to obtain approval, we will need to ensure that all of our processes, methods and equipment are compliant with cGMP, and perform extensive audits of vendors, contract laboratories and suppliers. If any of our vendors, contract laboratories or suppliers is found to be out of compliance with cGMP, we may experience delays or disruptions in manufacturing while we work with these third parties to remedy the violation or while we work to identify suitable replacement vendors. For example, in the past, a cGMP audit by the MOH of the manufacturing process in the facility of our contract manufacturer for D-PLEX₁₀₀ resulted in certain critical observations, which have since been resolved. There can be no guarantee, however, that future inspections by regulatory authorities of our manufacturing facilities or those of our contract manufacturers will result in MOH’s agreement that these critical observations have been resolved or that similar inspectional observations will not be identified. If we do not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the applicable regulator that our manufacturing facilities, or those of our contract manufacturers, are in compliance with applicable requirements, we may be materially delayed in the development of our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. The cGMP requirements govern quality control of the manufacturing process and documentation policies and procedures. In complying with cGMP, we will be obligated to expend time, money and effort in production, record keeping and quality control to assure that the product meets applicable specifications and other requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we would be subject to possible regulatory action and may not be permitted to sell any product candidate that we may develop.

Our failure to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of any approved products and our product candidates.

Operating our own manufacturing facility will require additional investment, will be time-consuming and may be subject to delays, including because of shortage of labor or compliance with regulatory requirements. In addition, operating a manufacturing facility may cost more than we currently anticipate. Delays or problems in the build out of our manufacturing facility may adversely impact our ability to provide supply for the development and commercialization of D-PLEX₁₀₀ as well as our financial condition.

If we receive marketing approval for our product candidates, sales will be limited unless the product achieves broad market acceptance by physicians, hospital administrators, third-party payors, hospital pharmacists, infectious disease specialists and others in the medical community.

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon the acceptance of the product by the medical community, including physicians, hospital administrators, healthcare third-party payors, hospital pharmacists, infectious disease specialists and patients. The degree of market acceptance of any approved product will depend on a number of factors, including:

If our product candidates are approved but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, hospital administrators, third-party payors, hospital pharmacists, infectious disease specialists and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue from the product, and we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

It may be difficult for us to profitably sell our product candidates if reimbursement for these products, or the procedures in which they are used, is limited by government authorities and/or third-party payor policies.

In addition to any healthcare reform measures which may affect reimbursement, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates, if approved, will depend on, in part, the extent to which the procedures utilizing our product candidates, performed by health care providers, will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health care programs, commercial insurance and managed care organizations. Our product candidates will be purchased or provided by health care providers for utilization in certain surgical procedures. In the event health care providers and patients accept our product candidates as medically useful, cost effective and safe, there is uncertainty regarding whether our product candidates will be directly reimbursed, reimbursed through a bundled payment or if the product candidates will be included in another type of value-based reimbursement program. Third-party payors determine the extent to which new products or procedures will be covered as a benefit under their plans and the level of reimbursement for any covered product or procedure which may utilize a covered product.

When used in connection with surgical and certain other procedures, our product candidates may not be reimbursed separately but their cost may instead be bundled as part of the payment received by the provider for the procedure. Treating physicians are unlikely to use and order our products unless coverage is provided, and the reimbursement is adequate to cover all or a significant portion of the cost of the procedures which utilize our products. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover or adequately reimburse for our product candidates or procedures using our product candidates, could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved. Therefore, coverage and adequate reimbursement for procedures which utilize new products is critical to the acceptance of such new products.

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere has been cost containment, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of less expensive products and procedures. Third-party payors decide which products and procedures they will pay for and establish reimbursement and co-payment levels. Government and other third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for health care products and procedures, examining the cost effectiveness of procedures, and the products used in such procedures, in addition to their safety and efficacy, and limiting or attempting to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for our product candidates, if approved, or, if coverage is available, the level of direct or indirect reimbursement.

We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the successful commercialization of new products. Further, the adoption and implementation of any future governmental cost containment or other health reform initiative may result in additional downward pressure on the price that we may receive for any approved product.

Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which procedures using new products will be covered and reimbursed. The Medicare and Medicaid programs are increasingly used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products.

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. Additionally, we may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. We cannot be sure that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be available for our product candidates, if approved. Also, we cannot be sure that reimbursement amounts will not reduce the demand for, or the price of, our future products. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to commercialize our product candidates, or achieve profitably at all, even if approved.

Our business entails a significant risk of clinical trial and/or product liability and our ability to obtain sufficient insurance coverage could have a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Our business exposes us to significant clinical trial and/or product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Clinical trial and/or product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, product liability claims could result in an FDA investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our products, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs and potentially a recall of our products or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which they may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our products, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources, substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients and a decline in our company valuation. While we currently have clinical trial liability insurance, we do not have product liability insurance and do not anticipate obtaining product liability insurance until such time as we have received FDA or other comparable foreign authority approval for a product and there is a product that is being provided to patients outside of clinical trials. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. In some countries, the institution or the doctors involved do not have sufficient insurance to cover their activities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance are becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by clinical trial and product liability claims that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Ordinary Shares

Our executive officers, directors and principal shareholders will maintain the ability to exert significant control over matters submitted to our shareholders for approval.

As of March 6, 2024, our executive officers, directors and principal shareholders who own more than 5% of our outstanding Ordinary Shares, in the aggregate, beneficially own a substantial majority of our ordinary shares. As a result, if these shareholders were to act together, they would be able to exert significant influence over all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval (including a prospective acquisition or other change of control of our company), as well as our management and affairs.

We may be or may become classified as a passive foreign investment company. If we are or become classified as a passive foreign investment company, our U.S. shareholders may suffer adverse tax consequences as a result.

Generally, for any taxable year, if at least 75% of our gross income is passive income, or at least 50% of the value of our assets is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income, including cash, we would be characterized as a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For purposes of these tests, passive income includes dividends, interest gains from commodities and securities transactions, the excess of gains over losses from the disposition of assets which produce passive income (including amounts derived by reason of the temporary investment of funds raised in offerings of our shares) and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. If we are characterized as a PFIC, our U.S. shareholders may suffer adverse tax consequences, including having gains realized on the sale of our Ordinary Shares treated as ordinary income, rather than capital gain, the loss of the preferential rate applicable to dividends received on our Ordinary Shares by individuals who are U.S. holders, and having interest charges apply to distributions by us and gains from the sales of our shares.

Our status as a PFIC will depend on the nature and composition of our income and the nature, composition and value of our assets (which, assuming we are not a “controlled foreign corporation,” or a CFC, under Section 957(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, for the year being tested, may be determined based on the fair market value of each asset, with the value of goodwill and going concern value determined in large part by reference to the market value of our Ordinary Shares, which may be volatile). Based upon the estimated value of our assets, including any goodwill, and the nature and estimated composition of our income and assets, we may be classified as a PFIC for the taxable year ended December 31, 2023, and in future taxable years. In particular, so long as we do not generate revenue from operations for any taxable year and do not receive any research and development grants, or even if we receive a research and development grant, if such grant does not constitute gross income for United States federal income tax purposes, we likely will be classified as a PFIC for such taxable year. Because the determination of whether we are a PFIC for any taxable year is a factual determination made annually after the end of each taxable year, there can be no assurance that we will not be considered a PFIC in any taxable year.

The tax consequences that would apply if we were classified as a PFIC would also be different from those described above if a U.S. shareholder were able to make a valid qualified electing fund, or QEF, election. At this time, we do not expect to provide U.S. shareholders with the information necessary for a U.S. shareholder to make a QEF election. Prospective investors should assume that a QEF election will not be available.

If a United States person is treated as owning at least 10% of our shares, such holder may be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences.

If a United States person is treated as owning (directly, indirectly or constructively) at least 10% of the value or voting power of our shares, such person may be treated as a “United States shareholder” with respect to each “controlled foreign corporation” in our group (if any). Because our group includes one or more U.S. subsidiaries, we expect that certain of our non-U.S. subsidiaries will be treated as controlled foreign corporations (regardless of whether we are or are not treated as a controlled foreign corporation). A United States shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation may be required to annually report and include in its U.S. taxable income its pro rata share of “Subpart F income,” “global intangible low-taxed income” and investments in U.S. property by controlled foreign corporations, whether or not we make any distributions. An individual that is a United States shareholder with respect to a controlled foreign corporation generally would not be allowed certain tax deductions or foreign tax credits that would be allowed to a United States shareholder that is a U.S. corporation. A failure to comply with these reporting obligations may subject you to significant monetary penalties and may prevent the statute of limitations with respect to your U.S. federal income tax return for the year for which reporting was due from starting. We cannot provide any assurances that we will assist investors in determining whether any of our non-U.S. subsidiaries are treated as a controlled foreign corporation or whether such investor is treated as a United States shareholder with respect to any of such controlled foreign corporations or furnish to any United States shareholders information that may be necessary to comply with the aforementioned reporting and tax paying obligations. A United States investor should consult their own advisors regarding the potential application of these rules to its investment in the shares.

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted, and intend, to follow certain home country corporate governance practices instead of otherwise applicable Nasdaq requirements, and we will not be subject to certain U.S. securities laws including, but not limited to, U.S. proxy rules and the filing of certain Exchange Act reports.

As a foreign private issuer, we will be permitted, and intend, to follow certain home country corporate governance practices instead of those otherwise required by the Nasdaq Stock Market for domestic U.S. issuers. Following our home country governance practices as opposed to the requirements that would otherwise apply to a U.S. company listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market may provide less protection to you than what is accorded to investors under the listing rules of Nasdaq applicable to domestic U.S. issuers.

As a foreign private issuer, we will be exempt from the rules and regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, related to the furnishing and content of proxy statements, including the applicable compensation disclosure requirements. Nevertheless, pursuant to regulations promulgated under the Israeli Companies Law, 5759-1999, or the Israeli Companies Law, we are required to disclose the annual compensation of our five most highly compensated office holders on an individual basis. Such disclosure will not be as extensive as that required of a U.S. domestic issuer. Our officers, directors and principal shareholders will also be exempt from the reporting and short-swing profit recovery provisions contained in Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In addition, we will not be required under the Exchange Act to file reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as U.S. domestic companies whose securities are registered under the Exchange Act, and we will be exempt from filing quarterly reports with the SEC under the Exchange Act. Moreover, we will not be required to comply with Regulation FD, which restricts the selective disclosure of material information, although we intend to voluntarily adopt a corporate disclosure policy substantially similar to Regulation FD. These exemptions and leniencies will reduce the frequency and scope of information and protections to which you may otherwise have been eligible in relation to a U.S. domestic issuer.

We would lose our foreign private issuer status if a majority of our shares are owned by U.S. residents and a majority of our directors or executive officers are U.S. citizens or residents or we fail to meet additional requirements necessary to avoid loss of foreign private issuer status. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws as a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher. If we are not a foreign private issuer, we will be required to file periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which are more detailed and extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. We may also be required to modify certain of our policies to comply with accepted governance practices associated with U.S. domestic issuers. Such conversion and modifications will involve additional costs. In addition, we would lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements on U.S. stock exchanges that are available to foreign private issuers.

We are an emerging growth company and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our Ordinary Shares less attractive to investors.

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or the JOBS Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

For as long as we remain an emerging growth company we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies.” These exemptions include:

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of: (i) the last day of our fiscal year during which we have total annual gross revenues of at least $1.235 billion; (ii) December 31, 2025; (iii) the date on which we have, during the previous three-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt; or (iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” under the Exchange Act. We have opted out of the extended transition period made available to emerging growth companies to comply with newly adopted public company accounting requirements.

When we are no longer deemed to be an emerging growth company, we will not be entitled to the exemptions provided in the JOBS Act discussed above. We cannot predict if investors will find our Ordinary Shares less attractive as a result of our reliance on exemptions under the JOBS Act. If some investors find our Ordinary Shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our Ordinary Shares and our share price may be more volatile.

Risks Related to Israeli Law and Our Operations in Israel

We conduct our operations in Israel. Conditions in Israel, including the recent attack by Hamas and other terrorist organizations and Israel’s war against them, may affect our operations.

Our headquarters and principal offices and most of our operations are located in the State of Israel. In addition, all of our key employees and officers are residents of Israel. Accordingly, political, economic and military conditions in Israel and the surrounding region may directly affect our business.

Any hostilities involving Israel or the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its present trading partners, or a significant downturn in the economic or financial condition of Israel, could adversely affect our operations. Ongoing and revived hostilities or other Israeli political or economic factors could harm our operations, product development and results of operations.

On October 7, 2023, an unprecedented attack was launched against Israel by terrorists from the Hamas terrorist organization that infiltrated Israel’s southern border from the Gaza Strip and in other areas within the state of Israel attacking civilians and military targets while simultaneously launching extensive rocket attacks on the Israeli population. In response, the Security Cabinet of the State of Israel declared war against Hamas. To date, the State of Israel continues to be at war with Hamas.

Since the war broke out on October 7, 2023, our operations have not been adversely affected by this situation. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict the intensity or duration of the war, nor can we predict how this war will ultimately affect Israel’s economy in general and we continue to monitor the situation closely and examine the potential disruptions that could adversely affect our operations.

In connection with the Israeli security cabinet’s declaration of war against Hamas and possible hostilities with other organizations, several hundred thousand Israeli military reservists were drafted to perform immediate military service. As of March 6, 2024, only one of our current employees in Israel, who is not a management or key employee, has been called to active military duty. We rely on service providers located in Israel and have entered into certain agreements with Israeli counterparties. Employees of such service providers or contractual counterparties may be called for service in the current or future wars or other armed conflicts with Hamas and such persons may be absent from their positions for a period of time. As of March 6, 2024, we have not been impacted by any absences of personnel at our service providers or counterparties located in Israel. However, military service call ups that result in absences of personnel from us, our service providers or contractual counterparties in Israel may disrupt our operations and absences for an extended period of time may materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Following the attack by Hamas on Israel’s southern border, Hezbollah, a terrorist organization in Lebanon has also launched missile, rocket, and shooting attacks against Israeli military sites, troops, and Israeli towns in northern Israel. In response to these attacks, the Israeli army has carried out a number of targeted strikes on sites belonging to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. It is possible that other terrorist organizations, including Palestinian military organizations in the West Bank, as well as other hostile countries, such as Iran, will join the hostilities. Such hostilities may include terror and missile attacks. Any hostilities involving Israel or the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its trading partners could adversely affect our operations and results of operations. Our insurance policies do not cover losses that may occur as a result of events associated with war and terrorism.

Although the Israeli government currently covers the reinstatement value of direct damages that are caused by terrorist attacks or acts of war, we cannot assure you that this government coverage will be maintained or that it will sufficiently cover our potential damages. Any losses or damages incurred by us could have a material adverse effect on our business. Any armed conflicts or political instability in the region would likely negatively affect business conditions and could harm our results of operations.

Several countries, principally in the Middle East, still restrict doing business with Israel and Israeli companies, and additional countries may impose restrictions on doing business with Israel and Israeli companies, whether as a result of hostilities in the region or otherwise. In addition, there have been increased efforts by activists to cause companies and consumers to boycott Israeli goods and cooperation with Israeli-related entities based on Israeli government policies. Such actions, particularly if they become more widespread, may adversely impact our ability to collaborate with other third parties. Any hostilities involving Israel, any interruption or curtailment of trade or scientific cooperation between Israel and its present partners, or a significant downturn in the economic or financial condition of Israel could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operations. Moreover, we cannot predict how this war will ultimately affect Israel’s economy in general, which may involve a downgrade in Israel’s credit rating by rating agencies (such as the recent downgrade by Moody’s of its credit rating of Israel from A1 to A2, as well as the downgrade of its outlook rating from “stable” to “negative”). We may also be targeted by cyber terrorists specifically because we are an Israeli-related company.

Furthermore, the Israeli government is currently pursuing extensive changes to Israel’s judicial system, which have sparked extensive political debate. In response to the foregoing developments, a series of civil unrests and demonstrations throughout Israel took place. Additionally, individuals, organizations, and institutions, both within and outside of Israel, have voiced concerns that the proposed changes may negatively impact the business environment in Israel including due to reluctance of foreign investors to invest or conduct business in Israel, as well as to increased currency fluctuations, downgrades in credit rating, increased interest rates, increased volatility in securities markets, and other changes in macroeconomic conditions. Such proposed changes may also adversely affect the labor market in Israel or lead to political instability or civil unrest. To the extent that any of these negative developments do occur, they may have an adverse effect on our business, our results of operations and our ability to raise additional funds, if deemed necessary by our management and board of directors.

Our operations are subject to currency and interest rate fluctuations.

Although our functional currency is the U.S. dollar, and our financial records are maintained in U.S. dollars, we also incur expenses in Euros and NIS. In the future, we expect that a substantial portion of our revenues will be generated in U.S. dollars, Euros and other foreign currencies, although we currently incur a significant portion of our expenses in currencies other than U.S. dollars, mainly NIS. As a result, we are affected by foreign currency exchange fluctuations through both translation risk and transaction risk, and our financial results may be affected by fluctuations in the exchange rates of currencies in the countries in which our prospective product candidates may be sold. We currently partially hedge our foreign currency exchange rate risk to decrease the risk of financial exposure from fluctuations in the exchange rates of our principal operating currencies, but these hedge agreements may not be sufficient to fully protect us from the risks related to exchange rate fluctuations.

We received Israeli government grants for certain of our research and development activities, the terms of which may require us to pay royalties and to satisfy specified conditions in order to manufacture products and transfer technologies outside of Israel. If we fail to satisfy these conditions, we may be required to pay penalties and refund grants previously received.

Our research and development efforts have been financed in part through royalty-bearing and non-royalty-bearing grants in an aggregate amount of $6.6 million that we received from the IIA as of March 6, 2024. The last IIA approved research and development grants ended on November 30, 2022. With respect to the royalty-bearing grants we are committed to pay royalties at a rate of 3.0% on sales proceeds from our products that were developed under IIA programs up to the total amount of grants received, linked to the U.S. dollar and bearing interest. Until October 25, 2023, the interest was calculated at a rate based on 12-month LIBOR applicable to U.S. dollar deposits. However, on October 25, 2023, the IIA published a directive concerning changes in royalties to address the expiration of the LIBOR. Under such directive, regarding IIA grants approved by the IIA prior to January 1, 2024 but which are outstanding thereafter, as of January 1, 2024 the annual interest is calculated at a rate based on 12-month SOFR, or at an alternative rate published by the Bank of Israel plus 0.71513%; and, for grants approved on or following January 1, 2024 the annual interest shall be the higher of (i) the 12 months SOFR interest rate, plus 1%, or (ii) a fixed annual interest rate of 4%.

As of December 31, 2023, our contingent liabilities regarding IIA grants received by us were in an aggregate amount of $4.9 million. We are further required to comply with the requirements of the Israeli Encouragement of Industrial Research, Development and Technological Innovation Law, 5744-1984, as amended, and related regulations, or the Research Law, with respect to those past grants. When a company develops know-how, technology or products using IIA grants, the terms of these grants and the Research Law restrict the transfer or license of such know-how, and the transfer of manufacturing or manufacturing rights of such products, technologies or know-how outside of Israel, without the prior approval of the IIA. Therefore, the discretionary approval of an IIA committee would be required for any transfer or license to third parties inside or outside of Israel of know how or for the transfer outside of Israel of manufacturing or manufacturing rights related to those aspects of such technologies. We may not receive those approvals. Furthermore, the IIA may impose certain conditions on any arrangement under which it permits us to transfer technology or development.

The transfer or license of IIA-supported technology or know-how outside of Israel and the transfer of manufacturing of IIA-supported products, technology or know-how outside of Israel may involve the payment of significant amounts, depending upon the value of the transferred or licensed technology or know-how, our research and development expenses, the amount of IIA support, the time of completion of the IIA-supported research project and other factors. These restrictions and requirements for payment may impair our ability to sell, license or otherwise transfer our technology assets outside of Israel or to outsource or transfer development or manufacturing activities with respect to any product or technology outside of Israel. Furthermore, the consideration available to our shareholders in a transaction involving the transfer outside of Israel of technology or know-how developed with IIA funding (such as a merger or similar transaction) may be reduced by any amounts that we are required to pay to the IIA.

Provisions of Israeli law and our amended and restated articles of association may delay, prevent or otherwise impede a merger with, or an acquisition of, us, which could prevent a change of control, even when the terms of such a transaction are favorable to us and our shareholders.

Israeli corporate law regulates mergers, requires tender offers for acquisitions of shares above specified thresholds, requires special approvals for transactions involving directors, officers or significant shareholders and regulates other matters that may be relevant to such types of transactions. For example, a merger may not be consummated unless at least 50 days have passed from the date on which a merger proposal is filed by each merging company with the Israel Registrar of Companies and at least 30 days have passed from the date on which the shareholders of both merging companies have approved the merger. In addition, a majority of each class of securities of the target company must approve a merger. Moreover, a tender offer for all of a company’s issued and outstanding shares can only be completed if the acquirer receives positive responses from the holders of at least 95% of the issued share capital. Completion of the tender offer also requires approval of a majority of the offerees that do not have a personal interest in the tender offer, unless, following consummation of the tender offer, the acquirer would hold at least 98% of the Company’s outstanding shares. Furthermore, the shareholders, including those who indicated their acceptance of the tender offer, may, at any time within six months following the completion of the tender offer, claim that the consideration for the acquisition of the shares does not reflect their fair market value, and petition an Israeli court to alter the consideration for the acquisition accordingly, unless the acquirer stipulated in its tender offer that a shareholder that accepts the offer may not seek such appraisal rights, and the acquirer or the company published all required information with respect to the tender offer prior to the tender offer’s response date.

Furthermore, Israeli tax considerations may make potential transactions unappealing to us or to our shareholders whose country of residence does not have a tax treaty with Israel granting tax relief to such shareholders from Israeli tax. For example, Israeli tax law does not recognize tax-free share exchanges to the same extent as U.S. tax law. With respect to mergers, Israeli tax law allows for tax deferral in certain circumstances but makes the deferral contingent on the fulfillment of a number of conditions, including, in some cases, a holding period of two years from the date of the transaction during which sales and dispositions of shares of the participating companies are subject to certain restrictions. Moreover, with respect to certain share swap transactions, the tax deferral is limited in time, and when such time expires, the tax becomes payable even if no disposition of the shares has occurred. These provisions could delay, prevent or impede an acquisition of us or our merger with another company, even if such an acquisition or merger would be beneficial to us or to our shareholders.

It may be difficult to enforce a judgment of a U.S. court against us and our executive officers and directors in Israel or the United States, to assert U.S. securities laws claims in Israel or to serve process on our executive officers and directors and these experts.

We were incorporated in Israel. Substantially all of our executive officers and directors reside outside of the United States, and all of our assets and most of the assets of these persons are located outside of the United States. Therefore, a judgment obtained against us, or any of these persons, including a judgment based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws, may not be collectible in the United States and may not be enforced by an Israeli court. It also may be difficult for you to effect service of process on these persons in the United States or to assert U.S. securities law claims in original actions instituted in Israel. Additionally, it may be difficult for an investor, or any other person or entity, to initiate an action with respect to U.S. securities laws in Israel. Israeli courts may refuse to hear a claim based on an alleged violation of U.S. securities laws reasoning that Israel is not the most appropriate forum in which to bring such a claim. In addition, even if an Israeli court agrees to hear a claim, it may determine that Israeli law and not U.S. law is applicable to the claim. If U.S. law is found to be applicable, the content of applicable U.S. law must be proven as a fact by expert witnesses, which can be a time consuming and costly process. Certain matters of procedure will also be governed by Israeli law. There is little binding case law in Israel that addresses the matters described above. As a result of the difficulty associated with enforcing a judgment against us in Israel, you may not be able to collect any damages awarded by either a U.S. or foreign court.

Your rights and responsibilities as a shareholder will be governed in key respects by Israeli laws, which differs in some material respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders of U.S. companies.

The rights and responsibilities of the holders of our Ordinary Shares are governed by our amended and restated articles of association and by Israeli law. These rights and responsibilities differ in some material respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders in U.S. companies. In particular, a shareholder of an Israeli company has a duty to act in good faith and in a customary manner in exercising its rights and performing its obligations towards the company and other shareholders, and to refrain from abusing its power in such company, including, among other things, in voting at a general meeting of shareholders on matters such as amendments to a company’s amended and restated articles of association, increases in a company’s authorized share capital, mergers and acquisitions and related party transactions requiring shareholder approval, as well as a general duty to refrain from discriminating against other shareholders. In addition, a shareholder who is aware that it possesses the power to determine the outcome of a vote at a meeting of the shareholders or to appoint or prevent the appointment of a director or executive officer in the company has a duty of fairness toward the company. However, Israeli law does not define the substance of this duty of fairness. See “Item 6.C. Board Practices— Duties of Shareholders” for additional information. There is limited case law available to assist us in understanding the nature of these duties or the implications of these provisions. These provisions may be interpreted to impose additional obligations and liabilities on holders of our Ordinary Shares that are not typically imposed on shareholders of U.S. companies.

General Risk Factors

The market price of our Ordinary Shares may be highly volatile, and you may not be able to resell your Ordinary Shares at or above the price you paid.

The trading price of our Ordinary Shares is likely to be volatile. The stock market in general, and the market for pharmaceutical companies in particular, has experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies, which has resulted in decreased stock prices for many companies notwithstanding the lack of a fundamental change in their underlying business models or prospects. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our Ordinary Shares, regardless of our actual operating performance. As a result of this volatility, you may not be able to sell your Ordinary Shares at or above the price you paid. The following factors, in addition to other risk factors described in this section, may have a significant impact on the market price of our Ordinary Shares:

If our quarterly operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our Ordinary Shares could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our stock to fluctuate substantially. We believe that quarterly comparisons of our financial results are not necessarily meaningful and should not be relied upon as an indication of our future performance.

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation often has been instituted against that company. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could cause us to incur substantial costs to defend such claims and divert management’s attention and resources, which could seriously harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, cyber-attacks or a deficiency in our cybersecurity.

Despite the implementation of security measures intended to secure our data against impermissible access and to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, our internal computer systems, and those of third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions over the Internet, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Moreover, following COVID-19, our employees are frequently working from their homes and remotely access our IT networks. Such remote working mode creates the risk of attacking the end-point user stations, connection channels and gateways. If such an event was to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, including under data privacy laws such as the GDPR, damage to our reputation, and the further development of our drug candidates could be delayed.

Our future success depends in part on our ability to retain our senior management team and to attract, retain and motivate other qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the members of our senior management team. The loss of their services without a proper replacement may adversely impact the achievement of our objectives. Our employees may leave our employment at any time. Recruiting and retaining other qualified employees, consultants and advisors for our business, including scientific and technical personnel, will also be critical to our success. There is currently a shortage of skilled personnel in our industry, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. As a result, competition for skilled personnel is intense, and the turnover rate can be high. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical companies for individuals with similar skill sets. In addition, failure to succeed in preclinical studies or clinical trials may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified personnel. The inability to recruit and retain qualified personnel, or the loss of the services of any members of our senior management team without proper replacement, may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives. We do not maintain key man insurance for our senior management team.

We will continue to incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company in the United States, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to compliance initiatives.

As a public company whose Ordinary Shares are listed in the United States, we are subject to an extensive regulatory regime, requiring us, among other things, to maintain various internal controls and facilities and to prepare and file periodic and current reports and statements, including reports on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Complying with these requirements is costly and time consuming. In the event that we are unable to demonstrate compliance with our obligations as a public company in a timely manner, or are unable to produce timely or accurate financial statements, we may be subject to sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities, such as the SEC or The Nasdaq Capital Market, and investors may lose confidence in our operating results and the price of our Ordinary Shares could decline.

Our independent registered public accounting firm was not engaged to perform an audit of our internal control over financial reporting, and as long as we remain an emerging growth company, as such term is defined in the JOBS Act, we will be exempt from the requirement to have an independent registered public accounting firm perform such audit. Accordingly, no such opinion was expressed or will be expressed any during any such period. Once we cease to qualify as an emerging growth company our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to attest to our management’s annual assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, which will entail additional costs and expenses.

We have never paid cash dividends on our share capital, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our Ordinary Shares. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our Ordinary Shares will be investors’ sole source of gain for the foreseeable future. In addition, Israeli law limits our ability to declare and pay dividends, and may subject our dividends to Israeli withholding taxes.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish or cease publishing research or reports about us, our business or our market, or if they adversely change their recommendations or publish negative reports regarding our business or our shares, our share price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our Ordinary Shares will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts may publish about us, our business, our market or our competitors. We do not have any control over these analysts and we cannot provide any assurance that analysts will cover us or provide favorable coverage. If any of the analysts who may cover us adversely change their recommendation regarding our shares, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, our share price would likely decline. If any analyst who may cover us were to cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

Our amended and restated articles of association provide that, unless we consent in writing to an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America shall be the sole and exclusive forum for resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, which could limit our shareholders’ ability to choose the judicial forum for disputes with us, our directors, shareholders, or other employees.

As of May 5, 2023, our amended and restated articles of association provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for U.S. federal and state courts over all such Securities Act actions. Accordingly, both U.S. state and federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain such claims. To prevent having to litigate claims in multiple jurisdictions and the threat of inconsistent or contrary rulings by different courts, among other considerations, our amended and restated articles of association provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. This exclusive forum provision will not apply to suits brought to enforce any liability or duty created by the Exchange Act, and our shareholders cannot and will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act as a result of our exclusive forum provision.

Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any of our securities shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing provision of our amended and restated articles of association. However, the enforceability of similar forum provisions (including exclusive federal forum provisions for actions, suits, or proceedings asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act) in other companies’ organizational documents has been challenged in legal proceedings, and there is uncertainty as to whether courts would enforce the exclusive forum provision in our amended and restated articles of association. If a court were to find the exclusive forum provision contained in our amended and restated articles of association to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Although we believe the exclusive forum provision benefit us by providing increased consistency in the application of U.S. federal securities laws the Israeli Companies Law, or New York law, as applicable, in the types of lawsuits to which they apply, such exclusive forum provision may limit a shareholder’s ability to bring a claim in the judicial forum that they find favorable and may increase certain litigation costs for disputes with us or any of our directors, shareholders, officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims against us and our current and former directors, shareholders, officers, or other employees.

ITEM 4. INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY

A. History and Development of the Company.

We were incorporated in the State of Israel on February 28, 2008. Our Ordinary Shares are currently listed for trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “PYPD.”

Our principal executive offices are located at 18 Hasivim Street, Petach Tikva 4959376, Israel. Our telephone number in Israel is +972 (74) 719-5700. Our website address is www.polypid.com. The information contained on our website or available through our website is not incorporated by reference into and should not be considered a part of this annual report on Form 20-F, and the reference to our website in this annual report on Form 20-F is an inactive textual reference only. PolyPid Inc. is our agent in the United States, and its address is 372 Franklin Ave., P.O. Box 558, Nutley, NJ 07110.

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in Section 2(a) of the Securities Act, as implemented under the JOBS Act. As such, we are eligible to, and intend to, take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies including but not limited to not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of the SEC rules under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We could remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the date of our first sale of common equity securities pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Securities Act, which was in June 2020, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our Ordinary Shares that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30th, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

We are a foreign private issuer as defined by the rules under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Our status as a foreign private issuer also exempts us from compliance with certain laws and regulations of the SEC and certain regulations of the Nasdaq Stock Market, including the proxy rules, the short-swing profits recapture rules, and certain governance requirements such as independent director oversight of the nomination of directors and executive compensation. In addition, we are not required to file annual, quarterly and current reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as U.S. domestic companies registered under the Exchange Act.

In 2023, 2022 and 2021, our capital expenditures amounted to $0.2 million, $2.2 million and $4 million, respectively. Our current capital expenditures are primarily for manufacturing facility and equipment, computers, software, research and development equipment and office improvements substantially all in Israel, and we expect to finance these expenditures primarily from cash on hand.

B. Business Overview.

We are a Phase 3 clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing targeted, locally administered and prolonged-release therapeutics using our proprietary PLEX technology. Our product candidates are designed to address diseases with high unmet medical needs by pairing our PLEX technology with drugs already approved by the FDA or innovative drug candidates to achieve a novel therapeutic effect. Our PLEX technology is designed to deliver drugs directly to targeted treated sites in the body at predetermined release rates and predetermined durations ranging from several days to several months. We believe that our PLEX technology and product candidates have the potential to significantly improve the management of a variety of medical conditions, including SSIs and cancer. Our lead product candidate, D-PLEX₁₀₀, is in a pivotal Phase 3 confirmatory trial for the potential approval for prevention of SSIs in patients undergoing abdominal colorectal surgery with large incisions. D-PLEX₁₀₀ pairs our novel proprietary PLEX technology with doxycycline, a first-line, broad spectrum and FDA-approved antibiotic D-PLEX₁₀₀ is administered directly into the surgical site during surgery, and provides a prolonged and continuous release of the broad-spectrum antibiotic, resulting in high local concentration of the drug for a period of 30 days for the prevention of SSIs, including SSIs caused by SoC antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Infections resulting from surgery can be fatal and create a significant public health burden despite the extensive use of systemically administered antibiotics both pre- and post-operatively and other measures taken to reduce infection risk in the intra-operative setting.

The WHO estimates that SSIs result in up to $10 billion of additional hospital costs per year in the United States alone, and a further €11 billion per year in the EU. The CDC estimates that SSIs are the costliest HAI type of event in the United States. SSIs occur in approximately 2% to 5% of all patients undergoing inpatient surgery worldwide and account for 20% of all HAIs in United States. In their last guidelines, the WHO and the CDC have labeled SSIs as a high priority unmet medical need due to the associated morbidity, mortality and economic cost burden.

We believe that D-PLEX₁₀₀, if approved, would be a significant improvement over the current SoC, which includes systemic administration of antibiotics.

We initiated two Phase 3 trials of D-PLEX₁₀₀, which we refer to as SHIELD I and SHIELD II, for the prevention of abdominal (soft tissue) SSIs in the third and fourth quarters of 2020, respectively. In May 2021, the FDA agreed in a Type B meeting that a single pivotal Phase 3 study is sufficient, provided the study results are adequate, for potential approval of a D-PLEX₁₀₀ NDA for the prevention of SSIs in colorectal surgery.

In September 2022, we announced top-line results from the SHIELD I Phase 3 study of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs in abdominal surgery. SHIELD I study did not achieve its primary endpoint of reduction in SSIs, re-interventions due to SSIs and mortality: in the ITT population, the local administration of D-PLEX₁₀₀ and SoC (n=485) resulted in a decrease in the primary endpoint of 23% compared to SoC alone (n=489) (p=0.1520). That said, in a pre-specified subgroup ITT analysis requested by the FDA of a total of 423 subjects with large incisions (>20 centimeters), the local administration of D-PLEX₁₀₀ resulted in a significant reduction of 54% in the primary endpoint, compared to SoC alone (p=0.0032). Within the first 30 days post-surgery, SSIs decreased from 9.7% in the SoC treatment arm (n=211), as compared to 4.4% in the D-PLEX₁₀₀ treatment arm (n=212). In addition, in exploratory post hoc analysis, the SHIELD I study also showed a 34% reduction in the primary endpoint in patients with one or more patient-specific risk factors (documented obesity- body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/smoking) compared to SoC (post hoc analysis; p=0.047; n=680). Together, these results suggest potential prophylactic efficacy when D-PLEX is administered concomitantly with systemic antibacterial prophylaxis in patients with increased SSI risk factors, whether procedural or patient-specific comorbidities. Patients with either of these risk profiles are readily identifiable by the surgeon in the pre- and intra-operative periods, offering the option to apply D-PLEX after fascial closure but before skin closure. The SHIELD I study demonstrated a good safety profile of D-PLEX₁₀₀ : the overall incidence of TEAEs was similar between study arms with numerically lower incidences of severe and serious treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and any TEAEs requiring surgical reinterventions in the D-PLEX arm compared to the SoC arm.

In November 2022, we provided the FDA with available data from the SHIELD I study as part of a Type D meeting request. Following positive Type D meeting communication with the FDA, which took place in January 2023 on the SHIELD I Phase 3 data, we now have a clear regulatory pathway towards a potential NDA submission. Based on the data, particularly the 54% reduction observed in the primary endpoint in complex surgeries in a pre-specified subgroup analysis of patients with large open incisions (p=0.0032, n=423) compared to SoC, the FDA acknowledged that the SHIELD I results may provide supportive evidence on this population and recommended that we conduct an additional study to support a potential NDA submission. The FDA stated that the ongoing SHIELD II study could potentially serve as such a study. The FDA also recognized that D-PLEX₁₀₀’s proposed indication is for the prevention of infection and has the potential for wide use.

In March 2023, we received feedback in a national scientific advice meeting from the Swedish MPA similar to the Type D meeting feedback previously received from the FDA. Swedish MPA recommended that we confirm the results with an additional Phase 3 study to support a MAA submission and confirmed that clinical safety data obtained to date in abdominal surgery studies is sufficient for a MAA submission.

Figure 1: SHIELD I Study Population

Abbreviations: SSI, surgical site infection; sSSI, superficial incisional surgical site infection; dSSI, deep incisional surgical site infection; SOC, standard of care; D-PLEX, doxycycline-Polymer-Lipid Encapsulation matriX. P-values were calculated as follows: All-cause 30-day mortality rates were based on the Z test, days to SSI were based on the Wilcoxon Rank- Sum test. The rest of the parameters (categorical Yes/No variables) were based on either Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test or the Fisher exact test.

Figure 2: SHIELD I Large-Incision Subgroup Analysis

SHIELD II is a prospective, multinational, randomized, double blind Phase 3 trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of D-PLEX₁₀₀ administered concomitantly with SoC, compared to SoC alone arm, in the prevention of post abdominal-surgery incisional infection in patients undergoing surgeries with incisions greater than 20 cm. The primary endpoint of the trial is measured by the proportion of subjects with either an SSI event as determined by a blinded and independent adjudication committee, reintervention, or mortality for any reason within 30 days post-surgery. Patient safety will be monitored for an additional 30 days. The trial will enroll patients in centers in the United States, Europe and Israel.

We resumed recruitment into the SHIELD II trial in June 2023. As of March 6, 2024, approximately 120 patients were already enrolled. Unblinded interim analysis is planned to be conducted once approximately 400 patients complete their 30-day follow-up, which is expected mid-2024. Top-line results are expected in the second half of 2024.

In October 2019, we reported topline data from our Phase 2 clinical trial of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs in patients undergoing abdominal (soft tissue) surgery. Patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀ and the SoC had a statistically significant reduction of 59% (p=0.0086) in deep or superficial incisional SSIs or mortality for any reason within 30 days of surgery, which was the primary endpoint for the trial, as compared to patients who received the SoC alone. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference (p=0.0290) in patient deaths within 60 days of surgery, with no deaths observed in the D-PLEX₁₀₀ treatment arm, as compared to five deaths observed in the standard-of-care arm. In this trial, D-PLEX₁₀₀ was observed to be generally well tolerated, with no confirmed drug-related serious adverse events, or SAEs, and did not increase wound healing impairment at the incision site as compared to the control arm.

In January 2018, we reported data from our Phase 1b/2 clinical trial of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of sternal SSIs after cardiac surgery. None of the 58 patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀ and the SoC had a sternal infection within 90 days post-surgery, which was the primary endpoint of the trial, as compared to one patient in the group treated with the SoC alone, representing a 4.3% infection rate. In this trial, D-PLEX₁₀₀ was observed to be generally well tolerated, with no drug-related SAEs and no drug-related wound healing issues at the incision site. The results of this trial were published in the Journal of Cardiac Surgery in October 2020.

In December 2019, we initiated a potentially pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of post-cardiac sternal (bone) SSIs, and we enrolled the first patient in February 2020. We paused enrollment in this trial as we determined to initially focus on abdominal (soft tissue) surgeries.

We intend to pursue a broad label for D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs, the scope of which will depend on the clinical data generated from our Phase 3 clinical trials and discussions with the FDA and the EMA.

We intend to seek approval of D-PLEX₁₀₀ under Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, which provides an abbreviated pathway for marketing approval by the FDA in the United States, and will seek approval under the comparable hybrid application pathway in the EU. Such abbreviated approval pathways may not lead to a faster development or review process compared to traditional approval pathways and do not increase the likelihood that D-PLEX₁₀₀ will receive regulatory approval in the United States or the EU. We received three QIDP designations from the FDA for D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of post-abdominal surgery incisional infection, for the prevention of sternal wound infection post-cardiac surgery, and for prevention of post-colorectal SSIs. The QIDP designation from the FDA confers, among other benefits, a five-year extension to any period of non-patent exclusivity awarded upon approval, such as a three-year period of exclusivity for new clinical investigations of previously approved products, which we expect for D-PLEX₁₀₀, if approved. Additionally, in November 2018 we received Fast Track Designation from the FDA for D-PLEX₁₀₀ for topical use for the prevention of sternal infections post-cardiac surgery, in July 2020, for the prevention of post-abdominal surgery incisional infections and in September 2021 for prevention of post-colorectal SSIs. Fast Track Designation could potentially expedite the FDA’s review of D-PLEX₁₀₀ and enables early and frequent communication with the FDA as we continue to generate data from our ongoing and planned clinical trials.

In November 2020, we received breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA for the prevention of SSIs in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery based on the clinical results of our Phase 2 trial. The breakthrough therapy designation is granted based on preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. The breakthrough therapy designation is designed to expedite the development and review of drugs that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition so patients may have access to therapies through the FDA approval as soon as possible. The breakthrough therapy designation allows for frequent discussions with the FDA and ensures that a dedicated senior team from the FDA reviews our product filling.

In Europe, on August 2, 2022, we entered into a license, distribution and supply agreement with Mercury Pharma Group Limited, under the trade name Advanz Pharma Holdings, or Advanz, pursuant to which we granted the exclusive right to Advanz to market, advertise, promote, distribute, offer for sale, sell and import our product D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of (i) post abdominal surgery incisional infection and/or (ii) post cardiac surgery sternal infection in the EEA and the United Kingdom. The term of the license is until the later of December 31, 2035, or 10 years after the first commercial sale of D-PLEX₁₀₀. The license is also terminable by either party under certain limited circumstances.

Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment immediately upon signing and are entitled to additional development-related milestones for a total of up to €23 million (approximately $24.8 million) as follows: upfront payment of €2.5 million (approximately $2.6 million), up to €12.25 million (approximately $13.2 million) contingent upon positive top-line results of our SHIELD I Phase 3 study and additional development-related milestones of up to €8.25 million (approximately $8.9 million). Upon commercialization, we will receive up to €87 million (approximately $94 million) in sales-related milestones. In addition, we will also supply D-PLEX₁₀₀ to Advanz for a transfer price and will be entitled to royalties on net sales in double-digit percentages of up to mid-twenties.

In September 2022, we received confirmation from the EMA that D-PLEX₁₀₀ is eligible for submission of a MAA in the EU under the EMA’s centralized procedure. The centralized process eligibility is granted to D-PLEX₁₀₀ under the Therapeutic Innovation criteria which underscores that D-PLEX₁₀₀ potentially provides a new alternative to patients in preventing post abdominal SSIs.

In addition to our lead program D-PLEX₁₀₀, our pipeline includes an early-stage oncology program, OncoPLEX, PolyPid’s lead intra-tumoral cancer therapy drug candidate. OncoPLEX utilizes our PLEX technology to provide controlled local exposure to docetaxel, one of the most widely used chemotherapy agents, directly at the tumor site for several weeks. OncoPLEX may be used as an adjuvant and applied at the intra-operative setting post-tumor resection to potentially reduce local tumor reoccurrence, the potential spreading of cancer cells, and ultimately improve the overall survival rate of cancer patients. OncoPLEX may also be used as a neoadjuvant and injected directly into the tumor to potentially reduce tumor volume and improve survival. Local delivery of drugs directly into the tumor site, especially in difficult to access tumors such as in the brain, may significantly improve the clinical outcome. The OncoPLEX intra-tumoral cancer therapy program has been evaluated successfully in various animal tumor models, both as adjuvant and neoadjuvant, including murine colon carcinoma, melanoma and glioblastoma animal models. We are currently finalizing CMC processes for OncoPLEX as we continue our efforts to begin clinical development. The intratumoral injection of the PLEX platform could be used as an interventional oncology treatment with additional chemotherapies or other types of molecules, such as antibodies, bispecific antibodies and nucleic acids.

We intend to expand research collaborations with biopharmaceutical companies leveraging our PLEX Technology. SHIELD I pharmacokinetic data validated the PLEX technology platform in a large clinical trial, providing local and controlled release of drug molecules directly at the disease target organ over a pre-determined period of time. PLEX can be paired with a wide variety of marketed drugs or product candidates, including small molecules, peptides, antibodies and nucleic acid-based drugs. Pairing biopharmaceutical companies approved drugs or product candidates with PLEX has the potential to overcome limitations in terms of efficacy or safety due to their systemic delivery and potentially extend the drug’s clinical benefit and lifecycle before and after patent expiration. We intend to further engage in discussions with leading biopharmaceutical companies regarding licensing our PLEX technology for potential application in various therapeutic areas, including oncology.

We continue to invest in our state-of-the-art, sterile manufacturing facility that is cGMP certified by the Israeli Ministry of Health, or IMOH, and inspected by an EU-qualified person enabling cGMP manufacturing of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for our SHIELD II trial. We have recently successfully completed the expansion of our manufacturing capabilities and finalized the commercial process validation. We intend to use this manufacturing capacity as the basis to build a fully integrated biopharmaceutical company, supported by our in-house research and development and regulatory team and our anticipated commercial infrastructure. In September 2023, the IMOH completed a GMP audit of our manufacturing facility without any critical or major findings. The audit was conducted as part of IMOH’s routine evaluation of our manufacturing process for D-PLEX₁₀₀. The audit concluded that our manufacturing facility, process and quality systems conform to the requirements of cGMP for medicinal products. This audit is also valid for Europe under the provisions of the Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of industrial products, or ACAA, between the EU and Israel. On September 2023 we also successfully completed the production of three process validation batches of D-PLEX₁₀₀ which have started a stability program. This successful production process validation completes a substantial requirement toward our planned submission of D-PLEX₁₀₀’s NDA and MAA regulatory filings.

Our Pipeline

Our PLEX technology consists of a proprietary matrix of several thousand layers of chemically inactive and biocompatible polymers and lipids that physically embed the drug within the layers. A drug stored within the PLEX layers is released over time in a controlled manner and in customizable, predetermined amounts at the local site where it is administered. PLEX technology is designed to protect the embedded medication from the natural enzymes and other biochemicals in the body that would otherwise degrade or alter the drug. Over time, natural hydration in the body disintegrates the layers of PLEX, from the outer layer to the inner layers, which triggers a release of the medicine in an unmodified, active form. We believe that these characteristics may enable our PLEX product candidates to be efficacious using only a small fraction of the medicines required in systemic administration.

We believe our PLEX platform technology may have broad therapeutic application for other localized medical conditions. Because our PLEX technology is designed to be agnostic to the nature and size of the underlying drug, we believe it has the potential to be paired with a wide variety of currently marketed drugs or product candidates in development, including small molecules, peptides, antibodies and other proteins, as well as nucleic acid-based APIs, to create novel therapies in a broad range of locally delivered applications. We are pursuing research and development programs for our PLEX platform in a variety of other potential indications where we have identified a targeted active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, for use with our PLEX technology, including for the treatment of cancer, inflammation and pain. We will consider licensing rights to our PLEX technology for use with various biologics and small molecules.

As of March 6, 2024, we have 153 issued patents, including utility and composition of matter patents. Additionally, we have two patent applications that have been allowed in the United States and the Philippines, and 19 pending patent applications in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong-Kong, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Thailand. Our issued patents expire between 2029 and 2035.

State-of-the-Art Manufacturing Facility

We currently lease approximately 22,000 square foot, state-of-the-art, sterile manufacturing facility in Israel to enhance supply chain control, increase our supply capacity and meet clinical demand for our ongoing and planned clinical trials of D-PLEX₁₀₀, as well as for initial commercial demand if D-PLEX₁₀₀ is approved and for manufacturing additional potential future PLEX products. The facility is designed to comply with the FDA’s current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, regulations, and EMA regulations. In 2019, the facility was cGMP certified by the IMOH and inspected by an EU-qualified person, enabling cGMP manufacturing of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for our ongoing and planned clinical trials of D-PLEX₁₀₀. The manufacturing process was scaled up to increase our commercial supply capacity to meet the expected market demand for at least 48 months from product launch. In September 2023, the IMOH completed a GMP audit of our manufacturing facility without any critical or major findings. The audit was conducted as part of IMOH’s routine evaluation of our manufacturing process for D-PLEX₁₀₀. The audit concluded that our manufacturing facility, process and quality system conform to the requirements of cGMP for medicinal products. This audit is also valid for Europe under the provisions of the ACAA between the EU and Israel.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to leverage our PLEX technology to develop and commercialize a pipeline of potentially transformative therapies for the local and prolonged delivery of drugs to address diseases with high unmet medical needs. The key elements of our strategy are as follows:

The Problem: Limitations to Current Drug Delivery Systems

The systemic administration of drugs may have significant disadvantages for the treatment of localized medical conditions in the body, including limited efficacy due to poor penetration from the blood stream into the needed organ or other target tissues and challenges related to sensitivity to blood factors. These limitations are especially challenging for the prevention of SSIs during surgeries, as the surgical incision itself creates an interruption of the blood stream and therefore limits the local concentration of administered prophylactic systemic antibiotic into the surgical site. This limited efficacy often results in the need to use a significantly higher quantity of drugs over a prolonged period of time, which can result in substantial side effects. Additionally, systemic administration can be associated with complexities of drug-drug interactions in the context of polypharmacy for patients with comorbid conditions. In the case of antibiotics, systemic administration results in challenges related to the emergence of antibiotic resistance.

Localized delivery of medications for site-specific conditions may have significant advantages over systemic administration because it has the potential to increase the efficacy and clinical benefit of the treatment. Localized delivery may also reduce the risk of overall toxicity and adverse side effects, improve patient compliance and enable a much lower amount of medicine to be used in treatment. In order to address the limitations of systemic administration to treat localized medical conditions, an effective localized drug delivery system must be able to selectively deliver the needed medication to the specific target site, ensure the appropriate concentration needed and release the active medication in a controlled, consistent method over the entire desired treatment period.

Existing localized treatments, including extended release formulations based on polymer-only or lipid-only technologies, such as liposomal-based technologies, frequently suffer from one or more of the following limitations:

These disadvantages are significantly challenging for the management of SSIs, where the controlled and prolonged local delivery of a drug is likely to be more effective in preventing and managing an infection than a release profile of an initial high burst of drug over a shorter duration. While we believe that localized drug delivery systems are well suited for the management of SSIs, it is important for these systems to overcome these limitations in order to change the treatment paradigm for infection management.

These limitations are particularly problematic in treating infection caused by bacteria that are resistant to currently available treatments, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. The inability to generate a sufficiently high local concentration of a drug for an extended period of time limits the drug’s effectiveness in treating antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.

Our Solution: PLEX Technology

Our PLEX technology is designed to overcome the limitations of both systemic administration and current localized delivery systems. PLEX consists of a proprietary matrix of several thousand alternating layers of chemically-inactive and biocompatible polymers and lipids that physically embed an active medication in a protected reservoir between the layers. The technology is designed to enable localized drug delivery at customizable, predetermined release rates and durations directly at the target site over periods ranging from several days to several months. For example, D-PLEX₁₀₀ consists of approximately ten thousand layers of biodegradable polymers and lipids. Medications stored between the PLEX matrix layers are released over time in a controlled manner and in customizable, predetermined amounts by the gradual disintegration of the layers, from the outer layer to the inner layers. PLEX is designed to protect the embedded drug from the body’s natural hydration and enzymes that would otherwise degrade or alter the underlying drug. Over time, natural hydration in the body disintegrates the outer layers of PLEX, which triggers release of the drug in an unmodified active form, similar to continuous direct administration, as illustrated below:

We believe PLEX has a number of key design benefits:

Benefits of D-PLEX for the Prevention of SSIs

Doxycycline received FDA approval in 1967 and is on the WHO’s Essential Medicines List for drugs deemed to be among the safest and most effective for addressing important public health needs today. Doxycycline has been safely used for decades in millions of patients globally and has the following additional advantages over many other antibiotics:

D-PLEX₁₀₀ is designed to overcome the limitations of prophylactic systemic antibiotics in terms of activity and penetration into the surgical site because of the surgical incision that impairs the local vascularization and creates an interruption of the blood stream.

D-PLEX₁₀₀ is designed to prevent SSIs by releasing doxycycline locally to the surgical site at predetermined release rates and durations for thirty days. The plasma concentration of doxycycline following treatment with D-PLEX₁₀₀ is lower than the plasma concentration following the commonly used daily dose of orally administered doxycycline. We believe that this prolonged delivery following a single administration and subsequent high local concentrations of the antibiotic supersedes any existing antibiotic delivery system, and as such may offer advantages over systemic treatments in the prevention of SSIs, including against many antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains. We believe that, by combining doxycycline with PLEX, D-PLEX₁₀₀ has the potential to overcome these limitations and deliver significant advantages in the prevention of SSIs, including:

D-PLEX₁₀₀ has the potential to positively impact the treatment paradigm for SSIs. For example, we have observed in our clinical trials that surgeons applying D-PLEX₁₀₀ directly to an open wound during an initial surgery avoided repeated surgical interventions to treat an active infection.

Further, we believe D-PLEX₁₀₀ has the potential to treat antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, where the required concentrations of drugs to overcome the infection cannot be delivered safely via systemic administration. In three investigator-initiated compassionate use cases, patients with severe bone bacterial infections, including MRSA, were treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀ or D-PLEX₁₀₀₀, a predecessor product candidate to D-PLEX₁₀₀. After a single application of D-PLEX, the infection was eradicated in all patients. In preclinical studies, we also observed that a single application of D-PLEX₁₀₀ substantially reduced MRSA and vancomycin-resistant bacterial infections in surgical sites. Moreover, because it uses a smaller dose of doxycycline and only applied locally, we believe that D-PLEX₁₀₀ should not contribute to the growing worldwide problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The Burdens of SSIs

HAIs are infections that patients acquire when receiving medical treatment in a healthcare facility. According to the WHO, HAIs are the most frequent adverse event affecting patient safety worldwide. SSIs are the most common HAI in the United States and occur in approximately 2% to 5% of all patients undergoing inpatient surgery worldwide despite accepted antibiotic strategies intended to prevent infection. However, these figures are likely underestimated for a number of reasons, including surgeon underreporting and negative reimbursement implications, and because approximately 50% of SSIs become evident only after a patient has been discharged. Further, the incidence and morbidity of SSIs may differ based on the surgical procedure performed and underlying patient risk factors, with for instance high SSI rates in abdominal colorectal surgeries.

SSIs prolong patient recovery and cause a substantial increase in the clinical and economic burdens of surgery, due to longer hospital stays, as well as increased costs related to diagnostic tests and management of the infection. Certain patients may require readmission, subsequent surgeries and other interventions, as well as further outpatient care, due to SSIs. According to the WHO, SSIs account for an estimated $10 billion of incremental hospital costs per year in the United States and €11 billion per year in the EU. Directly attributable costs of SSIs range from approximately $11,000 to $26,000 per infection. In more complex infections involving a prosthetic joint or an antimicrobial-resistant organism, the costs per case can exceed $90,000. SSIs are associated with approximately seven to eleven additional post-operative hospital days, and patients with an SSI have a two to eleven times increased risk of death compared to infection-free patients. Following discharge from the hospital, SSI patients may also require healthcare from other community care services, further contributing to the overall economic burden of the infection. The CDC estimates that the financial costs of treating SSIs will continue to increase, both because more surgeries are being performed and because surgical patients present with increasingly complex comorbidities. Moreover, in the United States, CMS tracks SSI rates, particularly those following hysterectomies and colorectal resection surgeries, and are increasingly using these statistics to deny reimbursement claims for certain SSIs or reduce total annual CMS payments for hospitals that CMS deems to not meet certain quality metrics for the prevention of infection. CMS also publishes the SSI incidence rate for hospitals, and, consequently, hospitals have economic and reputational, in addition to human, incentives to prevent SSIs.

Figure 4: Our Initial Focus: Enhancing Post-Operative SSI Prevention

Figure 5: Key CMS Programs are Strong Drivers for D-PLEX₁₀₀

Despite the high incidence of SSIs, a large proportion of SSIs are estimated to be preventable with the use of evidence-based measures. Still, the prevention of SSIs is complex and requires the implementation of a large range of prevention and treatment approaches before, during and after surgery, which renders it difficult to apply in practice. Most significantly, the WHO, CDC and other health organizations recommend the use of prophylactic systemic antibiotics prior to surgery to help prevent SSIs; however, SSIs remain a substantial cause of morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and mortality. Prophylactic systemic antibiotics also comes with the risk of further development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prophylactic systemic antibiotics may provide adequate serum and tissue concentrations to protect from microbial contamination during the intraoperative period but have limited local bioavailability at the target tissue after the skin incision is closed. Attempts to prolong systemic antibiotic exposure after surgical closure via repeated dosing are ineffective and have been associated with increased adverse events. This is likely due to a combination of vasoconstriction, thrombosis, and the inflammatory response at the wound site, which altogether lead to wound tissue isolation from the vascular system and render additional systemic antibiotics ineffective. An alternative approach may be administering antibiotics locally, which can be released directly at the surgical site for a prolonged period, just before incision closure in the operating room.

Health Economic Benefits of D-PLEX₁₀₀

We believe that D-PLEX₁₀₀, if approved, may provide significant health economic benefits that play an important role in formulary decision making. Members of our management team have experience in applying health economic outcomes research to support the launch of successful commercial products. Our goal is to work directly with hospital customers, group purchasing organizations, integrated health networks, third-party payors, quality improvement organizations and key opinion leaders in the field of SSI prevention to deliver data showing the potential for demonstrable pharmacoeconomic benefits from the use of D-PLEX₁₀₀, if approved.

Reimbursement for surgical procedures is typically capitated or fixed by third-party payors based on the specific surgical procedure performed. However, for many patients undergoing high-risk surgeries or those with co-morbidities, the incidence of SSIs remains high, potentially leading to significant healthcare cost burdens relative to the capitated reimbursement related to prolonged lengths of stay in the hospital, readmissions and additional surgical procedures and other interventions due to the infection. In addition to the direct cost of SSIs, the prolonged length of stay impacts the hospital’s capacity and its ability to admit new patients. Furthermore, hospitals continue to focus on quality improvements to reduce SSIs to support optimal reimbursement and reduced penalties under CMS initiatives, such as the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program, Hospital Readmission Reduction Program and the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. Following discharge from the hospital, patients with an SSI may also rely on healthcare from other community care services, which further contributes to the overall economic burden of the infection.

D-PLEX₁₀₀ is designed to be applied directly to the surgical site during the initial surgery and is intended to prevent SSIs and improve associated mortality and morbidity, with potential broader healthcare economic benefits by reducing lengths of stay in the hospital, readmissions and additional surgical and other interventions.

For example, in our Phase 1b/2 clinical trial of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of sternal SSIs after cardiac surgery, we observed that patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀ plus the SoC had a 67% reduction in sternal wound discharge within 90 days post-surgery, as compared to the control arm. We also conducted a post-hoc analysis, which showed an 85% reduction in patients who were treated with intravenous antibiotics due to sternum wound discharge within 90 days post-surgery, as compared to the control arm.

We intend to complete pivotal Phase 3 trial in abdominal (soft tissue). In such trial, we plan to evaluate health economic outcomes in order to generate further evidence to potentially support approval by the FDA and EMA and, if D-PLEX₁₀₀ is approved, broad adoption among healthcare providers and third-party payors. We intend to further support any such data with publications and post-marketing studies.

Our D-PLEX₁₀₀ Market Opportunity

We are initially focused on developing D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs, where we believe there is a high unmet medical need, especially in surgeries that are at high-risk for infection or infection-related complications. Further, patients with co-morbidities, including those who are diabetic, obese, smokers, immunocompromised, aged 60 or over and those who are undergoing surgeries with a longer duration or a lengthy surgical incision, are particularly at risk for SSI-related complications, even if they are not undergoing high-risk surgeries. We believe that D-PLEX₁₀₀, if approved, also has the potential to address the needs of these patients with increased SSI risk factors.

SSIs in Soft Tissue Surgeries

SSIs are one of the most frequent complications in abdominal surgeries, and they represent a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. SSIs occur in approximately 5% to 30% of soft tissue surgeries, including approximately 10% to 15% of open abdominal surgeries, which represent the majority of the “Selected Gastrointestinal Surgeries” below. Patients undergoing colorectal surgeries are at particularly high risk of developing SSIs because of the high risk of additional bacterial contamination originating from the operated gastrointestinal organs. Abdominal SSIs are associated with an average of 7-11 additional post-operative hospital days. Patients undergoing abdominal surgery and that are subjected to an SSI are at greater risk of additional complications such as hernias, which can significantly affect health outcomes and require additional corrective surgery.

The table below provides the estimated sizes of our soft tissue surgery addressable market opportunity in selected gastrointestinal surgeries and selected gynecological and urologic surgeries in the United States and the EU-5, which, for purposes of the following data, includes France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom based on the number of procedures performed in 2019 according to IQVIA database as well as the rest of the world, or ROW, which, for purposes of the following data, includes India, China, Brazil and Japan, based on the number of procedures performed in 2017, according to a study we commissioned from Life Science Intelligence, Inc.

SSIs in Bone Surgeries

In the context of cardiac surgeries, SSIs can occur in 5% to 8% of procedures but carry a mortality rate of up to 40% for deep sternal wound infections, which are more difficult to treat than superficial infections. Deep sternal wound SSIs are associated with an average of 35 post-operative hospital days, compared with a mean of 11 days for infection-free patients. The cost of care for a patient that develops a deep sternal wound SSI can be as much as three times greater than the cost of care for an infection-free patient.

In the context of orthopedic surgeries, SSIs can occur in 0.5% to 4.0% of primary hip, knee and spine surgery and in 10% to 15% of general trauma and open fracture surgery. Orthopedic SSIs are difficult to treat and associated with lifelong infection recurrence risk of 10% to 20%, including MRSA infections. Further, bone healing may also be impaired, which can result in disabling complications, including amputation. Orthopedic SSIs have been estimated to prolong total hospital stay by a median of two weeks per patient, approximately double readmission rates and increase healthcare costs by more than 300% compared to infection-free patients.

The table below provides the estimated sizes of our bone surgery addressable market opportunity in open heart surgeries and selected orthopedic surgeries, including both primary and revision knee and hip replacements, open fractures and spine fusions, in the United States and the EU-5 based on the number of procedures performed in 2019 according to IQVIA database as well as the ROW, based on the number of procedures performed in 2017, according to a study we commissioned from Life Science Intelligence, Inc.

Clinical Development of D-PLEX₁₀₀

Completed Clinical Trials of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the Prevention of SSIs

Phase 2 Clinical Trial for D-PLEX₁₀₀ in the Prevention of SSIs after Abdominal (Soft Tissue) Surgery

In October 2019, we reported topline data from our Phase 2 clinical trial of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of superficial and deep incisional SSIs after elective abdominal colon surgery involving resection. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, single-blind, two-arm clinical trial of 201 patients assessed the safety and efficacy of D-PLEX₁₀₀ with the SoC, a prophylactic antibiotic administered intravenously prior to surgery, compared to a SoC control arm. The primary endpoint was the combination of incisional SSIs and mortality rate as measured by the number and proportion of subjects with either an SSI event, as determined by a blinded and independent adjudication committee, or mortality for any reason within 30 days post-surgery. All subjects were followed 60 days post-surgery for the assessment of safety.

We enrolled 201 patients between the ages of 19 and 92, with a median age of 64, who underwent surgery at eight sites in Israel between October 2018 and August 2019, and 101 patients were randomly assigned to receive D-PLEX₁₀₀. Of these patients, 74% underwent surgery for cancer and 13% for treatment of Crohn’s disease, and 65% of the surgeries were minimally invasive (laparoscopies) and 35% were open surgeries (laparotomies). The treatment and control arms were balanced across patient baseline characteristics such as age, sex and BMI, reason for the surgery and type of surgery performed.

Patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀ had a statistically significant reduction of 59% (p=0.0086) in deep or superficial incisional SSIs or mortality for any reason within 30 days of surgery, which was the primary endpoint for the trial, as compared to patients who received the SoC as illustrated below.

In addition, in the 179 patients who completed the trial without any major protocol deviations, patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀ achieved a statistically significant reduction of 69% (p=0.0024) in the primary endpoint events of deep or superficial incisional SSIs or mortality for any reason within 30 days of surgery as compared to patients who received the SoC, as illustrated below. Two patients in the control arm developed deep SSIs, as compared to no patients in the treatment arm.

Further, there was a statistically significant difference (p=0.0290) in patient deaths within 60 days of surgery, with no deaths observed in the D-PLEX₁₀₀ treatment arm as compared to five deaths observed in the standard-of-care arm.

D-PLEX₁₀₀ was observed to be generally well tolerated, with no confirmed drug-related SAEs, and did not increase wound healing impairment at the incision site as compared to the control arm. There were eight treatment emergent adverse events, or TEAEs, in eight patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀ that were determined by the blinded investigator to be possibly drug-related, as illustrated below, versus 18 TEAEs observed in 13 patients in the control arm. Patients in the treatment arm also had 15 post-operative wound infection AEs, as compared to 23 in the control arm.

Further, patients in both the treatment arm and the control arm had a 4% rate of wound healing impairment, suggesting that D-PLEX₁₀₀ did not increase wound healing impairment. We also evaluated patients using the ASEPSIS scale, a common method of assessing wound healing based on the need for additional treatment, the presence of serious discharge, skin redness and/or drainage, the separation of deep tissue, the isolation of bacteria and the duration of inpatient stay. Patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀ had lower average and cumulative ASEPSIS assessment scores than patients in the control arm.

More than 70% of the bacteria strains isolated from patients’ SSIs were resistant to more than one type of commonly used antibiotics, with more than 60% considered multidrug resistant bacteria.

Patient pharmacokinetic data collected from treated patients showed evidence of D-PLEX₁₀₀-released doxycycline for approximately 30 days.

Phase 1b/2 Clinical Trial for D-PLEX₁₀₀ in the Prevention of Sternal SSIs after Cardiac Surgery

In January 2018, we reported data from our Phase 1b/2 clinical trial of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of sternal SSIs in patients undergoing cardiac surgery through median sternotomy. This two-part trial was conducted in 81 patients at four sites in Israel, with a six-month safety follow-up period. An independent, blinded adjudication committee reviewed all patients with an SSI as identified by the principal investigator.

The first part was an open label, single arm trial of 20 patients who received D-PLEX₁₀₀ together with the SoC, which generally consists of a systemic antibiotic given within one hour prior to surgery. Based on feedback from the FDA, the second part of the clinical trial was designed as a randomized and single-blinded trial of 61 patients, divided in a two-to-one ratio between treatment and control arms. This trial was not powered for statistical significance. One arm received D-PLEX₁₀₀ and the SoC, and the second arm received the SoC alone. One patient randomized to the standard-of-care arm received D-PLEX₁₀₀, and two patients randomized to the D-PLEX₁₀₀ treatment group did not receive the study drug.

None of the 58 patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀ and the SoC had a sternal infection within 90 days post-surgery, which was the primary endpoint of the trial, as compared to one patient in the group treated with the SoC alone, representing 4.3% infection rate. According to recent literature, the expected infection rate for patients receiving the SoC alone is 5% to 8%.

In patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀ plus the SoC, we observed a 67% reduction in the number of patients with sternal wound discharge within 90 days post-surgery, as compared to the control arm. We also conducted a post-hoc analysis, which showed an 85% reduction in patients who were treated with intravenous antibiotics due to sternum wound discharge within 90 days post-surgery, as compared to the control arm.

D-PLEX₁₀₀ was observed to be generally well tolerated, with no drug-related SAEs and no drug-related wound healing issues at the incision site. Patient pharmacokinetic data collected from treated patients showed evidence of D-PLEX₁₀₀-released doxycycline for approximately 30 days.

Phase 3 Clinical Trials of D-PLEX₁₀₀

Phase 3 Clinical Trial for the Prevention of SSIs after Abdominal (Soft Tissue) Surgery

Following our end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA in February 2020, we initiated two Phase 3 clinical trials of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of SSIs after abdominal (soft tissue) surgery. In May 2021, the FDA agreed in a Type B meeting that a single pivotal Phase 3 study is sufficient, provided the study results are adequate, for potential approval of a D-PLEX₁₀₀ NDA for the prevention of SSIs in colorectal surgery. We initiated the first Phase 3 trial (SHIELD I) in this indication in Israel in the third quarter of 2020, with additional sites in the United States and Europe. We also initiated the second Phase 3 trial (SHIELD II) in December 2020. Both trials are designed to be prospective, multinational, multicenter, randomized, controlled, two-arm, double-blinded trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of D-PLEX₁₀₀ in combination with the SoC, which includes a prophylactic antibiotic administered prior to surgery, in patients aged 18 years and older at screening, undergoing an elective colorectal surgery involving colon or rectal resection and with at least one incision measuring greater than 7 centimeters (SHIELD II) or greater than 10 centimeter (SHIELD I).

In September 2022, we announced top-line results from the SHIELD I Phase 3 study of D-PLEX₁₀₀. SHIELD I was a prospective, multinational, randomized, double-blind Phase 3 trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of D-PLEX₁₀₀ administered concomitantly with SoC compared to a SoC alone arm, in the prevention of post-abdominal surgery incisional infection. The primary endpoint of the trial was the combination of incisional SSIs and mortality as measured by the proportion of subjects with either an SSI event, as determined by a blinded and independent adjudication committee, re-interventions due to SSIs or mortality for any reason within 30 days post-surgery. A total of 977 patients were randomized into the study, consisting of 488 subjects in the D-PLEX₁₀₀ treatment arm and 489 patients in the control arm. SHIELD I study did not achieve its primary endpoint of reduction in SSIs, re-interventions due to SSIs and mortality: in the ITT population, the local administration of D-PLEX₁₀₀ and SoC (n=485) resulted in a decrease in the primary endpoint of 23 percent compared to SoC alone (n=489) (p=0.1520). That said, in a pre-specified subgroup ITT analysis requested by the FDA of a total of 423 subjects with large incisions (>20 centimeters), the local administration of D-PLEX₁₀₀ resulted in a significant reduction of 54 percent in the primary endpoint, compared to SoC alone (p=0.0032). Within the first 30 days post-surgery, SSIs decreased from 9.7% in the SoC treatment arm (n=211), as compared to 4.4% in the D-PLEX₁₀₀ treatment arm (n=212). In addition, SHIELD I study also showed a 34% reduction in the primary endpoint in patients with one or more personal risk factors (post hoc analysis; p=0.047; n=680) compared to SoC. Together, these results suggest potential prophylactic efficacy when D-PLEX is administered concomitantly with systemic antibacterial prophylaxis in patients with increased SSI risk factors, whether procedural or patient-specific comorbidities. Patients with either of these risk profiles are readily identifiable by the surgeon in the pre- and intra-operative periods, offering the option to apply D-PLEX₁₀₀ after fascial closure but before skin closure. The SHIELD I study demonstrated a good safety profile of D-PLEX₁₀₀: the overall incidence of TEAEs was similar between study arms with numerically lower incidences of severe and serious TEAEs, and any TEAEs requiring surgical reinterventions in the D-PLEX arm compared to the SoC arm.

In November 2022, we provided the FDA with available data from the SHIELD I study as part of a Type D meeting request. Following positive Type D meeting communication with the FDA which took place in January 2023 on the SHIELD I Phase 3 data, we have a clear regulatory pathway toward a potential NDA submission. Based on the data, particularly the 54% reduction observed in the primary endpoint in complex surgeries in a pre-specified subgroup analysis of patients with large open incisions compared to SoC (p=0.0032, n=423), the FDA acknowledged that the SHIELD I results may provide supportive evidence on this population and recommended that we conduct an additional study to support a potential NDA submission. The FDA stated that the ongoing SHIELD II study, which as of the date of the Type D meeting communication, had enrolled over 200 patients, including approximately 40 patients with the appropriate large open surgical incisions, could potentially serve as such a study. The FDA also recognized that D-PLEX₁₀₀’s proposed indication is for the prevention of infection and has the potential for wide use.

In March 2023, we received feedback in a national scientific advice meeting from the Swedish MPA similar to the Type D meeting feedback previously received from the FDA.
Swedish MPA recommended that we confirm the results with an additional Phase 3 study to support a MAA submission and confirmed that clinical safety data obtained to date in abdominal surgery studies is sufficient for a MAA submission.

In May 2023, the FDA agreed to our SHIELD II Phase 3 trial design. SHIELD II is a prospective, multinational, randomized, double blind Phase 3 trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of D-PLEX₁₀₀ administered concomitantly with SoC, compared to SoC alone arm, in the prevention of post abdominal-surgery incisional infection in patients undergoing surgeries with incisions greater than 20 cm. The primary endpoint of the trial is measured by the proportion of subjects with either an SSI event as determined by a blinded and independent adjudication committee, reintervention, or mortality for any reason within 30 days post-surgery. Patient safety will be monitored for an additional 30 days. The trial enrolls patients in centers in the United States, Europe and Israel.

We resumed recruitment of patients in SHIELD II in June 2023. As of March 6, 2024, approximately 120 patients were already recruited. Unblinded interim analysis is planned to be conducted once approximately 400 patients complete their 30-day follow-up, which is expected mid-2024. Top-line results are expected in the second half of 2024.

Phase 3 Clinical Trial for the Prevention of Post-Cardiac Sternal (Bone) SSIs

In December 2019, we initiated a potentially pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of D-PLEX₁₀₀ for the prevention of post-cardiac sternal (bone) SSIs, and we enrolled the first patient in February 2020. We have paused enrollment in this trial. We are currently focusing on our SHIELD II clinical trial, which we believe has the potential to serve as the basis for an NDA. We are currently evaluating next clinical steps for an open-heart surgery trial, while we ensure that the SHIELD II trial continues to progress as planned, and intend to submit the bone surgery data as a supplement after the approval of the NDA for abdominal (soft tissue) surgery.

Additional Clinical Data in Support of D-PLEX₁₀₀

We completed a clinical trial of the safety and efficacy of D-PLEX₁₀₀₀, a predecessor product candidate to D-PLEX₁₀₀, for the prevention of infection in contaminated bone following open tibia fractures in 51 patients. Given that D-PLEX₁₀₀₀ is another product candidate from the D-PLEX family, we believe these clinical trial results may also be relevant to the clinical development profile of D-PLEX₁₀₀. At the six-month follow-up period, patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀₀ with the SoC had no infections or infection-related bone morbidities, including non-union of the bone, following surgery, as compared to 11.1% of the patients treated only with the SoC. D-PLEX₁₀₀₀ was observed to be generally well tolerated, with no drug-related AEs.

We also conducted two pilot clinical trials of D-PLEX₁₀₀₀ in a total of 19 patients with infected open long bone fractures. In these trials, patients treated with D-PLEX₁₀₀₀ with the SoC had no bone infections at the treatment site in the six months following treatment. In contrast, according to recent literature the expected infection rate for patients receiving the SoC alone is 7% to 19%. Additionally, at the six-month follow up date, no deaths, amputations or drug-related SAEs were observed in the treatment arms.

We do not plan to pursue further independent development of D-PLEX₁₀₀₀, as we believe the prevention of SSIs in the orthopedic market can be adequately addressed by D-PLEX₁₀₀.

OncoPLEX - Preclinical Development Program for Cancer

In addition to our lead program D-PLEX₁₀₀, our pipeline includes an early-stage Oncology program, OncoPLEX, PolyPid’s lead intra-tumoral cancer therapy drug candidate. OncoPLEX utilizes PLEX technology to provide controlled local exposure to docetaxel, one of the most widely used chemotherapy agents, directly at the tumor site for few weeks to potentially reduce local tumor reoccurrence, the potential spreading of cancer cells, and ultimately improve the overall survival rate of cancer patients. Local delivery of drugs directly into the tumor site, especially in difficult to access tumors such as in the brain, may significantly improve the clinical outcome.

In December 2020, we announced positive preclinical data in a syngeneic mouse model for solid tumors of colon carcinoma using cancer cells highly resistant to docetaxel. A single local application of OncoPLEX at the intra-operative setting post tumor resection showed improved overall survival and significantly less tumor recurrence, compared to the group treated with six subsequent cycles of systemic docetaxel treatment with 2-4 days gap between cycles. In addition, reduced systemic toxicity was demonstrated following the application of OncoPLEX compared to systemic docetaxel treatment.

In September 2021 we announced positive preclinical data of Intra-tumoral OncoPLEX in Brain Cancer. We identified brain tumors as the initial target indication for OncoPLEX because there is currently almost no meaningful chemotherapeutic treatment option for brain tumors, primarily due to the limited ability of chemical agents to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. Due to the localized and prolonged nature of OncoPLEX, we believe it will be highly beneficial compared to systemic treatments, as well as the currently available local treatment, in these devastating tumors that often cannot be fully resected surgically. OncoPLEX was evaluated for tumor growth and survival in two GBM animal models. Key results included:

We conducted in November 2021 a successful Pre-IND meeting with the FDA supporting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of OncoPLEX as a potential part of first-line combination therapy for patients newly diagnosed with GBM.