SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020
☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM TO
Commission File Number 001-38693
Allogene Therapeutics, Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)
|(State or other jurisdiction|
of incorporation or organization)
210 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080
(Address of principal executive offices including zip code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 457-2700
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|Title of each class||Trading symbol(s)||Name of each exchange on which registered|
|Common Stock, Par Value $0.001 Per Share||ALLO||The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|Large accelerated filer||☒||Accelerated filer||☐|
|Non-accelerated filer||☐||Small reporting company||☐|
|Emerging growth company||☐|
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2020 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) was approximately $3,509 million based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on June 30, 2020 of $42.82 per share, as reported by The Nasdaq Global Select Market.
The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of February 22, 2021 was 140,647,818.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement relating to the 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the Registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report.
Table of Contents
Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this report to “Allogene,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Allogene Therapeutics, Inc., and references in this report to “Servier” collectively refer to Les Laboratoires Servier SAS and Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier SAS.
SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements are contained principally in the sections entitled “Business,” “Risk Factors,” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”. These statements relate to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:
•the success, cost, timing and potential indications of our product development activities and clinical trials;
•the timing of our planned investigational new drug application submissions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for our product candidates;
•the timing of the initiation, enrollment and completion of planned clinical trials in the United States and foreign countries;
•our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of our product candidates in any of the indications for which we plan to develop them, and any related restrictions, limitations, and/or warnings in the label of an approved product candidate;
•our ability to obtain funding for our operations, including funding necessary to complete the clinical trials of any of our product candidates;
•our plans to research, develop and commercialize our product candidates;
•our ability to attract and retain collaborators with development, regulatory and commercialization expertise;
•the size of the markets for our product candidates, and our ability to serve those markets;
•our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates;
•the rate and degree of market acceptance of our product candidates;
•our ability to develop and maintain sales and marketing capabilities, whether alone or with potential future collaborators;
•regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries;
•our ability to contract with and the performance of our and our collaborators’ third-party suppliers and manufacturers;
•our ability to develop and successfully operate our own manufacturing facility;
•the success of competing therapies that are or become available;
•our ability to attract and retain key scientific or management personnel;
•the accuracy of our estimates regarding expenses, future revenues, capital requirements and needs for additional financing;
•our use of cash and other resources; and
•our expectations regarding our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our product candidates and our ability to operate our business without infringing on the intellectual property rights of others.
In some cases, you can identify these statements by terms such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expects,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would” or the negative of those terms, and similar expressions that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes. These forward-looking statements reflect our management’s beliefs and views with respect to future events and are based on estimates and assumptions as of the date of this report and are subject to risks and uncertainties. In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements. We discuss many of the risks associated with the forward-looking statements in this report in greater detail under the heading “Risk Factors.” Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.
You should carefully read this report and the documents that we reference in this report and have filed as exhibits to the Form 10-K, of which this report is a part, completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of the forward-looking statements in this report by these cautionary statements.
Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements publicly, or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
Trademarks and Trade names
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains references to our trademarks and to trademarks belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report, including logos, artwork and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names or trademarks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.
RISK FACTOR SUMMARY
Below is a summary of the material factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below under the heading “Risk Factors” under Item 1A of Part I of this Annual Report” under Item 1A of Part I of this Annual Report, and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report before making investment decisions regarding our common stock.
•We have incurred net losses in every period since our inception and anticipate that we will incur substantial net losses in the future.
•Our engineered allogeneic T cell product candidates represent a novel approach to cancer treatment that creates significant challenges for us.
•Gene-editing is a relatively new technology, and if we are unable to use this technology in our intended product candidates, our revenue opportunities will be materially limited.
•The COVID-19 global pandemic is adversely impacting our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials.
•We are heavily reliant on our partners for access to key gene editing technology for the manufacturing and development of our product candidates.
•Our product candidates are based on novel technologies, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and obtaining regulatory approval.
•Our business is highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidates. If we are unable to advance clinical development, obtain approval of and successfully commercialize our lead product candidates for the treatment of patients in approved indications, our business would be significantly harmed.
•Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.
•Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.
•Initial, interim 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.
•We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct our trials on the timelines we expect.
•If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.
•We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.
•We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.
•We will need substantial additional financing to develop our products and implement our operating plans. If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may be unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.
•We rely and will continue to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and manufacture our product candidates. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize our product candidates.
•We rely on the availability of suitable donor material and other specialty raw materials, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.
•The FDA may disagree with our regulatory plan and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval of our CAR T cell product candidates.
•We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties and termination of any of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights, which would harm our business.
•If our efforts to protect the proprietary nature of the intellectual property related to our technologies are not adequate, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.
Item 1. Business
We are a clinical stage immuno-oncology company pioneering the development and commercialization of genetically engineered allogeneic T cell therapies for the treatment of cancer. We are developing a pipeline of off-the-shelf T cell product candidates that are designed to target and kill cancer cells. Our engineered T cells are allogeneic, meaning they are derived from healthy donors for intended use in any patient, rather than from an individual patient for that patient’s use, as in the case of autologous T cells. We believe this key difference will enable us to deliver readily available treatments faster, more reliably, at greater scale, and to more patients.
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, a form of cancer immunotherapy, has emerged as a revolutionary and potentially curative therapy for patients with hematologic cancers, including refractory cancers. In 2017, the first two autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapies, Kymriah, developed by Novartis International AG (Novartis), and Yescarta, developed by Kite Pharma, Inc. (Kite), were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (Kymriah) and R/R large B-cell lymphoma (Yescarta). Autologous CAR T cell therapies are manufactured individually for the patient’s use by modifying the patient’s own T cells outside the body, causing the T cells to express CARs. The entire manufacturing process is dependent on the viability of each patient’s T cells and takes approximately two to four weeks. As seen in the registrational trials for Kymriah and Yescarta, up to 31% of intended patients ultimately did not receive treatment primarily due to interval complications from the underlying disease during manufacturing or manufacturing failures.
Our allogeneic approach involves engineering healthy donor T cells, which we believe will allow for the creation of an inventory of off-the-shelf products that can be delivered to a larger portion of eligible patients throughout the world. These potential benefits led our Executive Chairman, Arie Belldegrun, M.D., FACS, who was previously the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Kite, and our President and Chief Executive Officer, David Chang, M.D., Ph.D., previously Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President of Research and Development at Kite, to found our company with the driving purpose of accelerating the development of allogeneic CAR T cell therapies.
We have multiple clinical trials ongoing and have a deep pipeline to further the research and development of allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates in both hematological malignancies and solid tumors. We believe our management team’s experience in immuno-oncology and specifically in CAR T cell therapy will help drive the rapid development and, if approved, the commercialization of potentially curative therapies for patients with aggressive cancer.
Our allogeneic T cell development strategy has four key pillars: (1) engineering product candidates to minimize the risk of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), a condition where allogeneic T cells can recognize the patient’s normal tissue as foreign and cause damage, (2) creating a window of persistence that may enable allogeneic T cells to expand and eradicate cancer cells in patients, (3) building a leading manufacturing platform to enable consistent and high quality production and (4) leveraging next generation technologies to improve the functionality of allogeneic CAR T cells.
We use Cellectis, S.A. (Cellectis), TALEN gene-editing technology with the goal of limiting the risk of GvHD by engineering T cells to lack functional T cell receptors (TCRs) that are no longer capable of recognizing a patient’s normal tissue as foreign. With the goal of enhancing the expansion and persistence of our engineered allogeneic T cells, we use TALEN to inactivate the CD52 gene in donor T cells and an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody to deplete CD52 expressing T cells in patients while sparing the therapeutic allogeneic T cells. We believe this enables a window of persistence for the infused allogeneic T cells to actively target and destroy cancer cells. We are also developing ALLO-647, our own anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, which is designed to be used prior to infusing our other product candidates as part of a lymphodepletion regimen. Our off-the-shelf approach is dependent on state-of-the-art manufacturing processes, and we are building a technical operations organization with fully integrated in-house expertise in clinical and commercial engineered T cell manufacturing. In February 2019, we entered into a lease to build our own cell therapy manufacturing facility in Newark, California, and we expect to commence current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) manufacturing at our facility in 2021. Finally, we plan to leverage next generation technologies to develop more potent product candidates and to develop product candidates from a renewable cell source. We believe next generation technologies will also allow us to develop allogeneic T cell therapies for the treatment of solid tumors, which to date have been difficult to treat because of the lack of validated targets and tumor microenvironments that can impair the activity of T cells.
We are currently developing a pipeline of multiple allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates utilizing protein engineering, gene editing, gene insertion and advanced proprietary T cell manufacturing technologies. Our most advanced product candidates, ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A, are engineered allogeneic CAR T cell therapies that target CD19, a protein expressed on the cell surface of B cells and a validated target for B cell driven hematological malignancies. We are also developing engineered allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates for multiple myeloma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), and other blood cancers and solid tumors. Our pipeline is represented in the diagram below.
1 Servier holds ex-US commercial rights.
2 Phase 3 may not be required if Phase 2 is registrational.
3 Allogene sponsored trial in combination with SpringWorks Therapeutics, Inc.
4 ALLO-647 intended to enable expansion and persistence of allogeneic CAR T product candidates.
Our lead product candidates include:
•ALLO-501. We are sponsoring a Phase 1 clinical trial (the ALPHA trial) of ALLO-501 in patients with the most common R/R non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) subtypes. This includes R/R large B-cell lymphoma and R/R follicular lymphoma (FL). In May 2020, initial results from the ALPHA trial were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting. See “—Product Pipeline and Development Strategy—Anti-CD19 Development Program—Initial Phase 1 Results from the ALPHA Trial” for information regarding the initial data results. We are continuing the ALPHA trial to further explore ALLO-501 and lymphodepletion dose and schedule. We plan to report updated clinical data from the ALPHA trial in the second quarter of 2021.
•ALLO-501A. We have removed rituximab recognition domains in our second-generation version of ALLO-501, known as ALLO-501A, which we believe will potentially facilitate treatment of more patients, as rituximab is a typical part of a treatment regimen for a patient with NHL. We initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for ALLO-501A (the ALPHA2 trial) in the second quarter of 2020. The Phase 1 portion of the ALPHA2 trial is designed to assess the safety and tolerability at increasing dose levels of ALLO-501A in patients with R/R large B-cell lymphoma or transformed FL. We plan to report initial clinical data from the ALPHA2 trial in the second quarter of 2021. Subject to data, we plan to proceed to the Phase 2 portion of the trial by the end of 2021.
•ALLO-715. We are sponsoring a Phase 1 clinical trial (the UNIVERSAL trial) of ALLO-715, an allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), in adult patients with R/R multiple myeloma. In December 2020, initial results from the UNIVERSAL trial were presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting. See “—Product Pipeline and Development Strategy—Anti-BCMA Development Program—Initial Phase 1 Results from the UNIVERSAL Trial” for information regarding the initial data results. We are continuing the UNIVERSAL trial to further explore ALLO-715 and lymphodepletion dose and schedule. We plan to report updated clinical data from the UNIVERSAL trial in the fourth quarter of 2021.
•ALLO-715 plus nirogacestat. We recently initiated an expansion of the UNIVERSAL trial to assess ALLO-715 in combination with SpringWorks Therapeutics, Inc.’s investigational gamma secretase inhibitor, nirogacestat. We believe nirogacestat has the potential to increase the cell surface density of BCMA and reduce levels of soluble BCMA, thereby enhancing the activity of ALLO-715.
•ALLO-605. We are advancing ALLO-605, an allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate targeting BCMA and our first product candidate to incorporate our TurboCAR technology, for multiple myeloma. TurboCAR technology allows cytokine signaling to be engineered selectively into CAR T cells and has shown the ability to improve the potency and persistence of the cells and to prevent and delay exhaustion of the cells in preclinical models. We expect to submit an investigational new drug application (IND) in the first half of 2021 to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of ALLO-605.
•ALLO-316. Following the clearance of an IND in December 2020, we plan to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial (the TRAVERSE trial) of ALLO-316, an allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate targeting CD70, in adult patients with advanced or metastatic ccRCC in the first quarter of 2021. We also plan to investigate the use of ALLO-316 for a second indication in R/R acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
•ALLO-647. We are developing an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, ALLO-647, which is a component of our lymphodepletion regimen. ALLO-647 may be able to reduce the likelihood of a patient’s immune system rejecting the engineered allogeneic T cells for a sufficient period of time to enable a window of persistence during which our engineered allogeneic T cells can actively target and destroy cancer cells. We are currently utilizing ALLO-647 in all of our clinical trials.
Our History and Team
We believe we have established a leadership position in allogeneic T cell therapy. In April 2018, we acquired certain assets from Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer), including strategic license and collaboration agreements and other intellectual property related to the development and administration of allogeneic CAR T cells for the treatment of cancer. We have an exclusive collaboration with Servier to develop and commercialize ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A, and we hold the commercial rights to these product candidates in the United States. We also have an exclusive worldwide license from Cellectis to its TALEN gene-editing technology for the development of allogeneic T cell product candidates directed against 15 different cancer antigens. Our collaboration with Servier is intended to give us access to TALEN gene-editing technology for all product candidates we are co-developing. In connection with the Pfizer asset acquisition, we hired a team of employees from Pfizer, who are primarily research and technical operation employees and were leading the research and development of our product candidates and next generation gene engineering and cell engineering technologies at Pfizer.
Our world-class management team has significant experience in immuno-oncology and in progressing products from early stage research to clinical trials, and ultimately to regulatory approval and commercialization. In particular, Dr. Belldegrun’s experience in T cell therapy dates back to his time at the National Cancer Institute as a research fellow in surgical oncology and immunotherapy with Steven Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D, a recognized pioneer in immuno-oncology. Our President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Chang, served as Executive Vice President of Kite and held senior leadership roles at Amgen, Inc. (Amgen). Moreover, both Dr. Belldegrun and Dr. Chang led the development and approval of Yescarta at Kite. Additionally, our Chief Technical Officer, Alison Moore, Ph.D., was previously Senior Vice President, Process Development at Amgen, where she led the development, deployment and oversight of manufacturing for approximately 80 multi-modality assets. Dr. Moore has over 25 years of experience in biotechnology, including in the immuno-oncology space leading process development of Amgen’s comprehensive bi-specific T cell engager production platform. In September 2019, Rafael Amado, M.D., joined us as our Executive Vice President of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer. Dr. Amado has more than 15 years of biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry experience leading clinical and research teams, and he most recently served as President, Research and Development, at Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc, a T cell therapy company, from August 2018 to August 2019, and as Chief Medical Officer from March 2015.
Our goal is to maintain and build upon our leadership position in allogeneic T cell therapy. We plan to rapidly develop and, if approved, commercialize allogeneic T cell products for the treatment of cancer that can be delivered faster, more reliably and at greater scale than autologous T cell therapies. We believe achieving this goal could result in allogeneic T cell therapy becoming a standard of care in cancer treatment and enable us to make potentially curative therapies more readily accessible to more patients throughout the world. Key elements of our strategy include:
•Capitalize on a validated target and our leadership in engineered allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR T cell product candidates. Autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapies, such as Kymriah and Yescarta, have emerged as potentially curative therapies for B-cell lymphomas and leukemias. We believe developing allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates targeting CD19 is the next frontier in delivering potentially curative therapies against B-cell lymphomas and leukemias. We believe our efforts to advance ALLO-501A and, subject to our clinical data, proceed to the Phase 2
portion of the ALPHA2 trial by the end of 2021 would give us a leadership advantage to obtain the potential first approval of an anti-CD19 allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate.
•Expand our leadership position within hematologic indications. In addition to ALLO-501A, we plan to advance our near-term pipeline against additional hematologic targets where there remains a high unmet need. For example, we have a three-part strategy to target BCMA for the treatment of patients with R/R multiple myeloma. We believe BCMA is a promising target, as results from clinical trials of third-party autologous CAR T cell therapeutic candidates targeting BCMA have produced encouraging data. The first part of our strategy is to continue to advance the UNIVERSAL trial of ALLO-715, which is the first trial of an allogeneic CAR T therapy targeting BCMA. We plan to report updated data from the UNIVERSAL trial in the fourth quarter of 2021. Second, we are utilizing the UNIVERSAL trial to assess ALLO-715 in combination with nirogacestat. Third, we expect to submit an IND in the first half of 2021 to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of ALLO-605, our first TurboCAR candidate. We also plan to develop additional allogeneic T cell product candidates targeting other antigens found on hematologic malignancies, including ALLO-316 targeting CD70 and ALLO-819 targeting FLT3, each for the treatment of AML.
•Build state-of-the-art gene engineering and cell manufacturing capabilities. Manufacturing allogeneic T cell product candidates involves a series of complex and precise steps. We believe a critical component to our success will be to leverage and expand our proprietary manufacturing know-how, expertise and capacity. In February 2019, we entered into a lease for approximately 118,000 square feet to develop a state-of-the-art cell therapy manufacturing facility in Newark, California. We are phasing the build-out of the facility, and completed the build-out of the majority of the facility at the end of 2020. We plan to initiate manufacturing under cGMP in 2021. We believe establishing our own fully integrated manufacturing operations and infrastructure will allow us to improve the manufacturing process, limit our reliance on contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) and more rapidly advance product candidates.
•Expand into solid tumor indications with high unmet need and leverage next generation technologies to advance our platform. We plan to continue to advance the research and development of product candidates directed against a broad portfolio of solid tumor targets, including CD70 for the treatment of ccRCC and DLL3 for the treatment of small cell lung cancer and other aggressive neuroendocrine tumors. We also plan to leverage next generation technologies to make more potent allogeneic CAR T cells and improve the characteristics of our product candidates. For example, we expect to advance a TurboCAR product candidate, ALLO-605, to the clinic this year and we are also advancing modified next-generation TurboCARs to overcome some of the challenges of the solid tumor microenvironment. In addition, we are investigating next-generation technologies to overcome rejection of allogeneic CAR T cells by the patient immune system and to increase specificity of CAR T activity to avoid potential normal tissue toxicities associated with certain solid tumor targets. In collaboration with Notch Therapeutics Inc. (Notch), we are researching and developing a process for production of product candidates derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). We believe iPSCs may provide renewable starting material for our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates that could allow for improved efficiency of gene editing, greater scalability of supply, product homogeneity and more streamlined manufacturing. In addition, we continually survey the scientific and industry landscape for opportunities to license, partner or acquire technologies that may help us advance current or new cell therapies for the benefit of patients.
•Accelerate the development of our product candidates across geographies. We are positioning ourselves to pursue clinical development of our product candidates in additional markets around the world. Subject to our clinical progress in the United States, we plan to initiate clinical trials in the European Union and United Kingdom. In addition, in December 2020, we jointly formed Allogene Overland Biopharm (CY) Limited for the development, manufacturing and commercialization of certain of our product candidates targeting BCMA, CD70, FLT3, and DLL3 in China, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore. We plan to support the operations of this joint venture as it advances and we may selectively partner with other third parties to develop and commercialize our product candidates in additional countries.
Allogeneic T Cell Therapy
The Immune System and Cancer
White blood cells are a component of the immune system and are responsible for defending the body against infectious pathogens and other foreign material. T cells are a type of white blood cell and are involved in both sensing and killing infected or abnormal cells, including cancer cells, as well as coordinating the activation of other cells in an immune response.
T cells can be distinguished from other white blood cells by T cell receptors present on their cell surface. These receptors contribute to tumor surveillance by directing T cells to recognize and destroy cancerous cells. When T cells with cancer-specific receptors are absent, present in low numbers, of poor quality or rendered inactive by suppressive mechanisms, cancer may grow and spread. In addition, standard of care treatments, such as chemotherapy regimens, as well as disease specific factors can damage the patient’s immune system, thereby inhibiting the ability of T cells to kill cancer.
Engineered T Cell Therapies
Engineered T cell therapy is a type of immunotherapy treatment whereby human T cells are removed from the body and engineered to express CARs which, when infused into a patient, may allow the recognition and destruction of cancer cells in a targeted manner.
Chimeric Antigen Receptors (CARs)
CARs are engineered molecules that, when present on the surface of a T cell, enable the T cell to recognize specific proteins or antigens that are present on the surface of other cells. The CAR in our product candidates is comprised of a single chain protein that contains the following elements:
•Target Binding Domain: At one end of the CAR is a target binding domain that is specific to a target antigen. This domain extends out onto the surface of the engineered T cell, where it can recognize the target antigens. The target binding domain consists of a single-chain variable fragment (scFv) of an antibody comprising variable domains of heavy and light chains joined by a short linker.
•Transmembrane Domain and Hinge: This middle portion of the CAR links the scFv target binding domain to the activating elements inside the cell. This transmembrane domain “anchors” the CAR in the cell’s membrane. In addition, the transmembrane domain may also interact with other transmembrane proteins that enhance CAR function. The hinge domain, which extends to the exterior of the cell, connects the transmembrane domain to scFv and provides structural flexibility to facilitate optimal binding of scFv to the target antigen on the cancer cell’s surface.
•Activating Domains: The other end of transmembrane domain, inside the T cell, is connected to two contiguous domains responsible for activating the T cell when the CAR binds to the target cell. The CD3 zeta domain delivers an essential primary signal within the T cell, and the 41BB domain delivers an additional, co-stimulatory signal. Together, these signals trigger T cell activation, resulting in proliferation of the CAR T cells and killing of the cancer cell. In addition, activated CAR T cells stimulate the local secretion of cytokines and other molecules that can recruit and activate additional immune cells to potentiate killing of the cancer cells.
In addition to the domains described above, ALLO-715 possesses two rituximab-recognition domains between the scFv and the hinge which allow it to be recognized and eliminated by rituximab. ALLO-501 possesses rituximab recognition domains in a separate polypeptide termed RQR8 that is co-expressed with the CAR. We have removed rituximab recognition domains in ALLO-501A, which we believe will potentially facilitate treatment of more patients, as rituximab is a typical part of a treatment regimen for a patient with NHL.
The figure below shows the constructs that support our lead product candidates in clinical development: ALLO-501, ALLO-501A and ALLO-715.
Allogeneic T Cell Therapies: The Next Revolution
There are two primary approaches to engineered T cell therapy: autologous and allogeneic. Autologous therapies use engineered T cells derived from the individual patient, while allogeneic therapies use engineered T cells derived from unrelated healthy donors.
The autologous approach, pioneered by Novartis and Kite, has been highly successful in engineering patients’ immune systems to fight cancer, in particular CD19 positive cancers, resulting in significant remission rates. Autologous products are manufactured by first collecting a patient’s white blood cells, through a process known as leukapheresis, separating the T cells from the patient’s blood sample and proliferating the isolated T cells. After the cells have multiplied, the CAR construct is virally transduced into the T cells and the engineered T cells are then propagated until a sufficient number of cells are available for infusion into the patient. Finally, the engineered T cells are frozen, and then shipped back to the clinical center for administration to the patient. The process from leukapheresis to delivery to the clinical center takes approximately two to four weeks.
While the autologous approach has been revolutionary, demonstrating compelling efficacy in many patients, it is burdened by the following key limitations:
•Lengthy Vein-to-Vein Time. Due to the individualized manufacturing process, patients must wait approximately two to four weeks to be treated with their engineered cells. As a result, in the registrational trials for Yescarta and Kymriah, up to 31% of intended patients ultimately did not receive treatment primarily due to interval complications from the underlying disease during manufacturing or manufacturing failures. In addition, certain patients being treated with autologous product candidates have required bridging therapy as they wait for the manufacture of their T cells. Bridging therapy to control disease may increase some cumulative or synergistic toxicities for the patients.
•Variable Potency. In many cases, patients have T cells that have been damaged or weakened due to prior chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem-cell transplant. Compromised T cells may not proliferate well during manufacturing or may produce cells with insufficient potency that cannot be used for patient treatment, resulting in manufacturing failures, or that can show poor expansion and activity in patients. In addition, the individualized nature of autologous manufacturing, together with the variability in patients’ T cells, may lead to variable potency of manufactured T cells, and this variability may cause unpredictable treatment outcomes.
•Manufacturing Failures. Autologous cell manufacturing sometimes encounters production failures. This can mean that a patient never receives treatment, as additional patient starting material may not be available or the patient may no longer be eligible due to advanced disease. Furthermore, retreatment can be difficult due to a limited supply of usable patient starting material.
•High Production Cost. The delivery of autologous T cell therapy is complicated due to the individualized nature of manufacturing, which allows only one patient to be treated from each manufacturing run and requires dedicated infrastructure to maintain a strict chain of custody and chain of identity of patient-by-patient material collection, manufacturing and delivery. The complex logistics add significant cost to the process and limit the ability to scale.
Additionally, the collection of T cells through leukapheresis from each individual patient results in a time consuming and costly step in the autologous process. In part due to these logistics, autologous treatment is currently only available at select centers.
Allogeneic engineered T cells are manufactured in a similar manner as autologous, but our manufacturing has two key differences: (1) our allogeneic T cells are derived from healthy donors, not cancer patients, and (2) our allogeneic T cells are genetically engineered to minimize the risk of GvHD and enable a window of persistence in the patient.
Our approach is designed to provide the same intended curative outcome as autologous therapy, while offering the following potential key advantages:
•Availability and Access. Starting with T cells from a healthy donor, we believe that at scale we can manufacture approximately 100 doses of allogeneic product that could be used in any eligible patient. Because our allogeneic product candidates are designed to be frozen and available off-the-shelf, they could potentially be readily shipped and administered to patients. We believe having an inventory of off-the-shelf allogeneic T cell products can also facilitate delivering multiple product doses to a patient over time.
•Speed to Patient. Many patients with aggressive cancer or rapidly progressing cancer that is refractory to existing therapies may not have multiple weeks to wait for autologous T cell treatment. Our allogeneic approach has the potential to create off-the-shelf product inventory, which could enable dosing of patients within days of a decision to treat. This would represent a significant reduction in patient wait time, potentially obviating the need for any bridging therapy and allowing the treatment of patients who are too sick to wait for the autologous therapy, and could improve patient outcomes.
•Enhanced Cell Consistency and Potency. Our manufacturing process produces therapies from selected, screened and tested healthy donors. Healthy donor T cells are potentially superior for engineered cellular therapy as compared to T cells from patients who have undergone prior chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, which can damage or weaken T cells. In addition, greater consistency of the product may yield more predictable treatment outcomes.
•Streamlined Manufacturing and Cost Efficiencies. We are building an efficient and scalable manufacturing process and organization. The allogeneic approach utilizes healthy donor T cells which we believe provides enhanced scalability, reduces costs of engineered T cell therapy and reduces costs to the healthcare system as our allogeneic approach does not require us to collect and track T cells from each individual patient.
Manufacturing Allogeneic T Cells
There are similarities as well as key differences between the processes for allogeneic and autologous T cell manufacturing, as illustrated in the figure below.
The three primary steps to creating our engineered allogeneic CAR T cells are: (1) collection and transduction, (2) gene editing, and (3) purification, formulation, and storage.
Step 1. Collection and Transduction
The starting material for our allogeneic T cell products is white blood cells from a healthy donor, which are collected using a standard blood bank procedure known as leukapheresis. The collected cells are then screened, tested, and shipped to a central processing facility, where the T cells are isolated and stored frozen, creating an inventory of starting healthy donor cells for manufacturing.
The manufacturing process starts by thawing frozen healthy donor T cells, which are then stimulated to proliferate and transduced with a viral vector to integrate the CAR sequence into the T cell genome. The CAR sequence directs the expression of CAR proteins on the cell surface that allows the transduced T cells to recognize and bind to a target molecule that is present on cancer cells.
We can concurrently add additional genes to these cells that confer specific properties. For example, we can add an off-switch by expressing proteins that can make T cells susceptible to certain drugs, such as anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and enable us to deplete our engineered T cells if needed by administering such drugs to the patient. We can also introduce cytokine activation signaling within a CAR T cell that is designed to enhance the proliferative potential, migratory behavior, and killing activity of cells. We are investigating multiple constructs designed to mimic cytokine signaling selectively within CAR T cells, a technology platform that we call “TurboCARs”.
Step 2. Gene Editing
Next, we use Cellectis’s electroporation and TALEN technologies for gene editing of T cells. TALENs are a class of DNA cutting enzymes derived by fusing the DNA-cutting domain of a nuclease to the DNA-binding domains from transcription activator-like effectors (TALE). The TALE DNA-binding domain can be tailored to specifically recognize a unique DNA sequence. These fusion proteins serve as readily targetable “DNA scissors” for genome engineering applications that can enable targeted genome modifications.
Electroporation allows TALEN mRNA to enter into the cell, where it is translated into a nuclease that can cut DNA and inactivate specific target genes. Inactivation of genes, such as TCRα and CD52, is intended to reduce the risk of GvHD and allow the allogeneic T cells to expand and persist in patients. We believe the inactivation of other target genes using the TALEN technology can be incorporated into future product candidates, with the goal of enhancing T cell function, including increasing potency against solid tumors.
The figure below illustrates how we utilize Cellectis’s TALEN and electroporation technology to inactivate the genes coding for TCRα and CD52 in our allogeneic T cells for UCART19.
We believe the key benefits of TALEN technology are:
•Precision. It is possible to design a TALEN that will cleave at any selected region in any gene, giving us the ability to achieve the desired genetic outcome with any gene.
•Specificity and Selectivity. TALEN may be designed to limit its DNA cleavage to the desired sequence and to reduce the risk of cutting elsewhere in the genome. This parameter is essential, especially for therapeutic applications, because unwanted genomic modifications potentially could lead to harmful effects for the patient. In addition, gene editing requires only a transient presence of TALEN, thus preserving the integrity and functionality of the T cell’s genome.
•Efficiency. A large percentage of cells treated by the nuclease bear the desired genomic modification after treatment is completed. We believe the efficiency of TALEN editing helps to improve our manufacturing yields.
TCRα knockout: Non-modified allogeneic T cells bear functional TCRs and, if injected into a patient, can potentially recognize the patient’s tissue as foreign and damage it. This reaction, known as GvHD, is mediated by intact TCRs on allogeneic T cells. To reduce the risk of GvHD, all of our product candidates undergo the inactivation of a gene coding for TCRα, a key component of TCRs. The engineered T cells lacking functional TCRs are no longer capable of recognizing peptide
antigens presented on major histocompatibility complex proteins and thus incapable of attacking the patient’s normal tissue. This could mitigate the risk of GvHD that can occur when allogeneic TCR-positive T cells are infused into patients who are unrelated to the healthy donor, as shown in the figure below.
CD52 knockout: The patient’s immune system is expected to recognize allogeneic T cells as foreign and destroy or reject them. To delay this rejection, we use anti-CD52 antibody to deplete lymphocytes, including T cells, in patients. Anti-CD52 antibody recognizes CD52 protein expressed on many immune cells, including T cells. CD52 protein is expressed in both donor and patient immune cells. To selectively deplete a patient’s immune cells while sparing the therapeutic allogeneic T cells, we use TALEN gene editing to inactivate the CD52 gene in allogeneic T cells, thus protecting allogeneic T cells from the anti-CD52 antibody mediated depletion.
By administering anti-CD52 antibody prior to infusing our product candidates, we believe we can reduce the likelihood of a patient’s immune system rejecting the engineered allogeneic T cells for a sufficient period of time to enable a window of persistence during which our engineered allogeneic T cells can expand and actively target and destroy cancer cells. We also believe our approach is unique and differentiated. To capitalize on this differentiation and to secure our own source of anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, we are developing ALLO-647. We are currently utilizing ALLO-647 in all of our clinical trials.
Step 3. Purification, Formulation, and Storage
Once the allogeneic T cells have been engineered with CARs and gene edited to remove the genes encoding TCRα and CD52, they are cultured for several days to increase the cell number and then harvested. The allogeneic cells then undergo a purification step to remove residual TCR positive cells that have not undergone TCRα gene editing. We believe this purification step is essential as none of the currently available gene-editing nucleases is 100% efficient at inactivating the target genes. After overnight recovery, the cells are formulated in a cryopreservation media and filled into closed, stoppered vials prior to controlled-rate freezing and long-term storage in the vapor phase of liquid nitrogen. This inventory is securely stored and then shipped to oncology centers as needed.
The figure below illustrates the steps in a manufacturing run for our engineered allogeneic CAR T product candidates.
Product Pipeline and Development Strategy
Using our proprietary allogeneic T cell platform, we are researching and developing multiple product candidates for the treatment of blood cancers and solid tumors. Our product candidates are allogeneic T cells engineered to be used as off-the-shelf treatments for any patient with a particular cancer type. Each product candidate targets a selected antigen expressed on tumor cells and bears specific engineered attributes.
Our product pipeline is represented in the diagram below:
1 Servier holds ex-US commercial rights.
2 Phase 3 may not be required if Phase 2 is registrational.
3 Allogene sponsored trial in combination with SpringWorks Therapeutics, Inc.
4 ALLO-647 intended to enable expansion and persistence of allogeneic CAR T product candidates.
In addition to our development of allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates, we are developing an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, ALLO-647, which is designed to be used prior to infusing our other product candidates as part of the lymphodepletion regimen. As illustrated below, we believe ALLO-647 can reduce the likelihood of a patient’s immune system from rejecting the engineered allogeneic T cells for a sufficient period of time to enable a window of persistence during which our engineered allogeneic T cells can actively target and destroy cancer cells.
Anti-CD19 Development Program
CD19 is an antigen expressed on the surface of B cells, including on B cells that are malignant. B cells are considered non-essential tissue, as they are not required for patient survival. We believe CD19 is a validated target for the treatment of B cell leukemias and lymphomas. Multiple autologous anti-CD19 targeted CAR T therapies have shown promising results and have been approved by the FDA as therapies for adults with R/R large B-cell lymphoma, adults with R/R mantle cell lymphoma, and for children and young adults with ALL that is refractory or has relapsed at least twice.
Our first anti-CD19 product candidate, UCART19, was advanced with our partner, Servier, who led manufacturing and clinical development. UCART19 was manufactured to express a CAR that is designed to target CD19 and gene edited to lack TCRα and CD52 to minimize the risk of GvHD and enable a window of persistence in the patient. In addition, UCART19 cells were engineered to express a small protein on the cell surface called RQR8, which consists of two rituximab recognition domains. This allowed for recognition and elimination of cells in the event that silencing of CAR T cell activity is desired.
Servier sponsored two Phase 1 clinical trials of UCART19 in patients with R/R CD19 positive B-cell ALL, one for adult patients (the CALM trial) and one for pediatric patients (the PALL trial). The Servier-sponsored trials completed in 2020 and Servier determined that no new patients will be enrolled. All patients from both studies will continue the long-term follow-up as planned. We and Servier are reviewing our development strategy for ALL.
ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A are our other allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates targeting CD19, which are jointly developed by us and Servier. We are responsible for the manufacture of ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A. We also lead the clinical development program and are sponsoring the ALPHA trial of ALLO-501 and ALPHA2 trial of ALLO-501A, each for patients with R/R NHL.
ALLO-501 is identical to UCART19 in molecular design, however several modifications have been introduced by us to the manufacturing process for ALLO-501. These modifications are designed to facilitate more efficient manufacturing scale-up for the larger patient population targeted by ALLO-501. Like UCART19, ALLO-501 also co-expresses a small protein on the cell surface called RQR8, which consists of two rituximab recognition domains. This allows for destruction of the CAR T by rituximab.
Prior treatment with rituximab is typical for patients with NHL and, depending on the lag time between the rituximab administration and planned ALLO-501 infusion, prior administration of rituximab may interfere with ALLO-501. As a result, we have removed RQR8 in the next generation of ALLO-501, known as ALLO-501A. We believe ALLO-501A will have the potential to facilitate treatment of patients who were recently treated with rituximab. ALLO-501A has been manufactured from several donors under non-cGMP conditions and has been compared to the current version of ALLO-501 in vitro. In this study, we found that ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A exhibited similar characteristics and killing activity.
Lead Target Indications
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL)
NHL is a hematologic cancer originating from malignant lymphocytes. It is the most common hematological malignancy in the United States, with 81,560 new cases estimated to be diagnosed and 20,720 deaths estimated in 2021, according to the American Cancer Society. Over 60 NHL subtypes have been identified, and each subtype represents different neoplastic lymphoid cells (T, B or NK cells) that have arrested at different stages of differentiation. The most common subtype is B-cell, which represented over 90% of all new NHL cases in 2016.
B-cell NHL itself represents a group of different neoplasms that not only differ in pathology, but also response to therapy and prognosis. NHL can be rapidly growing (aggressive) with short survival, such as large B-cell lymphomas, which include diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), or it can be slow growing, or indolent, such as FL. Despite recent therapeutic advances, more than 50% of patients with aggressive B-cell NHL are incurable using existing approved therapies.
The R-CHOP chemotherapy combination (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) introduced in the early 2000s remains the standard of care for newly diagnosed DLBCL, and five-year survival can be achieved for 55-60% of patients. Unfortunately, approximately 30% of DLBCL require second-line therapy, and subsequent therapy is dependent on whether the patients are candidates for high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem-cell therapy. A retrospective analysis of patients with R/R DLBCL, who were not treated with autologous CAR T therapy, found that outcomes in this population are poor, with an objective response rate of 26% (CR: 7%, partial response: 18%) and median overall survival of 6.3 months.
Despite availability of multiple active agents, high response rates, and long progression-free survival with first-line therapy, FL remains an incurable disease. Most patients treated today eventually relapse, and subsequent responses and durations of responses become increasingly shorter. Ultimately, patients become resistant to chemo-immunotherapy, clinically defined as relapsed within 12 months. In these patients, the toxicity commonly outweighs the benefit of treatment with chemotherapy. Therefore, there remains a high unmet medical need for newer treatment options, especially for those patients with cancer that is resistant to chemo-immunotherapy.
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)
ALL is characterized by the proliferation of immature lymphocytes in the bone marrow. Approximately 5,690 new cases and 1,580 deaths in the United States are estimated in 2021, according to the American Cancer Society. Approximately 80% of cases of ALL are B-cell ALL.
The risk for developing ALL is highest in children younger than five years of age. From age five until the mid-20s, the risk declines slowly and begins to steadily rise again after age 50. Overall, about 40% of all cases of ALL are in adults. Though most cases occur in children, approximately 80% of deaths from ALL occur in adults.
Over the past four decades pediatric cure rates have reached greater than 80% in developed countries. This progress can be attributed, in part, to a deeper understanding of the molecular genetics and pathogenesis of the disease, advances in combination chemotherapy, monitoring of minimal residual disease, use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for Philadelphia chromosome–positive ALL and the success of autologous CAR T cell therapies. Allogeneic stem-cell transplant (allo-SCT) offers the potential for cure in some individuals, however, the option is available only to approximately a third of patients due to the lack of compatible stem cell source, general health, or the high risk of complications. Furthermore, allo-SCT carries a high rate of treatment-related mortality which can occur in approximately 20-30% of patients undergoing allo-SCT. In patients with R/R ALL after two or more lines of therapy, the median disease-free survival is less than six months. The five-year overall survival in adults over the age of 60 is approximately 20%, highlighting the high unmet need despite the recent advances in the treatment of ALL.
Initial Phase 1 Results from the ALPHA Trial
In May 2020, in collaboration with Servier, we announced initial results from the ALPHA trial in R/R NHL at the ASCO annual meeting.
The ALPHA trial is a dose-escalation study for ALLO-501 with three separate dose cohorts, from 40 × 106 to 360 × 106 total cells. Prior to ALLO-501 treatment, all patients undergo lymphodepletion with a regimen of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and a low dose or higher dose ALLO-647. As of the May 11, 2020 data cutoff, 23 patients were enrolled and 22 patients received ALLO-501. One patient was removed from the study prior to lymphodepletion due to acute renal failure from urinary obstruction. The median time from enrollment to the start of therapy was five days.
For the efficacy analysis, 19 out of 22 patients reached at least one month assessment as of the May 2020 data cutoff. Responses were observed across all cell doses and tumor histologies (DLBCL and FL) with an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and complete response (CR) rate of 37%. Higher dose ALLO-647 was associated with a higher CR rate of 50%, deeper lymphodepletion and delayed host T cell recovery. With a median follow-up of 3.8 months, nine of the 12 responding patients (75%) remained in response as of the data cutoff.
Cell Dose and Lympho-depletion regimen
|39mg ALLO-647||90mg ALLO-647||All Patients|
40 x 106
120 x 106
360 x 106
All 39mg ALLO-647
120 x 106
360 x 106
All 90mg ALLO-647
|ORR, n (%) ||3 (75%)||3 (75%)||1 (33%)||7 (64%)||4 (67%)||1(50%)||5 (63%)|
|CR, n (%)||1 (25%)||1 (25%)||1 (33%)||3 (27%)||4 (67%)||0 (0%)||4 (50%)|
One of the ongoing responders is a patient with an initial partial response (PR) who progressed by month two. This patient achieved a CR after re-treatment with the same dose of ALLO-501 and a higher dose (90mg) of ALLO-647. This patient is reflected as a PR in the table above and not as a CR.
Included in the overall efficacy analysis are three patients who were refractory to prior autologous CAR T therapy (the best response of progressive disease or disease progression within three months). These patients were also refractory to allogeneic CAR T therapy. In CAR T naïve patients, the ORR was 75% and the CR rate was 44%.
All Cell Doses + 39mg ALLO-647
120 x 106 and 360 x 106 CAR+ cells +
All CAR T Naïve Patients
|ORR, n (%)||7 (70%)||5 (83%)|
|CR, n (%)||3 (30%)||4 (67%)|
The table below summarizes the adverse events by grade as of the data cutoff. Grade 1 represents mild toxicity, Grade 2 represents moderate toxicity, Grade 3 represents severe toxicity and Grade 4 represents life threatening toxicity. Grade 5 toxicity represents toxicity resulting in death. No dose limiting toxicities, graft-vs-host disease, or Immune Effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS) was observed.
|Adverse Events of Interest||Grade 1|
|Grade 2 |
|Cytokine Release Syndrome||2 (9%)||4 (18%)||1 (5%)||—||—|
|Infection||5 (23%)||4 (18%)||2 (9%)||—||—|
|Infusion Reaction||1 (5%)||9 (41%)||1 (5%)||—||—|
|Neutropenia||—||1 (5%)||7 (32%)||7 (32%)||—|
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 32% of the patients, was mainly mild to moderate in severity, manageable with standard recommendations, and all events resolved within a maximum of seven days.
Four patients (18%) experienced serious adverse events (SAEs). An SAE is defined as any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that (i) results in death; (ii) is life-threatening (immediate risk of death); (iii) requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; (iv) results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity (substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions); (v) results in congenital anomaly/birth defect; or (vi) is considered to be an important medical event. One patient had Grade 2 pyrexia and Grade 2 cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation which resolved in two days and six days, respectively. One patient had Grade 3 rotavirus infection and Grade 3 hypokalemia which resolved in 15 days and two days, respectively. One patient had Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and Grade 3 hypotension which each resolved in two days. One patient had a Grade 3 upper GI hemorrhage which resolved in one day and Grade 3 CMV reactivation which resolved in 25 days.
Adverse events were observed across all dose levels of ALLO-501 and ALLO-647. SAEs were observed at ALLO-501 cell dose level 40 x 106 and 120 x 106 and at both dose levels of ALLO-647.
Clinical Development Plan
The ALPHA trial is an open-label, Phase 1, single arm, multicenter clinical trial evaluating the safety and tolerability of ALLO-501 in adult patients with R/R large B-cell lymphoma, including DLBCL, or FL. Cell kinetics and pharmacodynamics of ALLO-501 will be evaluated as secondary and exploratory objectives, respectively. We are exploring the optimal dose and schedule of ALLO-501 and the lymphodepletion regimen in additional cohorts, which includes a cohort of patients receiving a consolidation of ALLO-501 doses. The consolidation consists of two infusions of 120 million CAR T cells, with a first infusion following the lymphodepletion regimen of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and ALLO-647 and an initial tumor assessment performed at day 28. If a patient is in complete response, partial response or stable disease at day 28, a second infusion is given approximately five to six weeks after the first infusion. Prior to the second cell infusion, a patient will be eligible to receive a modified lymphodepletion consisting only of ALLO-647. We expect to report updated data from the ALPHA trial in the second quarter of 2021.
In the second quarter of 2020, we initiated ALPHA2, which is an open-label, Phase 1/2, single arm, multicenter clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of ALLO-501A in adult patients with R/R large B-cell lymphoma, including DLBCL, or transformed FL. Cell kinetics and pharmacodynamics of ALLO-501A will be evaluated as secondary and exploratory objectives, respectively. The Phase 1 portion of the ALPHA2 trial is designed to assess the safety and tolerability at increasing dose levels of ALLO-501A and consolidation of ALLO-501A dosing, in order to identify the recommended doses and schedule of ALLO-501A and the lymphodepletion regimen for use in the Phase 2 portion of the trial. We expect to report initial data from the ALPHA2 trial in the second quarter of 2021. Subject to the data as well as follow-up data from ALPHA and ALPHA2 expected in the second half of 2021, we plan to proceed to the Phase 2 portion of the trial in adult patients with R/R large B-cell lymphoma, including DLBCL, or transformed FL by the end of 2021.
All patients treated with ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A will be followed in a long-term follow-up study.
Anti-BCMA Development Program
BCMA is a member of the tumor necrosis factor receptor family and is selectively expressed on immunoglobulin-producing plasma cells, including malignant plasma cells (myeloma cells). We believe BCMA is an appropriate target for the treatment of multiple myeloma. Two autologous anti-BCMA targeted CAR T therapies have shown promising results in clinical trials and the sponsors have submitted the therapies to the FDA for approval for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies.
We are currently advancing a three-part strategy for the treatment of multiple myeloma. First, we are advancing ALLO-715, an anti-BCMA allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate. ALLO-715 is manufactured to express a CAR that is designed to target BCMA and gene edited to lack TCRα and CD52 to minimize the risk of GvHD and enable a window of persistence in the patient. In addition, rituximab recognition domains, as an off-switch, have been incorporated in between the scFv and the linker domain.
Second, as part of the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial (the UNIVERSAL trial) of ALLO-715 in adult patients with R/R multiple myeloma, we are assessing the combination of ALLO-715 with SpringWorks Therapeutics, Inc.’s investigational gamma secretase inhibitor, nirogacestat. Gamma secretase inhibition prevents the cleavage and shedding of BCMA from the surface of myeloma cells. In preclinical models, nirogacestat has been shown to increase the cell surface density of BCMA and reduce levels of soluble BCMA, thereby enhancing the activity of BCMA-targeted therapies. In addition, emerging clinical data suggest that a gamma secretase inhibitor may increase anti-tumor efficacy of BCMA-targeted autologous CAR T therapy in patients with R/R multiple myeloma.
Third, we are progressing our next-generation version of ALLO-715, known as ALLO-605, that incorporates our TurboCAR technology to allow cytokine signaling to be engineered selectively into CAR T cells. TurboCARs have shown the ability to improve the potency and persistence of the CAR T cells and to prevent and delay exhaustion of the CAR T cells in preclinical models. ALLO-605 uses a constitutive cytokine signaling domain and a rituximab-mediated off-switch, as illustrated below. We expect to submit an IND in the first half of 2021 to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of ALLO-605.
Target Indication: Multiple Myeloma
Multiple myeloma is a hematological malignancy that is characterized by uncontrolled expansion of bone marrow plasma cells. There will be an estimated 34,920 new cases of multiple myeloma and 12,410 deaths from multiple myeloma in 2021 in the United States according to the American Cancer Society. Multiple myeloma predominantly affects the elderly, with 14 times more patients diagnosed at age 65 and over than those diagnosed under the age of 65.
For patients less than age of 70 with no comorbidities, autologous stem cell therapy is the preferred option to provide a durable response. For transplant ineligible patients, immunomodulatory drugs (Revlimid, Pomalyst, Thalomid) and proteasome inhibitors (Velcade, Kyrprolis, Ninlaro), often used in combination with one another, have displaced older cytotoxic agents as the mainstay of treatment. More recently, several new drugs with novel mechanisms (Darzalex, Empliciti, Farydak, Xpovio) have been approved for multiple myeloma, however none of these novel treatments is considered as curative.
Despite the introduction of newer therapies, a majority of patients are expected to relapse and the unmet need in patients with R/R myeloma remains high. In clinical trials, only 3% of patients who were previously treated with at least three lines of therapy (including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), or who were refractory to both proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs, achieved a CR to Darzalex, a CD38-directed monoclonal antibody. Median survival in such patients was just 17.5 months. Trials of autologous CAR T cell therapies have shown significant promise in multiple myeloma with reported CR rates that are substantially higher.
Initial Phase 1 Results from the UNIVERSAL Trial
In December 2020, we announced initial results from the UNIVERSAL trial in R/R multiple myeloma at the ASH annual meeting.
As of the October 30, 2020 data cutoff, 35 patients were enrolled with 31 patients evaluable for safety and 26 patients evaluable for efficacy. Patients were refractory to their last line of myeloma therapy, had a median of five prior lines of therapy, and 94% were penta-exposed, which means the patient had previously received at least one CD38 monoclonal antibody, two proteosome inhibitors and two immunomodulatory drugs. Four patients became ineligible for treatment due to rapidly progressing disease. The median time from enrollment to the start of therapy was five days.
In the initial dose escalation phase of the UNIVERSAL trial, patients received lymphodepletion followed by ALLO-715 at one of three dose levels (DL1 = 40M cells, DL2 = 160M cells, DL3 = 320M cells) in a 3+3 dose escalation design. DL4 (480M cells) was added in a subsequent cohort. Two lymphodepletion regimens were evaluated, with the trial enrollment primarily focused on the FCA lymphodepletion regimen:
•FCA: Fludarabine 90 mg/m2, Cyclophosphamide 900 mg/m2, and ALLO-647 from 39 to 90mg divided over three days; and
•CA: Cyclophosphamide 900 mg/m2 and ALLO-647 39mg divided over three days.
Higher CAR T cell doses were associated with an increased response rate and greater cell expansion. In the DL3 cohort (320M CAR T+ cells), the ORR was 60% with 40% of patients achieving a very good partial response (VGPR) or better (VGPR+). VGPR+ is defined as a stringent complete response, complete response or VGPR. Across all cohorts and lymphodepletion regimens, six patients achieved VGPR+, five of whom were in the FCA lymphodepletion regimen. Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment was completed in five of the six patients with a VGPR+ response and all achieved an MRD negative status. MRD negative status occurs when a patient achieves a CR and there is no evidence of tumor cells in the marrow when using sensitive tests such as polymerase chain reaction or flow cytometry.
As of the data cutoff, the overall median follow-up for efficacy was 3.2 months and six out of the nine patients treated with DL3 or DL4 with a response remain in response. The longest response was ongoing at six months from the DL3 cohort with FCA lymphodepletion.
Cell Dose and LD regimen
40 x 106
160 x 106
320 x 106
480 x 106
160 x 106
320 x 106
|High ALLO-647 (N=4)|
|—||2 (50%)||3 (50%)||3 (75%)||6 (60%)||1 (33%)||—||2 (67%)|
|—||1 (25%)||3 (50%)||1 (25%)||4 (40%)||—||—||1 (33%)|
*Responses included two subjects with only day 14 assessment and one subject who converted from a confirmed PR to VGPR (pending confirmation).
Of the 31 patients evaluable for safety, there was no graft-vs-host disease or ICANS observed. Grade 1 and Grade 2 CRS was reported in 14 patients (45%) and was manageable with standard therapies. Infection events ≥ Grade 3 in the trial was similar to what has been reported in other advanced multiple myeloma studies. Adverse events ≥ Grade 3 reported as SAEs occurred in 19% of patients. As previously reported, a single Grade 5 event related to progressive myeloma and conditioning regimen occurred in the CA cohort.
|Adverse Events of Interest||Grade 1|
|Grade 2 |
|All Grades N (%)|
|Cytokine Release Syndrome||5 (16%)||9 (29%)||—||—||—||14 (45%)|
|Infection||2 (7%)||6 (19%)||4 (13%)||—||1 (3%)||13 (42%)|
Infusion Reaction to ALLO-647
|4 (13%)||3 (10%)||—||—||—||7 (23%)|
Clinical Development Plan
The UNIVERSAL trial is an open-label, Phase 1, single arm, multicenter clinical trial evaluating the safety and tolerability of ALLO-715 in adult patients with R/R multiple myeloma. The safety of ALLO-647, cell kinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy will be evaluated as secondary objectives. We are exploring the optimal dose and schedule of
ALLO-715 and the lymphodepletion regimen. We expect to report updated data from the UNIVERSAL trial in the fourth quarter of 2021.
The UNIVERSAL trial recently initiated the evaluation of ALLO-715 in combination with nirogacestat. Prior to ALLO-715 and nirogacestat treatment, all patients will undergo lymphodepletion with a regimen of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and ALLO-647. The combination cohort will assess the safety and tolerability of ALLO-715 in combination with nirogacestat. The preliminary anti-tumor activity of the combination, cell kinetics, pharmacokinetics and host immune cell depletion/reconstitution will be evaluated as secondary objectives.
We expect to submit an IND in the first half of 2021 to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of our first TurboCAR candidate, ALLO-605, in adult patients with R/R multiple myeloma. The ALLO-605 trial will assess the safety and tolerability of increasing doses of ALLO-605 along with its clinical efficacy. The preliminary anti-tumor activity, cell kinetics, safety and tolerability of ALLO-647 in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, and patient reported outcomes will be evaluated as secondary objectives.
Anti-CD70 Development Program
CD70 is an antigen selectively expressed on several types of cancer cells, including on approximately 80-100% of ccRCC cells and 95% of AML cells, with limited off-tumor expression. CD70 is also expressed on a portion of DLBCL, multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia and glioblastoma cells as well as on activated T cells. Accordingly, we believe progressing allogeneic CAR T cell therapies directed against CD70 could be promising in solid tumor indications as well as hematological malignancies.
In December 2020, the FDA cleared an IND to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial (the TRAVERSE trial) of ALLO-316 in adult patients with advanced or metastatic ccRCC. We plan to initiate the TRAVERSE trial in the first quarter of 2021. We also plan to investigate the use of ALLO-316 for a second indication in R/R AML. While CD70 can be expressed on activated T cells, ALLO-316 was associated with minimal or no fratricide in preclinical studies, meaning that ALLO-316 cells did not mediate the targeted killing of other ALLO-316 cells.
ALLO-316 is manufactured to express a CAR that is designed to target CD70 and gene edited to lack TCRα and CD52 to minimize the risk of GvHD and enable a window of persistence in the patient. In addition, rituximab and CD34 recognition domains have been incorporated in between the scFv and the linker domain, as illustrated below. The rituximab recognition domains allow elimination of cells with rituximab in the event that silencing of CAR T cell activity is desired. The CD34 domain confers recognition by an anti-CD34 antibody, and may be used as a surface marker to monitor ALLO-316 in patients by flow cytometry.
Lead Target Indications:
Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
ccRCC is the most common subtype of renal cancer. Approximately 76,080 new cases of renal cell carcinoma are estimated to be diagnosed in the United States and 13,780 deaths are estimated in 2021, according to the American Cancer Society. The five-year survival rate for patients with early-stage disease is greater than 90% compared with less than 15% for those with advanced kidney cancer.
Systemic therapy (including immunotherapy and molecularly targeted agents), surgery, and radiation therapy all may have a role in the treatment paradigm depending on the extent of disease, sites of involvement, and patient-specific factors. While vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-directed therapies (e.g. sunitinib) represented a first-line standard for over a decade, these therapies have been quickly supplanted by combination therapies incorporating PD-1 immune-checkpoint inhibition as the backbone.
The combination of VEGF and immune check-point inhibitors, such as axitinib and pembrolizumab, are often used in the first line setting and has shown a median progression-free survival of 15.1 months with an ORR of 59.3% and CR rate of 5.8%. Patients who progress on immune checkpoint-based combination therapies can be treated with cabozantinib, pazopanip, temsirolimus or high dose IL-2. There remains a need for novel, mechanistically distinct therapies.
Acute Myeloid Leukemia
AML is a cancer of bone marrow stem cells and is the most common type of acute leukemia in adults. The American Cancer Society estimated 19,940 new diagnoses and 11,180 deaths in the United States in 2020. Although advances in supportive care and prognostic risk stratification have optimized established therapies, overall long-term survival remains poor and AML is a high unmet medical need. Patients have a poor prognosis despite improvements in chemotherapy regimens and supportive care.
AML is a biologically and clinically heterogenous disease. The identification of recurrent genetic mutations, such as FLT3-ITD, NMP1 and CEBPA, has helped refine individual prognosis and guide management. Despite advances in supportive care, the backbone of therapy remains a combination of cytarabine- and anthracycline-based regimens with allogeneic stem cell transplantation for the medically-fit patients. Twenty to 30 percent of young adult patients and 50 percent of older adults with newly diagnosed AML will fail to attain a CR with intensive induction chemotherapy due to drug resistance or death. In addition, a percentage of patients who initially attain a CR will relapse. Relapse after conventional chemotherapy remains a major problem in patients with myeloid malignancies such as AML, and the major cause of death after diagnosis of AML is from relapsed disease. The development of new treatments, in concert with improved genetic profiling and risk stratification, are greatly needed in the goal to achieve incremental gains in remission and survival.
Clinical Development Plan
The TRAVERSE trial is an open-label, Phase 1, single arm, multicenter clinical trial evaluating the safety and tolerability of ALLO-316 in adult patients with advanced or metastatic ccRCC. Anti-tumor activity, cell kinetics, pharmacodynamics, and correlation of outcome with tumor CD70 expression will be evaluated as secondary objectives. The trial is a dose-escalation study for ALLO-316 with four separate dose cohorts, from 40 × 106 to 480 × 106 total cells. Prior to ALLO-316 treatment, all patients will undergo lymphodepletion with a regimen of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and ALLO-647. We expect to initiate the TRAVERSE trial in the first quarter of 2021.
Moving forward, we plan to utilize our allogeneic platform to pursue additional targets of interest. These include the additional targets currently in our pipeline as well as other targets that might be validated in the future. For example, we are developing allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates targeting FLT3 for the treatment of AML (ALLO-819) and DLL3 for the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC).
•Acute Myeloid Leukemia and FLT3. FLT3 is a receptor tyrosine kinase that is overactive in AML blasts. We have conducted in vitro and in vivo studies of our anti-FLT3 CAR T candidate, ALLO-819, that show anti-tumor activity against blasts present in bone marrow from AML patients and in mice. We are currently testing increasing activity of our clinical candidate with the addition of a TurboCAR cytokine signaling domain ahead of finalizing an IND-enabling data set.
•Small Cell Lung Cancer and DLL3. DLL3 is a target which is being pursued for SCLC using antibody drug conjugates, bi-specifics and autologous CAR T therapies. According to the American Cancer Society, approximately 235,760 new cases of lung cancer are expected to be diagnosed in the United States in 2021 and SCLC comprises approximately 10-15% of all lung cancers. SCLC is responsive to chemotherapy, but recurrence arises rapidly, with less than 7% of patients surviving over five years. SCLC has shown to be responsive to immunotherapy with approximately one-third of patients responding to PD-1/PD-L1 therapy and achieving a median overall survival of approximately thirteen months for patients who received PD-L1 and platinum-based chemotherapy. We believe an allogeneic anti-DLL3 CAR T cell product candidate could be used alone or in combination with PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.
We are currently testing and refining constructs for an anti-DLL3 CAR T candidate and investigating the use of TurboCARs and next generation TurboCARs designed to overcome negative effects of the tumor microenvironment. Following completion of these studies, we plan to progress to IND-enabling studies.
We also plan to investigate the potential to enhance our platform using next-generation technologies such as TurboCARs, renewable cell sources, site-specific integration, multi-specific CARs and other technology related to enhancing specificity and avoiding immune rejection.
•TurboCARs. Mimicking cytokine signaling within a CAR T cell could enhance the proliferative potential, migratory behavior, activation status and killing activity of cells. Such modulation may enhance the anti-tumor activity and durability of CAR T cells without affecting non-engineered immune cells. We believe TurboCARs may also allow for reduced CAR T cell dose requirements and greater impact in overcoming exhaustion in solid tumor environments. We are investigating multiple constructs designed to mimic cytokine signaling selectively within CAR T cells, a technology platform that we call “TurboCARs”. We are progressing our first TurboCAR, ALLO-605, which targets BCMA and uses a constitutive cytokine signaling domain and a rituximab-mediated off-switch. We plan to submit an IND to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of ALLO-605 in the first half of 2021.
•Renewable Cell Source. In November 2019, we entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement with Notch (the Notch Collaboration Agreement), pursuant to which Notch has granted to us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, license to certain Notch intellectual property to develop and commercialize gene-edited T cell and/or natural killer cell products from iPSCs directed at certain CAR targets for initial application in NHL, ALL and multiple myeloma. We believe iPSCs may provide renewable starting material for our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates that could allow for improved efficiency of gene editing, greater scalability of supply, product homogeneity and more streamlined manufacturing. We commenced the research collaboration with Notch in 2019.
•Site-Specific Integration. Using a combination of gene-editing technology and homologous recombination technology we can potentially integrate the CAR expressing DNA into specific target genes within the T cell DNA. Such site-specific integration may allow the CAR or other transgenes to be introduced into T cells in a more homogeneous manner, allowing a more uniform and controlled expression of the proteins, with the goal of generating CAR T cell products that behave in a more consistent and predictable manner.
•Multi-specific CARs. We are investigating the utility of a single cell product targeting multiple antigens. This may be accomplished by including two antigen binding domains with different specificity in a single polypeptide encoding the CAR or in two separate polypeptides each encoding a CAR with different antigen specificity.
•Increasing tumor specificity of targets: We are investigating technology to localize activity of an allogeneic CAR T cell to the tumor microenvironment in an effort to extend specificity and therefore safety of CAR T cells. We believe this approach may be particularly promising for solid tumor targets that are associated with normal tissue toxicities.
•Next-generation anti-rejection technology: We are investigating additional ways, beyond our existing anti-CD52 antibody technology, to prevent patient immune rejection of our allogeneic CAR T cells. We are exploring ways to engineer allogeneic CAR T cells to escape detection from the patient immune system. We are also exploring engineering allogeneic CAR T cells with mechanisms to attack certain patient immune cells that would otherwise lead to rejection. For instance, we are exploring allo-immune defense receptor technology licensed from the Baylor College of Medicine. This technology is designed to recognize and destroy allo-reactive host immune cells that would otherwise be capable of rejecting the allogeneic CAR T cells, which could provide enhanced persistence of the allogeneic CAR T cells.
In addition, we continually survey the scientific and industry landscape for opportunities to license, partner or acquire technologies that may help us advance current or new T cell therapies for the benefit of patients.
Our Manufacturing Strategy
We have invested resources to optimize our manufacturing process, including the development of improved analytical methods and instrumentation. We plan to continue to invest in process science, product characterization and manufacturing to continuously improve our production and supply chain capabilities over time.
Our product candidates are designed and manufactured via a platform comprised of defined unit operations and technologies. The process is gradually developed from small to larger scales, incorporating compliant procedures to create cGMP conditions. Although we have a platform-based manufacturing model, each product is unique and for each new product candidate, a developmental phase is necessary to individually customize each engineering step and to create a robust procedure that can later be implemented in a cGMP environment to ensure the production of clinical batches. This work is performed in our research and development environment to evaluate and assess variability in each step of the process in order to define the most reliable production conditions.
Our cell-based product candidates are currently manufactured in the United States by a CMO, and we manage all other aspects of the supply, including planning, CMO oversight, disposition and distribution logistics. The CMO that is manufacturing our clinical supply is subject to cGMP requirements, using qualified equipment and materials. We also utilize separate third party contractors to manufacture cGMP raw materials that are used for the manufacturing of our product candidates, such as viral vectors that are used to deliver the applicable CAR gene into the T cells. We believe all materials and components utilized in the production of the cell line, viral vector and final T cell product are available from qualified suppliers and suitable for pivotal process development in readiness for registration and commercialization.
In addition, in February 2019, we entered into a lease for approximately 118,000 square feet to develop a state-of-the-art cell therapy manufacturing facility in Newark, California. We are phasing the build-out of the facility, and completed the build-out of the majority of the facility at the end of 2020. We expect to initiate cGMP manufacturing operations in 2021. However, we expect to continue to rely on our CMO and may rely on CMOs and other third parties for the manufacturing and processing of our product candidates in the future. We also utilize a CMO in the United States for the manufacture and supply of ALLO-647 and we plan to continue to rely on the CMO for future production of ALLO-647. We believe the use of contract manufacturing and testing for our first clinical product candidates has allowed us to rapidly prepare for clinical trials in accordance with our development plans. We expect third-party manufacturers will be capable of providing and processing sufficient quantities of our product candidates to meet anticipated clinical trial demands.
We plan to create a robust supply chain with redundant sources of supply comprised of both internal and external infrastructure.
On December 14, 2020, we entered into a License Agreement with Allogene Overland Biopharm (CY) Limited, a joint venture established by us and Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc., pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement, dated December 14, 2020, for the purpose of developing, manufacturing and commercializing allogeneic CAR T cell therapies for patients in greater China, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore.
We have also entered into multiple additional strategic agreements and collaborations, including an Asset Contribution Agreement with Pfizer (the Pfizer Agreement), a License Agreement with Cellectis (the Cellectis Agreement), an Exclusive License and Collaboration Agreement with Servier (the Servier Agreement), and the Notch Collaboration Agreement
For additional information regarding our significant agreements, see Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report.
Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, as well as novel discoveries, product development technologies, and know-how. Our commercial success also depends in part on our ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to develop and maintain protection of our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing or in-licensing U.S. and foreign patents and applications related to our technology, inventions, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business.
We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, confidentiality agreements, and invention assignment agreements to develop and maintain our proprietary position. The confidentiality agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and the invention assignment agreements are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed for us by our employees, consultants, or other third parties. We seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in our agreements and security measures, either may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or independently discovered by competitors.
With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of using and manufacturing the same.
We are actively building our intellectual property portfolio around our product candidates and our discovery programs, based on our own intellectual property as well as licensed intellectual property. Following the execution of the Pfizer Agreement, we are the owners of, co-owners of, or the licensee of multiple patents and patent applications in the United States and worldwide. These licensed assets include rights to the Cellectis TALEN gene-editing technology to engineer T cells that lack functional TCRs and to inactivate the CD52 gene in donor cells. We have exclusive worldwide rights to these patents for certain antigen targets, including BCMA, CD70, FLT3 and DLL3, and have U.S. rights to these patents for CD19. We also have rights to a Cellectis U.S. patent for technology covering an engineered T cell therapy combining CD52 gene knockout in combination with an anti-CD52 antibody for certain products directed against certain antigen targets. Our patent rights are composed of patents and pending patent applications that are solely owned by us, co-owned with Servier, co-owned with Cellectis, exclusively licensed from Pfizer, exclusively licensed from Servier, or exclusively licensed from Cellectis.
Our patent portfolio includes protection for our lead product candidates, ALLO-501, ALLO-501A and ALLO-715, as well as our other research-stage candidates. With respect to ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A, we have an exclusive license from Servier in the United States to patent rights covering composition of matter and methods of making and use covering ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A. With respect to ALLO-715, we have an exclusive license from Pfizer to patent rights covering ALLO-715 in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions. These rights include composition of matter protection for ALLO-715 and methods of making and using ALLO-715. More generally, our patent portfolio and filing strategy is designed to provide multiple layers of protection by pursuing claims directed toward: (1) antigen binding domains directed to the targets of our product candidates; (2) CAR constructs used in our product candidates; (3) methods of treatment for therapeutic indications; (4) manufacturing processes, preconditioning methods, and dosing regimens; and (5) reducing GvHD, and methods for genetically engineering immune cells suitable for allogeneic use.
The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing of the first non-provisional application to which priority is claimed. In the United States, patent term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent. In the United States, the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for a patent term extension of up to five years under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which is designed to compensate for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The length of the patent term extension involves a complex calculation based on the length of time it takes for regulatory review. A patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Moreover, a patent can only be extended once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple products, it can only be extended based on one product. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug.
If successfully developed, our products will compete with novel therapies developed by biopharmaceutical companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, in addition to standard of care treatments. Due to the promising therapeutic effect of T cell therapies in clinical trials, we anticipate increasing competition from existing and new T cell products, including products that are both autologous and allogeneic in nature. We also anticipate competition from other cell-based and immune-based therapies in development.
Autologous T cell therapies directed at CD19 have been successfully developed by Novartis, Kite and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS). In August 2017, Novartis obtained FDA approval to commercialize Kymriah for the treatment of children and young adults with B-cell ALL that is refractory or has relapsed at least twice. In May 2018, Kymriah received FDA approval for adults with R/R large B-cell lymphoma. In October 2017, Kite obtained FDA approval to commercialize Yescarta, for the treatment of adult patients with R/R large B-cell lymphoma. A supplemental BLA for Yescarta for R/R FL and R/R marginal zone lymphoma was submitted in September 2020. Kite has also received FDA approval for a second autologous CD19-directed T cell therapy, Tecartus, for use in R/R mantle cell lymphoma. In February 2021, BMS obtained FDA approval for its anti-CD19 autologous T cell therapy, Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel), for the treatment of adults with certain types of large B-cell lymphoma who have not responded to, or who have relapsed after, at least two other types of systemic treatment.
BMS and bluebird bio, Inc. have submitted a BLA to the FDA for approval of an anti-BCMA autologous T cell therapy, idecabtagene vicleucel, for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least three prior therapies. In addition, Johnson & Johnson and partner Legend Bio have initiated a rolling BLA submission for an anti-BCMA autologous T cell therapy, ciltacabtagene autoleucel, for the same indication.
Autologous T cell therapies are being developed by a number of additional companies, including but not limited to Adaptimmune Therapeutics PLC, ArsenalBio, Autolus Therapeutics plc, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gracell Biotechnologies Inc., Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., Mustang Bio, Inc., Novartis International AG, Pact Pharma, Inc., TCR² Therapeutics Inc., Tmunity Therapeutics, Inc., and Unum Therapeutics Inc.
Allogeneic T cell therapies have yet to receive FDA approval though the number of companies developing allogeneic product candidates has expanded greatly in recent years. This includes Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc., Caribou Biosciences, Inc., Celyad S.A., CRISPR Therapeutics AG, Editas Medicine, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., Poseida Therapeutics, Inc., Precision Biosciences, Inc., Sana Biotechnology, Inc., and Tessa Therapeutics Ltd. Additionally, Cellectis has several fully-owned allogeneic CAR programs that could compete with programs that fall outside our agreement with Cellectis.
There are also cell therapies under development that are based upon cell types other than the common type of T cells used by us and known as alpha/beta T cells. These include product candidates derived from natural killer cells, natural killer T cells, and gamma/delta T cells. Companies developing such therapies include Fortress Biotech, Inc., Gamida Cell Ltd., GammaDelta Therapeutics Limited, Fate Therapeutics, Inc., In8bio, Inc., Kuur Therapeutics Inc., Lyell Immunopharma, Inc., Nkarta, Inc., Artiva Biotherapeutics, Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.
Competition may also arise from non-cell based immune oncology platforms. For instance, we may experience competition from companies, such as Amgen Inc., BMS, Compass Therapeutics, Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Genmab A/S, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Harpoon Therapeutics, Inc., MacroGenics, Inc., Merus N.V., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Xencor Inc., that are pursuing T cell engagers that target both the cancer antigen and T cell receptor, thus bringing both cancer cells and T cells in close proximity to maximize the likelihood of an immune response to the cancer cells. Additionally, companies, such as ADC Therapeutics SA, Amgen Inc., Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, ImmunoGen, Inc., Seattle Genetics, Inc., Silverback Therapeutics, Inc., and Sutro Biopharma, Inc., are pursuing antibody drug conjugates, which utilize the targeting ability of antibodies to deliver cell-killing agents directly to cancer cells.
Many of our competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, pre-clinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and marketing than we do. Future collaborations and mergers and acquisitions may result in further resource concentration among a smaller number of competitors.
Our commercial potential could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market or make our development more complicated. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our programs are likely to be efficacy, safety, convenience, and cost of manufacturing.
These competitors may also vie for a similar pool of qualified scientific and management talent, sites and patient populations for clinical trials, and investor capital, as well as for technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.
Government Regulation and Product Approval
As a biopharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation. Our cell products will be regulated as biologics. With this classification, commercial production of our products will need to occur in registered facilities in compliance with cGMP for biologics. The FDA categorizes human cell- or tissue-based products as either minimally manipulated or more than minimally manipulated, and has determined that more than minimally manipulated products require clinical trials to demonstrate product safety and efficacy and the submission of a BLA for marketing authorization. Our products are considered more than minimally manipulated and will require evaluation in clinical trials and the submission and approval of a BLA before we can market them.
Government authorities in the United States (at the federal, state and local level) and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biopharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects. The process for obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.
U.S. Product Development Process
In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical and biological products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) and their implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
•completion of nonclinical laboratory tests and animal studies according to good laboratory practices (GLPs) and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals or other applicable regulations;
•submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
•approval by an independent Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee at each clinical site before the trial is commenced;
•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the FDA’s regulations commonly referred to as good clinical practices (GCPs) and any additional requirements for the protection of human research patients and their health information, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed biological product for its intended use;
•submission to the FDA of a BLA for marketing approval that includes substantial evidence of safety, purity, and potency from results of nonclinical testing and clinical trials;
•satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable;
•satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP, to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality and purity and, if applicable, the FDA’s current good tissue practices (GTPs) for the use of human cellular and tissue products;
•potential FDA audit of the nonclinical study and clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the BLA; and
•FDA review and approval, or licensure, of the BLA.
Before testing any biological product candidate, including our product candidates, in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. The clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such trials.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials are conducted
under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research patients provide informed consent. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Certain clinical trials involving human gene transfer research also must be overseen by an Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), a standing committee to provide peer review of the safety of research plans, procedures, personnel training and environmental risks of work involving recombinant DNA molecules. IBCs are typically assigned certain review responsibilities relating to the use of recombinant DNA molecules, including reviewing potential environmental risks, assessing containment levels, and evaluating the adequacy of facilities, personnel training, and compliance with the National Institutes of Health Guidelines. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:
•Phase 1. The biological product is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients.
•Phase 2. The biological product is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule.
•Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk to benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling.
Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up. During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human patients, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
Concurrently with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
U.S. Review and Approval Processes
After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA submission must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.
Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for biological products. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.
Within 60 or 74 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, potent, and/or effective for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required.
Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. For immunotherapy products, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the GTPs, to the extent applicable. These are FDA regulations and guidance documents that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissue, and cellular and tissue based products (HCT/Ps), which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP, GTP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.
Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.
If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a risk management plan, or
otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.
In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers.
Orphan Drug Designation
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug or biologic for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. The orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process.
If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA, to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application user fee.
A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.
Expedited Development and Review Programs
The FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. Unique to a fast track product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA.
Any product, submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.
Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation was established by FDA in 2017 to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of, any drug that meets the following criteria: (1) it qualifies as a RMAT, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; (2) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (3) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites. Once approved, when appropriate, the FDA can permit fulfillment of post-approval requirements under accelerated approval through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence such as electronic health records; through the collection of larger confirmatory datasets; or through post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with the therapy prior to approval.
Breakthrough therapy designation is also intended to expedite the development and review of products that treat serious or life-threatening conditions. The designation by FDA requires preliminary clinical evidence that a product candidate, alone or in combination with other drugs and biologics, demonstrates substantial improvement over currently available therapy on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough therapy designation comes with all of the benefits of fast track designation, which means that the sponsor may file sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis if certain conditions are satisfied, including an agreement with FDA on the proposed schedule for submission of portions of the application and the payment of applicable user fees before the FDA may initiate a review.
Fast Track designation, priority review, RMAT and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.
In February 2021, the FDA granted fast track designation status to ALLO-501A for the treatment of adult patients with R/R DLBCL.
Any products for which we receive FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved uses (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although a physician may prescribe a legally available product for an off-label use, if the physicians deems such product to be appropriate in his/her professional medical judgment, a manufacturer may not market or promote off-label uses. However, it is permissible to share in certain circumstances truthful and not misleading information that is consistent with the product’s approved labeling.
In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after approval to ensure the long-term stability of the product. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.
The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement,
warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.
U.S. Marketing Exclusivity
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) amended the PHSA to authorize the FDA to approve similar versions of innovative biologics, commonly known as biosimilars. A competitor seeking approval of a biosimilar must file an application to establish its molecule as highly similar to an approved innovator biologic, among other requirements. The BPCIA, however, bars the FDA from approving biosimilar applications for 12 years after an innovator biological product receives initial marketing approval. This 12-year period of data exclusivity may be extended by six months, for a total of 12.5 years, if the FDA requests that the innovator company conduct pediatric clinical investigations of the product.
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents, if granted, may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent restoration term of up to five years, as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant BLA.
Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in
accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.
Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements
In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (e.g., the Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments). For example, our business practices, including any of our research and future sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs may be required to comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the false claims laws, the patient data privacy and security provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), transparency requirements, and similar state, local and foreign laws, each as amended.
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item, good, facility or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and other individuals and entities on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor.
Additionally, the intent standard under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively, the Affordable Care Act, to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Rather, if “one purpose” of the remuneration is to induce referrals, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is violated. In addition, the Affordable Care Act codified case law that a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act (discussed below).
The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to, among others, a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for a medical or other item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.
The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. For example, pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been, and continue to be, investigated or prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product and for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses.
HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.
Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.
We may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and their implementing regulations, imposes requirements on certain types of individuals and entities relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates that are independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.
Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act within the Affordable Care Act, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) annually report information to CMS related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, physicians and teaching hospitals and certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning in 2022, applicable manufacturers also will be required to report such information regarding its payments and other transfers of value to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists and certified nurse midwives during the previous year.
In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and
tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.
If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, refusal to allow us to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.
Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement
Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such products. In the United States, third-party payors include federal and state healthcare programs, private managed care providers, health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products, therapies and services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.
Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the EU, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.
The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on healthcare pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product candidates for which marketing approval is obtained. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant
interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.
For example, the Affordable Care Act has substantially changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers. Among the Affordable Care Act provisions of importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, in addition to those otherwise described above, are the following:
•created an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents apportioned among these entities according to their market share in some government healthcare programs;
•increased the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to 23.1% and 13% of the average manufacturer price for most branded and generic drugs, respectively, and capped the total rebate amount for innovator drugs at 100% of the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP);
•created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must now agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts, off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturers’ outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D;
•extended manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;
•expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and added new mandatory eligibility categories for individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability;
•expanded of the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Drug Discount Program;
•created a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research;
•expanded healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), created new government investigative powers, and enhanced penalties for noncompliance;
•created a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected;
•required reporting of certain financial arrangements with physicians and teaching hospitals;
•required annual reporting of certain information regarding drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians; and
•established a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending.
There have been legal and political challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, President Trump signed several executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent, or loosen certain requirements mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In December 2017, Congress repealed the tax penalty for an individual’s failure to maintain Affordable Care Act-mandated health insurance, commonly known as the “individual mandate”, as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Tax Act). In addition, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the Affordable Care Act’s mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated the health insurer tax.
Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA), among other things, amended the Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. In December 2018, CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain Affordable Care Act qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the Affordable Care Act risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing this case, but it is unknown when a decision will be reached. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through May 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The executive order also instructs certain
governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act. It is unclear how the Supreme Court ruling, other such litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the Affordable Care Act.
Further legislation or regulation could be passed that could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, in August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for fiscal years 2012 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect beginning on April 1, 2013 and will stay in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, COVID-19 relief support legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.
Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and federal and state legislative activity 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. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the administration’s proposals. The FDA also released a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, implementing a portion of the importation executive order providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed pending review by the Biden administration until March 22, 2021. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. On December 28, 2020, the United States District Court in Northern California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. However, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will work to reverse these measures or pursue similar policy initiatives. 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.
We anticipate that these and other healthcare reform efforts will continue to result in additional downward pressure on coverage and the price that we receive for any approved product, and could seriously harm our business. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action will be taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
The FCPA prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including
international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.
In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.
Europe / Rest of World Government Regulation
In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval of a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the EU, for example, a clinical trial application must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the clinical trial application is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.
The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.
To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational drug or biological product under EU regulatory systems, we must submit an MAA. The application used to file the BLA in the United States is similar to that required in the EU, with the exception of, among other things, country-specific document requirements.
For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.
If we or our potential collaborators fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.
European Union General Data Protection Regulation
In addition to EU regulations related to the approval and commercialization of our products, we may be subject to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR imposes stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of persons in the EU, including, for example, more robust disclosures to individuals and a strengthened individual data rights regime, shortened timelines for data breach notifications, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to special categories of data, such as health data, and additional obligations when we contract with third-party processors in connection with the processing of the personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States and other third countries. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.
The GDPR applies extraterritorially, and we may be subject to the GDPR because of our data processing activities that involve the personal data of individuals located in the European Union, such as in connection with our EU clinical trials. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of the EU member states may result in fines of up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year,
whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties. GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to the personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new data protection rules.
California Consumer Privacy Act
California recently enacted legislation, effective January 1, 2020, that has been dubbed the first “GDPR-like” law in the United States. Known as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), it creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers, provides such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information, and allows for a new cause of action for data breaches. As our business progresses, the CCPA may become applicable and impact (possibly significantly) our business activities and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information.
As of February 1, 2021, we had 265 total employees, of which 264 are full-time. Of our full-time employees, 69 hold Ph.D. and/or M.D. degrees, and 195 are engaged in research, development and technical operations. Substantially all of our employees are located in South San Francisco and Newark, California. Our employees are not represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We believe that our employee morale is healthy and consider our relationship with our employees to be good.
We believe our workforce is key to Allogene’s success and we actively focus on the following core elements of human capital: (1) our “One Allogene” culture, (2) diversity, equity and inclusion, and (3) recruitment, development and retention. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, we have also focused on COVID-19 safety measures and new ways of generating employee engagement.
One Allogene Culture
We have recently advanced an expression of our culture under the framework of “One Allogene”:
We only succeed as a team.
We accomplish more together than as individuals when we unite as one Allogene community.
We are resilient, because we strive to save the lives of people with cancer.
We come together with purpose, courage and flexibility despite challenges or uncertainty because every potential patient is someone’s partner, parent, child, sibling or friend.
We aim for excellence and give it our all.
We pursue scientific innovation with a focus on quality and integrity in everything we do to forever change how cancer is treated.
We take ownership and get things done.
We are leaders who embrace urgency, initiative and follow through, with the humility to know each one of us is vital to making AlloCAR T therapy a reality.
We are good to one another.
We value diversity of thought, background and expertise, we earn each other’s trust, and assume good intention as we collaborate to help patients.
We are creating a scientific revolution.
We are One Allogene
These core elements of our culture are meant to define how and why we do business. In addition, our core values of collaboration, leadership, innovation and focus help drive our culture and behaviors and are layered into our performance reviews so that we can keep ourselves and our employees accountable.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
We are committed to cultivating, fostering, and preserving a culture of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). We foster an inclusive environment through respect, collaboration, and open communication. We embrace and encourage differences in age, color, disability, ethnicity, family or marital status, gender identity or expression, language, national origin, culture or customs, physical and mental ability, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, veteran status, and other characteristics that make our employees unique. We also embrace differences in experience and background, and welcome diversity of opinions and thought when making decisions.
As of February 1, 2021, our employees were self-reportedly 49% women. Of our Director-level and above employees, 42% were self-reportedly women.
In addition, as of February 1, 2021, 66% of all employees were self-reportedly ethnic or racial minorities in the U.S., with 52% Asian, 3% Black or African American, 5% Hispanic or Latino and 5% of other minority groups or two or more races. Of our Director-level and above employees, 39% were self-reportedly ethnic or racial minorities in the U.S., with 30% Asian, 1% Black or African American, 1% Hispanic or Latino and 6% of other minority groups or two or more races.
Although we are proud of our efforts and metrics to date, we are focused on broadening our outreach and increasing opportunities to underrepresented minorities, including increased recruitment efforts in minority communities by posting our open positions on top job boards for diversity hiring, participating in diversity focused career fairs and hosting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-based outreach in underserved communities at the elementary, junior high and high school level. We have and will continue to conduct unconscious bias training and provide guidance with respect to best practices with a focus on DEI for interviewers. Our recruiters and hiring managers are also encouraged to consider candidates from underrepresented groups and to have diverse interview panels. In addition, we have an Employee Referral Bonus Program that rewards employees for referring candidates from underrepresented groups that are ultimately hired.
Our DEI initiatives are applicable to our practices and policies, such as those on recruitment, compensation and professional development. We are also progressing the ongoing development of an inclusive work environment that encourages:
•Respectful communication and cooperation between all employees.
•Valuing and soliciting input, feedback and opinions from relevant staff.
•Teamwork and employee participation, permitting the representation of employee perspectives.
•Employer and employee contributions to the communities we serve to promote a greater understanding and respect for the diversity.
To champion our efforts in this area, we established a governance structure and formed a DEI Committee as well as an associated DEI Advisory Board, each of which is comprised of employees of various levels, departments and backgrounds. The DEI Committee formalized a DEI mission statement and also advanced a DEI policy that sets forth our commitment to the importance of DEI and the responsibility of our employees to adhere to our policy, including by treating others with dignity and respect at all times. Pursuant to our DEI policy, all employees are also required to attend and complete annual diversity awareness training to enhance their knowledge to fulfill this responsibility. The DEI Committee and DEI Advisory Board continually work to identify gaps, respond to feedback provided by peers, and present suggestions on our practices and policies to encourage and enforce an environment in which all employees feel included and empowered to achieve their best.
We believe in equal pay for equal work. We establish components and ranges of compensation based on market and benchmark data. Within this context, we strive to pay all employees equitably within a reasonable range, taking into consideration factors such as role; market data; internal equity; job location; relevant experience; and individual, department and company performance. We also regularly review our compensation practices and analyze our compensation decisions for individual employees and our workforce as a whole on at least an annual basis. In 2020, we conducted a pay equity analysis which we believe demonstrated that our compensation practices and structure are equitable. If we identify employees with unjustified pay gaps, we review and take appropriate action to ensure fidelity between our stated philosophy and actions.
We plan to continue to seek feedback from the DEI Committee, DEI Advisory Board and all our employees to help us achieve our full potential.
Recruitment, Development and Retention
Successful execution of our strategy is dependent on attracting, developing and retaining our employees. We believe our leadership in the field of allogeneic cell therapy and our culture have allowed us to recruit a talented workforce. In 2020,
we recruited over 90 new employees. Our average time to hire was less than three months and a significant majority of candidates accepted our offers.
We believe our total compensation package also helps recruit and retain our employees. We strive to provide pay, benefits, and services that are competitive to market and create incentives to attract and retain employees. Our compensation package includes market-competitive pay, broad-based stock grants, health care and 401(k) plan benefits, paid time off and family leave, among others. We also provide annual incentive bonus opportunities that are tied to both company performance as well as individual performance to foster a pay-for-performance culture.
Developing our employees is important, and we focus on providing training opportunities and promotional opportunities. Learning and development, training and other resources are an integral part of retaining our employees and creating a culture of learning and leadership within Allogene. For instance, we have an annual required manager training that allows managers to learn and practice fundamental management skills to enable them to be more effective managers. We also train relevant members of our team on important environmental health and safety topics to help ensure we protect our people and our environment as we operate our business. We encourage our employees to participate and take advantage of a variety of learning and development resources, including online business skills courses, professional development events, and external training programs based on individual needs. We also actively review employee performance and business needs every six months that lead to promotional opportunities for employees across departments and levels.
We believe Allogene is an attractive workplace and our voluntary attrition rate for 2020 was less than 10%. However, we are in a highly competitive field and geographic region for life science talent and historically have faced proportionally higher attrition among our research, development and technical operations teams than our general and administrative teams. We believe we will continue to face significant competition for life science talent.
COVID-19 Employee Safety and Engagement
In March 2020 and in response to the spread of COVID-19 and state and local orders, we limited the number of staff working at our facilities. We also established an internal COVID-19 task force to ensure timely communication and decision-making in response to COVID-19. For laboratory, manufacturing and support staff onsite, we implemented new safety protocols, such as facial covering, social distancing and temperature check requirements. We continue to provide updates regarding COVID-19 and communicate with our employees on a frequent basis. For employees working remotely, we have provided collaboration tools and resources, including loaning certain office equipment and providing trainings to help leaders effectively lead and manage remote teams.
In addition, we enhanced and promoted programs to support our culture initiatives and employees’ wellbeing. For instance, we have implemented Human Resources-led virtual check-ins with our employees (both new hires and tenured employees), conducted surveys regarding culture and COVID-19 related initiatives, and also encouraged skip-level meetings in addition to emphasizing the importance of managers having regular 1:1 meetings with their team members. We also instituted biweekly virtual town-halls led by our Chief Executive Officer to provide all employees updates relating to our business and the opportunity to anonymously ask questions of our leadership team. In addition, we provided emergency pay to any employees unable to work due to the pandemic impact and implemented virtual fitness and meditation classes. We plan to stay engaged with our employees and work to continuously improve to strengthen Allogene’s culture and commitment to patients and stockholders.
We were incorporated in Delaware in November 2017. Our principal executive offices are located at 210 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080, and our telephone number is (650) 457-2700. Our corporate website address is www.allogene.com. We make available, free of charge on our website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after filing such reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Alternatively, you may access these reports at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Information contained on or accessible through our website is not a part of this report, and the inclusion of our website address in this report is an inactive textual reference only.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
An investment in shares of our common stock involves a high degree of risk. We have identified the following material factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. You should carefully consider the following risk factors, as well as the other information in this Annual Report. The occurrence of any of the following risks could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects or cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements we have made in this Annual Report and those we may make from time to time. The risks described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations.
Risks Related to Our Business and Industry
We have incurred net losses in every period since our inception and anticipate that we will incur substantial net losses in the future.
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company and investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We are advancing an allogeneic CAR T platform of primarily early-stage product candidates and have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we will continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses in each period since our inception. For the year ended December 31, 2020, we reported a net loss of $250.2 million. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $646.3 million.
We expect to incur significant expenditures for the foreseeable future, and we expect these expenditures to increase as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, product candidates based on our engineered allogeneic T cell platform. Because our allogeneic T cell product candidates are based on new technologies and will require the creation of inventory of mass-produced, off-the-shelf product, they will require extensive research and development and have substantial manufacturing and processing costs. In addition, costs to treat patients with relapsed or refractory cancer and to treat potential side effects that may result from our product candidates can be significant.
Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.
Our engineered allogeneic T cell product candidates represent a novel approach to cancer treatment that creates significant challenges for us.
We are developing a pipeline of allogeneic T cell product candidates that are engineered from healthy donor T cells to express CARs and are intended for use in any patient with certain cancers. Advancing these novel product candidates creates significant challenges for us, including:
•manufacturing our product candidates to our or regulatory specifications and in a timely manner to support our clinical trials, and, if approved, commercialization;
•sourcing clinical and, if approved, commercial supplies for the raw materials used to manufacture our product candidates;
•understanding and addressing variability in the quality of a donor’s T cells, which could ultimately affect our ability to produce product in a reliable and consistent manner and treat certain patients;
•educating medical personnel regarding the potential side effect profile of our product candidates, if approved, such as the potential adverse side effects related to cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurotoxicity, graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), prolonged cytopenia and neutropenic sepsis;
•using medicines to preempt or manage adverse side effects of our product candidates, which may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have other safety risks or a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment;
•conditioning patients with chemotherapy and ALLO-647 or other lymphodepletion agents in advance of administering our product candidates, which may increase the risk of infections and other adverse side effects;
•obtaining regulatory approval, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory authorities have limited experience with development of allogeneic T cell therapies for cancer; and
•establishing sales and marketing capabilities upon obtaining any regulatory approval to gain market acceptance of a novel therapy.
Gene-editing is a relatively new technology, and if we are unable to use this technology in our intended product candidates, our revenue opportunities will be materially limited.
Cellectis’s TALEN technology involves a relatively new approach to gene editing, using sequence-specific DNA-cutting enzymes, or nucleases, to perform precise and stable modifications in the DNA of living-cells and organisms. Although Cellectis has generated nucleases for many specific gene sequences, it has not created nucleases for all gene sequences that we may seek to target, and Cellectis may have difficulty creating nucleases for other gene sequences that we may seek to target, which could limit the usefulness of this technology. This technology may also not be shown to be effective in clinical studies that Cellectis, we or other licensees of Cellectis technology may conduct, or may be associated with safety issues that may negatively affect our development programs. For instance, gene-editing may create unintended changes to the DNA such as a non-target site gene-editing, a large deletion, or a DNA translocation, any of which could lead to oncogenesis. The gene-editing of our product candidates may also not be successful in limiting the risk of GvHD or premature rejection by the patient.
In addition, the gene-editing industry is rapidly developing, and our competitors may introduce new technologies that render our technology obsolete or less attractive. New technology could emerge at any point in the development cycle of our product candidates. As competitors use or develop new technologies, any failures of such technology could adversely impact our program. We also may be placed at a competitive disadvantage, and competitive pressures may force us to implement new technologies at a substantial cost. In addition, our competitors may have greater financial, technical and personnel resources that allow them to enjoy technological advantages and may in the future allow them to implement new technologies before we can. We cannot be certain that we will be able to implement technologies on a timely basis or at a cost that is acceptable to us. If we are unable to maintain technological advancements consistent with industry standards, our operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.
The COVID-19 global pandemic is adversely impacting our business, including our preclinical studies and clinical trials.
Public health crises such as pandemics or other outbreaks could adversely impact our business. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, or similar pandemics, and government response to pandemics, we have and may in the future experience disruptions that could severely impact our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials, including:
•halting or suspending enrollment in our clinical trials;
•delays or difficulties in enrolling and retaining patients in our clinical trials;
•interruption of key clinical trial activities, such as obtaining laboratory materials for collecting patient samples, clinical trial site data monitoring and efficacy, safety and translational data collection, processing and analyses, due to limitations on travel imposed or recommended by federal, state or local governments, employers and others or interruption of clinical trial subject visits, which may impact the collection and integrity of subject data and clinical study endpoints;
•delays or difficulties in initiating or expanding clinical trials, including delays or difficulties with clinical site initiation and recruiting clinical site investigators and clinical site staff;
•increased adverse events and deaths in our clinical trials due to COVID-19 related infections, which may result in increased complications due to immune suppression from our lymphodepletion regimen;
•increased rates of patients withdrawing from our clinical trials following enrollment as a result of contracting COVID-19 or being forced to quarantine;
•diversion of healthcare resources away from the conduct of clinical trials, including the diversion of hospitals serving as our clinical trial sites and hospital staff supporting the conduct of our clinical trials;
•delays or disruptions in preclinical experiments and investigational new drug application-enabling studies due to restrictions of on-site staff and unforeseen circumstances at contract research organizations and vendors;
•interruption or delays in the operations of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory agencies;
•interruption of, or delays in receiving, supplies of our raw materials or product candidates from our suppliers and contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) due to staffing shortages, production slowdowns or stoppages and disruptions in delivery systems, or due to prioritization of production for COVID-19 specific therapies or vaccines; and
•limitations on employee resources that would otherwise be focused on advancing our business, including because of sickness of employees or their families, including executive officers and other key employees, the desire of employees to avoid contact with large groups of people, an increased reliance on working from home or mass transit disruptions.
State and local government response to the pandemic has included "shelter in place", "stay at home" and similar types of orders, which have limited travel and business operations in our locations, the location of our clinical trial sites, and the location of key vendors, including our CMOs. Beginning the week of March 9, 2020, the majority of our workforce began working from home. The effects of the stay-at-home orders and our work-from-home policies may negatively impact productivity, disrupt our business and delay our development programs, regulatory and commercialization 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. While we, our clinical trials sites and certain of our vendors, including our CMOs, are currently exempt from the orders for certain essential operations, any of the applicable exemptions may be curtailed or revoked, which would further adversely impact our business.
In addition, the trading prices for our common stock and other biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, we may face difficulties raising capital through sales of our common stock or such sales may be on unfavorable terms. Market and economic deterioration could also adversely impact our portfolio of corporate and government bonds.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which the pandemic may impact our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the duration of the pandemic, travel restrictions and actions to contain the pandemic or treat its impact, such as social distancing and quarantines or lock-downs in the United States and other countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease.
We are heavily reliant on our partners for access to key gene editing technology for the manufacturing and development of our product candidates.
A critical aspect to manufacturing allogeneic T cell product candidates involves gene editing the healthy donor T cells in an effort to avoid GvHD and to limit the patient’s immune system from attacking the allogeneic T cells. GvHD results when allogeneic T cells start recognizing the patient’s normal tissue as foreign. We use Cellectis’s TALEN gene-editing technology to inactivate a gene coding for TCRα, a key component of the natural antigen receptor of T cells, to cause the engineered T cells to be incapable of recognizing foreign antigens. Accordingly, when injected into a patient, the intent is for the engineered T cell not to recognize the tissue of the patient as foreign and thus avoid attacking the patient’s tissue. In addition, we use TALEN gene editing to inactivate the CD52 gene in donor T cells, which codes for the target of an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody. Anti-CD52 monoclonal antibodies deplete CD52 expressing T cells in patients while sparing therapeutic allogeneic T cells lacking CD52. By administering an anti-CD52 antibody prior to infusing our product candidates, we believe we have the potential to reduce the likelihood of a patient’s immune system from rejecting the engineered allogeneic T cells for a sufficient period of time to enable a window of persistence during which the engineered allogeneic T cells can actively target and destroy the cancer cells. However, the antibody may not have the benefits that we anticipate and could have adverse effects.
We rely on an agreement with Cellectis for rights to use TALEN technology for 15 select cancer targets, including BCMA, FLT3, CD70, DLL3 and other targets included in our pipeline. We also rely on Cellectis, through our agreement with Servier, for rights to UCART19, ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A. We would need an additional license from Cellectis or access to other gene-editing technology to research and develop product candidates directed at targets not covered by our existing agreements with Cellectis and Servier. In addition, the Cellectis gene-editing technology may fail to produce viable product candidates. Moreover, both Servier and Cellectis may terminate our respective agreements in the event of a material breach of the agreements, or upon certain insolvency events. If our agreements were terminated or we required other gene editing
technology, such a license or technology may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all, particularly given the limited number of alternative gene-editing technologies in the market.
In addition, pursuant to the Servier Agreement, we expect Servier to continue to support our clinical trials of ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A for the treatment of patients with R/R NHL. Should Servier become unable to continue providing its share of financial support for the ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A clinical trials, our expenses may be greater than we currently expect and we may have difficulty progressing our ongoing and planned clinical trials in a timely manner. Moreover, as the CALM and PALL clinical trials of UCART19 have completed, we are reliant on Servier for progressing a development strategy for ALL and any development strategy may face challenges, such as regulatory delays and unforeseen expenses if we consolidate programs.
Our product candidates are based on novel technologies, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and obtaining regulatory approval.
We have concentrated our research, development and manufacturing efforts on our engineered allogeneic T cell therapy and our future success depends on the successful development of this therapeutic approach. We are in the early stages of developing our platform and there can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be overcome. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. In addition, since we are in the early stages of clinical development, we do not know the doses to be evaluated in pivotal trials or, if approved, commercially. Finding a suitable dose for our cell therapy product candidates as well as ALLO-647 may delay our anticipated clinical development timelines. In addition, our expectations with regard to our scalability and costs of manufacturing may vary significantly as we develop our product candidates and understand these critical factors.
We are also advancing product candidates against unexplored targets and with new technology. For example, we are advancing ALLO-316 against a target, CD70, that has not been validated by any autologous CAR T therapies. ALLO-316 may have limited efficacy or have off-target toxicities. Since CD70 is found on activated T cells, ALLO-316 may also cause fratricide resulting in the loss of ALLO-316 cells or increase the risk of infections. In addition, our ALLO-605 product candidate is our first TurboCAR candidate that is designed to mimic cytokine signaling selectively within CAR T cells. Our TurboCAR product candidates may not demonstrate any of the benefits that we expect. As potentially more potent, our TurboCAR product candidates may also increase the risk of adverse events, such as CRS and neurotoxicity.
The clinical study requirements of the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA) and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate are determined according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more complex and consequently more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. We face additional challenges in obtaining regulatory approval for ALLO-647, which we use as part of our lymphodepletion regimen, and for which we would seek to obtain approval concurrently with approval of a CAR T cell product candidate. Approvals by the EMA and FDA for existing autologous CAR T therapies, such as Kymriah and Yescarta, may not be indicative of what these regulators may require for approval of our therapies. Also, while we expect reduced variability in our products candidates compared to autologous products, we do not have significant clinical data supporting any benefit of lower variability and the use of healthy donor material may create separate variability challenges for us. More generally, approvals by any regulatory agency may not be indicative of what any other regulatory agency may require for approval or what such regulatory agencies may require for approval in connection with new product candidates. Moreover, our product candidates may not perform successfully in clinical trials or may be associated with adverse events that distinguish them from the autologous CAR T therapies that have previously been approved. For instance, allogeneic product candidates may result in GvHD not experienced with autologous products. Even if we collect promising initial clinical data of our product candidates, longer-term data may reveal new adverse events or responses that are not durable. Unexpected clinical outcomes would significantly impact our business.
Our business is highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidates. If we are unable to advance clinical development, obtain approval of and successfully commercialize our lead product candidates for the treatment of patients in approved indications, our business would be significantly harmed.
Our business and future success depends on our ability to advance clinical development, obtain regulatory approval of, and then successfully commercialize, our lead product candidates, including ALLO-501A and ALLO-715. Because ALLO-501, ALLO-501A and ALLO-715 are among the first allogeneic products to be evaluated in the clinic, the failure of any such product candidate, or the failure of other allogeneic T cell therapies, including for reasons due to safety, efficacy or durability, may impede our ability to develop our product candidates, and significantly influence physicians’ and regulators’ opinions in
regards to the viability of our entire pipeline of allogeneic T cell therapies. For instance, we are planning to progress to the Phase 2 portion of the ALPHA2 trial of ALLO-501A by the end of 2021. In order to do so, we will need to complete many objectives, such as continued enrollment in the ALPHA trial and ALPHA2 Phase 1 portion of the trial, timely patient follow-up, generation of positive Phase 1 data, advancement of cGMP manufacturing of ALLO-501A and approval from the FDA on any Phase 2 plan. If we are unable to achieve any of these objectives, we may not be able to advance to Phase 2 in a timely manner or at all, which would significantly harm our business.
All of our product candidates, including our lead product candidates, will require additional clinical and non-clinical development, regulatory review and approval in multiple jurisdictions, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. In addition, because our other product candidates are based on similar technology as our lead product candidates, if any of the lead product candidates encounters safety or efficacy problems, manufacturing problems, developmental delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed.
Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.
Undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by our 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 or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Approved autologous CAR T therapies and those under development have shown frequent rates of CRS, neurotoxicity, serious infections, prolonged cytopenia and hypogammaglobulinemia, and adverse events have resulted in the death of patients. We expect similar adverse events for allogeneic CAR T product candidates.
Our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates may also cause unique adverse events related to the differences between the donor and patients, such as GvHD or infusion reactions. In addition, we utilize a lymphodepletion regimen, which generally includes fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and ALLO-647, that may cause serious adverse events. For instance, because the regimen will cause a transient and sometimes prolonged immune suppression, patients will have an increased risk of infection, such as to COVID-19, that may be unable to be cleared by the patient and ultimately lead to death. Our lymphodepletion regimen has caused and may also cause prolonged cytopenia. We are also exploring various dosing strategies for lymphodepletion in our clinical trials, such as higher and lower dosing of ALLO-647 in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, which may increase the risk of serious adverse events.
In our and Servier's clinical trials of allogeneic CAR T product candidates, the most common severe or life threatening adverse events resulted from serious infections, prolonged cytopenia, prolonged pancytopenia, hypokalemia, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and neutropenic sepsis. As reported, patients have died from adverse events and future patients may also experience toxicity resulting in death. For additional safety data, please see "Business--Product Pipeline and Development Strategy".
As we treat and re-treat more patients with our product candidates in our clinical trials, new less common side effects may also emerge. For instance, our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates undergo gene engineering by using lentivirus and TALEN nucleases that can cause insertion, deletion, or chromosomal translocation. These changes can cause allogeneic CAR T cells to proliferate uncontrollably and may cause adverse events. In addition, we may combine the use of our product candidates with other investigational therapies that may cause separate adverse events or events related to the combination. For instance, we are advancing a combination of ALLO-715 and nirogacestat, a gamma secretase inhibitor, in a cohort in the UNIVERSAL trial. The most common adverse events relating to nirogacestat in prior trials have included diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, hypophosphatemia, vomiting, rash, cough, decreased appetite, pyrexia and hypokalemia. These or other adverse events could result in the suspension of therapy or otherwise adversely impact the UNIVERSAL trial.
If unacceptable toxicities arise in the development of our product candidates, we could suspend or terminate our trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The data safety monitoring board may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, including risks inferred from other unrelated immunotherapy trials. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from T cell therapy are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. We have trained and expect to have to train medical personnel using CAR T cell product candidates to understand the side effect profile of our
product candidates for both our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.
Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, including in any post-approval studies.
There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy, insufficient durability of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as products.
In addition, for ongoing and any future trials that may be completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, approval of our product candidates may be significantly delayed, or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates.
Initial, interim 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 publish initial, interim or preliminary data from our clinical studies. 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. For instance, we have published preliminary data from the ALPHA trial and UNIVERSAL trial, however such results are preliminary in nature, do not bear statistical significance and should not be viewed as predictive of ultimate success. It is possible that such results will not continue or may not be repeated in ongoing or future clinical trials of anti-CD19 or anti-BCMA CAR T cell product candidates or our other product candidates.
Preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, initial, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.
We may not be able to file INDs to commence additional clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to, the FDA may not permit us to proceed.
We plan to submit INDs for additional product candidates in the future, including an IND for ALLO-605 in the first half of 2021. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND or IND amendment will result in the FDA allowing testing and clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical trials. The manufacturing of allogeneic CAR T cell therapy remains an emerging and evolving field. Accordingly, we expect chemistry, manufacturing and control related topics, including product specification, will be a focus of IND reviews, which may delay the clearance of INDs or IND amendments. For instance, we intend to optimize the manufacturing of our product candidates, including ALLO-501A, and regulatory authorities may require additional studies or clinical data to support the changes, which could delay our clinical trial timelines, including the Phase 2 portion of the ALPHA2 trial. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND, IND amendment or clinical trial application, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future.
In addition, we submitted a standalone cross-reference IND for ALLO-647, which is being used as part of lymphodepletion in all our clinical trials. While our IND has been accepted, we have to update the IND for any new IND or
IND amendment relating to our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates and we plan to update the IND as we finalize pivotal manufacturing of ALLO-647 at one of our CMOs. Any regulatory issues related to the review of our ALLO-647 IND updates or to the development of ALLO-647 could delay development of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates and significantly affect our business.
We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct our trials on the timelines we expect.
Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Even if our trials begin as planned, issues may arise that could suspend or terminate such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical study can occur at any stage of testing, and our future clinical studies may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:
•inability to generate sufficient preclinical, toxicology or other in vivo or in vitro data to support the initiation of clinical studies;
•delays in sufficiently developing, characterizing or controlling a manufacturing process suitable for clinical trials;
•difficulty sourcing healthy donor material of sufficient quality and in sufficient quantity to meet our development needs;
•delays in developing suitable assays for screening patients for eligibility for trials with respect to certain product candidates;
•delays in reaching a consensus with regulatory agencies on study design;
•delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations (CROs) and clinical study sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical study sites;
•delays in obtaining required institutional review board (IRB) approval at each clinical study site;
•imposition of a temporary or permanent clinical hold by regulatory agencies for a number of reasons, including after review of an IND application or amendment, or equivalent application or amendment; as a result of a new safety finding that presents unreasonable risk to clinical trial participants; a negative finding from an inspection of our clinical study operations or study sites; developments on trials conducted by competitors for related technology that raises FDA concerns about risk to patients of the technology broadly; or if FDA finds that the investigational protocol or plan is clearly deficient to meet its stated objectives;
•delays in recruiting suitable patients to participate in our clinical studies;
•difficulty collaborating with patient groups and investigators;
•failure by our CROs, other third parties or us to adhere to clinical study requirements;
•failure to perform in accordance with the FDA’s good clinical practice (GCP) requirements or applicable regulatory guidelines in other countries;
•transfer of manufacturing processes to any new CMO or our own manufacturing facilities or any other development or commercialization partner for the manufacture of product candidates;
•delays in having patients complete participation in a study or return for post-treatment follow-up;
•patients dropping out of a study;
•occurrence of adverse events associated with the product candidate that are viewed to outweigh its potential benefits;
•changes in regulatory requirements and guidance that require amending or submitting new clinical protocols;
•changes in the standard of care on which a clinical development plan was based, which may require new or additional trials;
•the cost of clinical studies of our product candidates being greater than we anticipate;
•clinical studies of our product candidates producing negative or inconclusive results, which may result in our deciding, or regulators requiring us, to conduct additional clinical studies or abandon product development programs;
•delays or failure to secure supply agreements with suitable raw material suppliers, or any failures by suppliers to meet our quantity or quality requirements for necessary raw materials, including due to suppliers prioritizing COVID-19 specific treatments or vaccines; and
•delays in manufacturing, testing, releasing, validating, or importing/exporting sufficient stable quantities of our product candidates for use in clinical studies or the inability to do any of the foregoing, including due to our CMOs or other vendors prioritizing COVID-19 specific treatments or vaccines.
The COVID-19 pandemic may also increase the risk of certain of the events described above and delay our development timelines. Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may be required to or we may elect to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. Clinical study delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.
Monitoring and managing toxicities in patients receiving our product candidates is challenging, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize.
For our ongoing and planned clinical trials of our product candidates, we contract or will contract with academic medical centers and hospitals experienced in the assessment and management of toxicities arising during clinical trials. Nonetheless, these centers and hospitals may have difficulty observing patients and treating toxicities, which may be more challenging due to personnel changes, inexperience, shift changes, house staff coverage or related issues. This could lead to more severe or prolonged toxicities or even patient deaths, which could result in us or the FDA delaying, suspending or terminating one or more of our clinical trials, and which could jeopardize regulatory approval. We also expect the centers using our product candidates, if approved, on a commercial basis could have similar difficulty in managing adverse events. Medicines used at centers to help manage adverse side effects of our product candidates may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment. Use of these medicines may increase with new physicians and centers administering our product candidates.
If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.
We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the study until its conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic, including the travel and business restrictions imposed by government authorities in response to the pandemic, have resulted in, and may continue to cause, reduced enrollment and may also create challenges to related clinical trial activities. In addition, the enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:
•the patient eligibility criteria defined in the protocol;
•the size of the patient population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints;
•the proximity of patients to study sites;
•the design of the trial;
•our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience;
•our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents;
•the competition from approved products and from product candidates in other clinical trials; and
•the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before the infusion of our product candidates or trial completion.
Since we only need to conduct a limited number of manufacturing runs to generate clinical supply, the diversity of our supply is limited during clinical trials. As a result, some patients may have antibodies to certain donor specific antigens that may interact with our product candidates, which would render the patients ineligible for treatment.
In addition, prior treatment with rituximab may interfere with ALLO-501 as ALLO-501 contains rituximab recognition domains. Since rituximab is a typical part of a treatment regimen for a patient with NHL, patient eligibility for the ALLO-501 trial may be limited. Patients may also undergo plasmapheresis to remove rituximab prior to infusion of ALLO-501, which may cause separate adverse effects. We have removed the rituximab recognition domains in the second generation of ALLO-501, known as ALLO-501A, which we believe will potentially facilitate treatment of patients who were recently treated with rituximab. However, ALLO-501A may not behave as expected and may be challenging to develop or manufacture.
Our clinical trials will also compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, some of our clinical trial sites are also being used by some of our competitors, which may reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in that clinical trial site.
Moreover, because our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for cancer treatment, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation or autologous CAR T cell therapies, rather than enroll patients in our clinical trial, including if our product candidates have or are perceived to have additional safety or efficacy risks or if using our product candidates may affect insurance coverage of conventional therapies. Patients eligible for allogeneic CAR T cell therapies but ineligible for autologous CAR T cell therapies due to aggressive cancer and inability to wait for autologous CAR T cell therapies may be at greater risk for complications and death from therapy.
Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our ongoing clinical trial and planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.
The market opportunities for our product candidates may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments and may be small.
The FDA often approves new therapies initially only for use in patients with R/R metastatic disease. We expect to initially seek approval of our product candidates in this setting. Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval in earlier lines of treatment. There is no guarantee that our product candidates, even if approved, would be approved for earlier lines of therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we will have to conduct additional clinical trials, including potentially comparative trials against approved therapies. We are also targeting a similar patient population as autologous CAR T product candidates, including approved autologous CAR T products. Our therapies may not be as safe and effective as autologous CAR T therapies and may only be approved for patients who are ineligible for autologous CAR T therapy.
Our projections of both the number of patients who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the subset of patients with these cancers in a position to receive second or later lines of therapy and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. For instance, we expect ALLO-501A to initially target a small patient population that suffers from R/R NHL. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications.
Our development strategy relies on incorporating an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody as part of the lymphodepletion preconditioning regimen prior to infusing allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates.
We utilize an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody as part of a lymphodepletion regimen to be infused prior to infusing our product candidates. While we believe an anti-CD52 antibody may be able to reduce the likelihood of a patient’s immune system rejecting the engineered allogeneic T cells for a sufficient period of time to enable a window of persistence during which such engineered allogeneic T cells can actively target and destroy cancer cells, the antibody may not have the benefits that we anticipate and could have adverse effects. For instance, our lymphodepletion regimen, including using an anti-CD52 antibody, will cause a transient and sometimes prolonged immune suppression that is associated with an increased risk of infection, such as to COVID-19, that may be unable to be cleared by the patient and ultimately lead to death.
In the prior CALM and PALL trials, a commercially available monoclonal antibody, alemtuzumab, that binds CD52 was used. Alemtuzumab is known to have risk of causing certain adverse events. In 2020, the EMA completed a pharmacovigilance review of alemtuzumab in the context of the treatment of multiple sclerosis following reports of immune-mediated conditions and problems affecting the heart and blood vessels, including fatal cases. The EMA recommended that alemtuzumab should not be used in patients with certain heart, circulation or bleeding disorders or in patients who have autoimmune disorders other than multiple sclerosis. The EMA also recommended that alemtuzumab only be given in a hospital with ready access to intensive care facilities and specialists who can manage serious adverse reactions. Based on the recommendations, we have added relevant new safety information to certain of our clinical trial documentation, including informed consent forms. Our product candidates will also continue to be administered at specialized centers, which are experienced at managing patients with advanced malignancies as well as toxicities associated with immunomodulatory therapies. We will continue to monitor any new safety information that will be reported or added to the product labels of alemtuzumab. If the EMA or other regulatory agencies further limit the use of alemtuzumab or anti-CD52 antibodies, our clinical program would be adversely affected.
To secure our own readily available source of anti-CD52 antibody, we are developing our own monoclonal anti-CD52 antibody, ALLO-647, which we are using in our clinical trials. ALLO-647 may cause serious adverse events that alemtuzumab may cause, including fatal adverse events, immune thrombocytopenia, glomerular nephropathies, thyroid disorders, autoimmune cytopenias, autoimmune hepatitis, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acquired hemophilia and infections, stroke, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. In addition, we are exploring various dosing strategies for lymphodepletion in our clinical trials, such as higher and lower dosing of ALLO-647 in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, which may increase the risk of serious adverse events. See "Business--Product Pipeline and Development Strategy" for information on safety events.
If we are unable to successfully develop and manufacture ALLO-647 in the timeframe we anticipate, or at all, or if regulatory authorities do not approve the use of ALLO-647 in combination with our allogeneic T cell product candidates, we may be unable to source alemtuzumab and our engineered allogeneic T cell product candidates may be less effective, which could result in delays in our product development efforts and/or the commercial potential of our product candidates.
We intend to operate our own cell therapy manufacturing facility, which will require significant resources and we may fail to successfully operate our facility, which could adversely affect our clinical trials and the commercial viability of our product candidates.
We may not be able to achieve clinical or commercial manufacturing and cell processing on our own or at our CMO, including mass-producing off-the-shelf product to satisfy demands for any of our product candidates. While we believe the manufacturing and processing approaches are appropriate to support our clinical product development, we have limited experience in managing the allogeneic T cell engineering process, and our allogeneic processes may be more difficult or more expensive than the approaches taken by our competitors. We cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes employed by us or the technologies that we incorporate for manufacturing will result in T cells that will be safe and effective.
In February 2019, we entered into a lease for approximately 118,000 square feet to develop a state-of-the-art cell therapy manufacturing facility in Newark, California. While we expect to initiate manufacturing under current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) in 2021, any business interruptions or delays to our validation or commissioning efforts, securing equipment and raw materials, or obtaining appropriate regulatory or licensing approvals, in each case which may be more likely as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, will delay our manufacturing timelines.
Any changes in manufacturing of our product candidates currently in the clinic, including introducing product candidates manufactured at our facility into any ongoing clinical trials, will require that we meet certain regulatory conditions, such as establishing comparability with the product candidates manufactured at our CMO, and our inability to meet such conditions may result in a delay in using our manufacturing facility for production or extend our clinical trial timelines.
We also do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of the clinical and commercial manufacturing and processing of our product candidates, and the actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. In addition, the ultimate clinical and any commercial dose and treatment regimen will affect our ability to scale and our costs per dose. For instance, because ALLO-715 may require a higher dose than ALLO-501A, it is possible that it may be more difficult to scale ALLO-715 production to meet any demand. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product. The commercial manufacturing facility we build will also require FDA approval, which we may never obtain. Even if approved, we would be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with cGMP, and other government regulations.
The manufacture of biopharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of cell therapy products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling out and validating initial production and ensuring the absence of contamination. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. The application of new regulatory guidelines or parameters, such as those related to release testing, may also adversely affect our ability to manufacture our product candidates. Furthermore, if contaminants are discovered in our supply of product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities, such supply may have to be discarded and our manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We cannot assure you that any stability or other issues relating to the manufacture of our product candidates will not occur in the future.
We, our CMOs or any other of our or their vendors may fail to manage the logistics of storing and shipping our raw materials and product candidates. Storage failures and shipment delays and problems caused by us, our vendors or other factors not in our control, such as weather, could result in the inability to manufacture product, the loss of usable product or prevent or delay the delivery of product candidates to patients.
We may also experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disputes. If we were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide our product candidates to patients would be jeopardized.
We currently have no marketing and sales organization and as a company have no experience in marketing products. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may not be able to generate product revenue.
We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution capabilities and as a company have no experience in marketing products. We intend to develop an in-house marketing organization and sales force, which will require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. We will have to compete with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel.
If we are unable or decide not to establish internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we will pursue collaborative arrangements regarding the sales and marketing of our products; however, there can be no assurance that we will be able to establish or maintain such collaborative arrangements, or if we are able to do so, that they will have effective sales forces. Any revenue we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts of such third parties and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized our product candidates ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of our product candidates.
There can be no assurance that we will be able to develop in-house sales and distribution capabilities or establish or maintain relationships with third-party collaborators to commercialize any product that receives regulatory approval in the United States or in other markets.
A variety of risks associated with conducting research and clinical trials abroad and marketing our product candidates internationally could materially adversely affect our business.
We plan to globally develop our product candidates. Accordingly, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries, including:
•differing regulatory requirements in foreign countries;
•unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers, price and exchange controls and other regulatory requirements;
•differing standards for the conduct of clinical trials;
•increased difficulties in managing the logistics and transportation of storing and shipping product candidates produced in the United States and shipping the product candidate to the patient abroad;
•import and export requirements and restrictions;
•economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets;
•compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad;
•foreign taxes, including withholding of payroll taxes;
•foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country;
•difficulties staffing and managing foreign operations;
•workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States;
•differing payor reimbursement regimes, governmental payors or patient self-pay systems, and price controls;
•potential liability under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 or comparable foreign regulations;
•challenges enforcing our contractual and intellectual property rights, especially in those foreign countries that do not respect and protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the United States;
•production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad; and
•business interruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic or other natural or man-made disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis, fires or other medical epidemics, or geo-political actions, including war and terrorism.
These and other risks associated with our collaborations with Servier and Cellectis, each based in France, our collaboration with Notch Therapeutics Inc. (Notch), based in Canada, and our joint venture for China, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore with Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc., may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.
We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.
The biopharmaceutical industry, and the immuno-oncology industry specifically, is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our competitors may be able to develop other compounds or drugs that are able to achieve similar or better results. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products.
Specifically, engineered T cells face significant competition from multiple companies. Success of other therapies could impact our regulatory strategy and delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates. Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances. For additional information regarding our competition, see “Item 1. Business—Competition” in our Annual Report.
We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.
Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel, including our Executive Chair, our President and Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer, our Executive Vice President of Research & Development and Chief Medical Officer, our Chief Technical Officer, and our General Counsel. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, other key employees, and other scientific and medical advisors, and our inability to find suitable replacements could result in delays in product development and harm our business.
We conduct substantially all of our operations at our facilities in South San Francisco. This region is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all.
To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options and restricted stock unit (RSU) awards that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options and RSU awards that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. We do not maintain “key person” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.
We have grown rapidly and will need to continue to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.
As of February 1, 2021, we had 265 full-time employees. As our development, manufacturing and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we have rapidly expanded our employee base and expect to add managerial, operational, sales, research and development, marketing, financial and other personnel. Current and future growth imposes significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:
•identifying, recruiting, integrating, maintaining and motivating additional employees;
•managing our internal development efforts effectively, including the clinical and FDA review process for our product candidates, while complying with our contractual obligations to contractors and other third parties; and
•improving our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures.
Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage our growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. Our ability to build our organization and manage our employees has also been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, as our staff are working from home, except for a limited number primarily working in our laboratories and manufacturing facility. The effects of the stay-at-home orders and our work-from-home policies may negatively impact productivity, disrupt our business and delay our development programs, regulatory and commercialization 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.
We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants. There can be no assurance that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. We may also be subject to penalties or other liabilities if we mis-classify employees as consultants. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.
If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development, manufacturing and commercialization goals.
We may form or seek additional strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such alliances or licensing arrangements.
We may form or seek additional strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue
securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Any delays in entering into new strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
If we license products or acquire businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. For instance, our agreements with Cellectis, Servier, Notch and SpringWorks require significant research and development that may not result in the development and commercialization of product candidates. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the results, revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction.
We may not realize the benefits of acquired assets or other strategic transactions.
We actively evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis. We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue joint ventures or investments in complementary businesses. The success of our strategic transactions, including our acquisition of CAR T cell assets from Pfizer, licenses with Cellectis, Servier and Notch, joint venture with Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc. and any future strategic transactions depends on the risks and uncertainties involved including:
•unanticipated liabilities related to acquired companies or joint ventures;
•difficulties integrating acquired personnel, technologies and operations into our existing business;
•retention of key employees;
•diversion of management time and focus from operating our business to management of strategic alliances or joint ventures or acquisition integration challenges;
•increases in our expenses and reductions in our cash available for operations and other uses;
•disruption in or termination of our relationships with collaborators or suppliers as a result of such a transaction; and
•possible write-offs or impairment charges relating to acquired businesses or joint ventures.
If any of these risks or uncertainties occur, we may not realize the anticipated benefit of any acquisition or strategic transaction.
Additionally, foreign acquisitions and joint ventures are subject to additional risks, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks, potentially adverse tax consequences of overseas operations and the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with specific countries. For instance, our joint venture with Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc. may face difficulties manufacturing or delivering our licensed product candidates in China, Taiwan, South Korea or Singapore, which could prevent any development or commercialization of our licensed product candidates in the region. The joint venture will also require significant financial support in the future by us or third parties, and any future financing of the joint venture would increase our expenses or dilute our ownership in the joint venture.
Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition.
We will need substantial additional financing to develop our products and implement our operating plans. If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may be unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.
We expect to spend a substantial amount of capital in the development and manufacture of our product candidates. We will need substantial additional financing to develop our products and implement our operating plans. In particular, we will require substantial additional financing to enable commercial production of our products and initiate and complete registration
trials for multiple products in multiple regions. Further, if approved, we will require significant additional amounts in order to launch and commercialize our product candidates.
As of December 31, 2020, we had $1.0 billion in cash, cash equivalents and investments. Changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may also need to raise additional capital sooner than we currently anticipate if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently plan. In any event, we will require additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities.
We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. We have no committed source of additional capital and if we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of our product candidates or other research and development initiatives. Our license agreements may also be terminated if we are unable to meet the payment obligations under the agreements. We could be required to seek collaborators for our product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available or relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to our product candidates in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development or commercialization ourselves.
Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.
Our internal computer systems, or those used by our CROs, collaborators or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches.
Our internal computer systems and those of our CROs, collaborators, and other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, cybersecurity threats, and telecommunication and electrical failures. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified our dependence on information technology systems as many of our critical business activities are currently being conducted remotely. A successful cyberattack could result in the theft or destruction of intellectual property, data, or other misappropriation of assets, financial loss or otherwise compromise our confidential or proprietary information and disrupt our operations. Any failure to prevent or mitigate security breaches or improper access to, use of, or disclosure of our clinical data or patients’ personal data could result in significant liability under state, federal, and international law and may cause a material adverse impact to our reputation, affect our ability to conduct our clinical trials and potentially disrupt our business.
Cyberattacks are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. Cyberattacks could include wrongful conduct by hostile foreign governments, industrial espionage, wire fraud and other forms of cyber fraud, the deployment of harmful malware, denial-of-service, social engineering fraud or other means to threaten data security, confidentiality, integrity and availability. Although we devote resources to protect our information systems, we realize that cyberattacks are a threat, and there can be no assurance that our efforts will prevent information security breaches that would result in business, legal, financial or reputational harm to us, or would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, failure to maintain effective internal accounting controls related to security breaches and cybersecurity in general could impact our ability to produce timely and accurate financial statements and subject us to regulatory scrutiny. Any failure by third-party providers to prevent or mitigate security breaches or improper access to or disclosure of such information could have similarly adverse consequences for us.
Changes in funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal functions on which the operation of our business may rely, 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, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept payment of user fees, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, and business disruptions, such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those 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 to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several
years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.
Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.
In addition to the business disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or cybersecurity attacks described above, our operations, and those of our CMOs, CROs, clinical trial sites and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to other disruptions, including those caused by earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.
Our ability to manufacture our product candidates could be disrupted if our operations or those of our suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption. Our corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility are located in California near major earthquake faults and fire zones. The ultimate impact on us, our significant suppliers and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire or other natural disaster.
Our relationships with customers, physicians, and third-party payors are subject, directly or indirectly, to federal, state, local and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, health information privacy and security laws, and other healthcare laws and regulations. If we or our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors violate these laws, we could face substantial penalties.
These laws may impact, among other things, our clinical research program, as well as our proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services is subject to extensive laws and regulations designed to prevent fraud, 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 and other business arrangements. We may also be subject to federal, state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of identifiable patient information. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws that apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties.
European data collection is governed by restrictive regulations governing the use, processing, and cross-border transfer of personal information.
The collection and use of personal data in the European Union (EU) are governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR imposes stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data, including, for example, more robust disclosures to individuals and a strengthened individual data rights regime, shortened timelines for data breach notifications, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to special categories of data, such as health data, and additional obligations when we contract with third-party processors in connection with the processing of the personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States and other third countries. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.
The GDPR applies extraterritorially, and we may be subject to the GDPR because of our data processing activities that involve the personal data of individuals located in the European Union, such as in connection with our EU clinical trials. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of the EU member states may result in fines of up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties. GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to the personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new data protection rules. This may be onerous and may interrupt or delay our development activities, and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Additionally, California recently enacted legislation that has been dubbed the first “GDPR-like” law in the United States. Known as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CPPA), it creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of
consumers or households. The CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers, provide such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information, and allow for a new cause of action for data breaches. As our business progresses, the CCPA may become applicable and significantly impact our business activities and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information.
If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.
We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:
•decreased demand for our product candidates;
•injury to our reputation;
•withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
•initiation of investigations by regulators;
•costs to defend the related litigation;
•a diversion of management’s time and our resources;
•substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;
•product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;
•loss of revenue;
•exhaustion of any available insurance and our capital resources;
•the inability to commercialize any product candidate; and
•a decline in our share price.
Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with corporate collaborators. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. While we have obtained and expect to obtain clinical trial insurance for our clinical trials, we may have to pay amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.
Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.
Under the Tax Act, as modified by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), federal net operating losses incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal net operating losses in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, is limited to 80% of taxable income. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Act or the CARES Act. Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in the equity ownership of certain stockholders over a rolling three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. As a result of our IPO in October 2018 and private placements and other transactions that have occurred since our incorporation, we may have experienced an “ownership change”. We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. We anticipate incurring significant additional net losses for the foreseeable future, and our ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards associated with any such losses to offset future taxable income may be limited to the
extent we incur future ownership changes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating loss carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. For example, California recently imposed limits on the usability of California state net operating losses to offset taxable income in tax years beginning after 2019 and before 2023. As a result, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.
Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties
We rely and will continue to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize our product candidates.
We depend and will continue to depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities, medical institutions, CROs and strategic partners to conduct our preclinical and clinical trials under agreements with us.
We negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs and study sites, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely heavily on these third parties over the course of our 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 applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with good clinical practices (GCPs), which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.
Any third parties conducting our clinical trials are and will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical, clinical and nonclinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties 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 or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.
If any of our relationships with trial sites, or any CRO that we may use in the future, terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative trial sites or CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding third parties to conduct our clinical trials involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.
We rely on third parties to manufacture our clinical product supplies, and we may have to rely on third parties to produce and process our product candidates, if approved.
Our product candidates are manufactured in the United States by our CMOs, and we manage all other aspects of the supply, including planning, CMO oversight, disposition and distribution logistics. In the past, Servier was responsible for UCART19 manufacturing, and experienced UCART19 supply issues that limited its ability to recruit new patients in the past. There can be no assurance that we will not experience supply or manufacturing issues in the future.
While we are in the process of developing our own manufacturing facility for cell therapies, we must currently rely on outside vendors to manufacture supplies and process our product candidates. We do not have long-term agreements in place with CMOs for the manufacture of our cell therapies or of ALLO-647. If we are unable to contract with CMOs on acceptable terms or at all, our clinical development program would be delayed and our business would be significantly harmed.
We have not yet caused our product candidates to be manufactured or processed on a commercial scale and may not be able to achieve manufacturing and processing and may be unable to create an inventory of mass-produced, off-the-shelf product to satisfy demands for any of our product candidates.
We do not yet have sufficient information to reliably estimate the cost of the commercial manufacturing and processing of our product candidates, and the actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates. As a result, we may never be able to develop a commercially viable product.
In addition, our anticipated reliance on a limited number of third-party manufacturers exposes us to the following risks:
•We may be unable to identify manufacturers on acceptable terms or at all because the number of potential manufacturers is limited and the FDA may have questions regarding any replacement contractor. This may require new testing and regulatory interactions. In addition, a new manufacturer would have to be educated in, or develop substantially equivalent processes for, production of our products after receipt of FDA questions, if any.
•Our third-party manufacturers might be unable to timely formulate and manufacture our product or produce the quantity and quality required to meet our clinical and commercial needs, if any.
•Contract manufacturers may not be able to execute our manufacturing procedures appropriately.
•Manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with cGMP and other government regulations and corresponding foreign standards. We do not have control over third-party manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards.
•We may not own, or may have to share, the intellectual property rights to any improvements made by our third-party manufacturers in the manufacturing process for our products.
•Our future contract manufacturers may not perform as agreed or may not remain in the contract manufacturing business for the time required to supply our clinical trials or to successfully produce, store and distribute our products.
•Our third-party manufacturers could breach or terminate their agreement with us.
Our contract manufacturers would also be subject to the same risks we face in developing our own manufacturing capabilities, as described above. For instance, our CMOs may be required to shutdown in response to the spread of COVID-19. In addition, our CMOs have certain responsibilities for storage of raw materials and in the past have lost or failed to adequately store our raw materials. Any additional or future damage or loss of raw materials could materially impact our ability to manufacture and supply our product candidates. Each of these risks could delay our clinical trials, the approval, if any of our product candidates by the FDA or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenue. In addition, we will rely on third parties to perform release tests on our product candidates prior to delivery to patients. If these tests are not appropriately done and test data are not reliable, patients could be put at risk of serious harm.
We rely on donors of T cells to manufacture our product candidates, and if we do not obtain an adequate supply of T cells from qualified donors, development of those product candidates may be adversely impacted.
Unlike autologous CAR T companies, we are reliant on receiving healthy donor material to manufacture our product candidates. Healthy donor T cells vary in type and quality, and this variation makes producing standardized product candidates more difficult and makes the development and commercialization pathway of those product candidates more uncertain. We have developed a screening process designed to enhance the quality and consistency of T cells used in the manufacture of our CAR T cell product candidates, but our screening process may fail to identify suitable donor material and we may discover failures with the material after production. We may also have to update our specifications for new risks that may emerge, such as to screen for new viruses.
We have strict specifications for donor material, which include specifications required by regulatory authorities. If we are unable to identify and obtain donor material that satisfy specifications, agree with regulatory authorities on appropriate specifications, or address variability in donor T cells, there may be inconsistencies in the product candidates we produce or we may be unable to initiate or continue ongoing clinical trials on the timelines we expect, which could harm our reputation and adversely impact our business and prospects.
In addition, vendors have in the past been unable to secure donor material during the COVID-19 pandemic due to government restrictions on business activity and travel. While we have donor material on hand, and our vendors are currently able to provide us with donor material, if the COVID-19 pandemic continues and our vendors are unable to secure donor material, we may no longer have sufficient donor material to manufacture our product candidates.
Cell-based therapies rely on the availability of specialty raw materials, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.
Our product candidates require many specialty raw materials, including viral vectors that deliver the CAR sequence and electroporation technology, some of which are manufactured by small companies with limited resources and experience to support a commercial product, and the suppliers may not be able to deliver raw materials to our specifications. We do not have contracts with many of the suppliers, and we may not be able to contract with them on acceptable terms, or at all. Many suppliers have curtailed their operations during the COVID-19 pandemic or focused their operations on supporting COVID-19 therapies and vaccines, and our ability to source raw materials has been impacted. Accordingly, we may experience delays in receiving, or fail to secure entirely, key raw materials to support clinical or commercial manufacturing. Certain raw materials also require third-party testing, and some of the testing service companies may not have capacity or be able to conduct the testing that we request.
In addition, many of our suppliers normally support blood-based hospital businesses and generally do not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms. The suppliers may be ill-equipped to support our needs, especially in non-routine circumstances like an FDA inspection or medical crisis, such as widespread contamination. We also face competition for supplies from other cell therapy companies. Such competition may make it difficult for us to secure raw materials or the testing of such materials on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner.
Some raw materials are currently available from a single supplier, or a small number of suppliers. We cannot be sure that these suppliers will remain in business or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose. In addition, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new supplier can be lengthy, and we may experience delays in meeting demand in the event we must switch to a new supplier. The time and effort to qualify a new supplier, including to meet any regulatory requirements for such qualification, could result in additional costs, diversion of resources or reduced manufacturing yields, any of which would negatively impact our operating results. Further, we may be unable to enter into agreements with a new supplier on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.
If we or our third-party suppliers use hazardous, non-hazardous, biological or other materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.
Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials. We and our suppliers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that we and our suppliers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we and our suppliers cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.
Risks Related to Government Regulation
The FDA regulatory approval process is lengthy and time-consuming, and we may experience significant delays in the clinical development and regulatory approval of our product candidates.
The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, import, export, marketing, and distribution of drug products, including biologics, are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States. We are not permitted to market any biological drug product in the United States until we receive approval of a biologics license application (BLA) from the FDA. We have not previously submitted a BLA to the FDA, or similar approval filings to comparable foreign authorities. A BLA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness for each desired indication. The BLA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product.
We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA has limited experience with commercial development of allogeneic T cell therapies for cancer. We may also request regulatory approval of future CAR-based product candidates by target, regardless of cancer type or origin, which the FDA may have difficulty accepting if our clinical trials only involved cancers of certain origins. The FDA may also require a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support licensure. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain licensure of the product candidates based on the completed clinical trials, as the FDA often adheres to the Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained.
We may also experience delays in completing planned clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:
•obtaining regulatory authorization to begin a trial, if applicable;
•the availability of financial resources to commence and complete the planned trials;
•reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;
•obtaining approval at each clinical trial site by an independent IRB;
•obtaining regulatory and other approvals to modify the conduct of a clinical trial;
•recruiting suitable patients to participate in a trial;
•having patients complete a trial, including having patients enrolled in clinical trials dropping out of the trial before the product candidate is manufactured and returned to the site, or return for post-treatment follow-up;
•clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocol or dropping out of a trial;
•addressing any patient safety concerns that arise during the course of a trial;
•adding new clinical trial sites; or
•manufacturing sufficient quantities of qualified materials under cGMPs and delivering product candidates for use in clinical trials.
We could also encounter delays if physicians encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product candidates in lieu of prescribing existing treatments that have established safety and efficacy profiles. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs for the institutions in which such trials are being conducted or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions, lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial, or based on a recommendation by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee. The FDA’s review of our data of our ongoing clinical trials may, depending on the data, also result in the delay, suspension or termination of one or more of our clinical trials, which would also delay or prevent the initiation of our other planned clinical trials. If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.
Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.
We expect the product candidates we develop will be regulated as biological products, or biologics, and therefore they may be subject to competition sooner than anticipated.
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the Affordable Care Act) to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the reference product was approved under a BLA. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty and could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.
We believe that any of the product candidates we develop that is approved in the United States as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.
The regulatory landscape that will govern our product candidates is uncertain; regulations relating to more established gene therapy and cell therapy products are still developing, and changes in regulatory requirements could result in delays or discontinuation of development of our product candidates or unexpected costs in obtaining regulatory approval.
Because we are developing novel CAR T cell immunotherapy product candidates that are unique biological entities, the regulatory requirements that we will be subject to are not entirely clear. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. For example, regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products and cell therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT), formerly known as the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies (OCTGT), within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee (IBC), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at the institution participating in the clinical trial. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical study, even if the FDA has reviewed the study and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can place an IND application on clinical hold even if such other entities have provided a favorable review. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which a clinical trial will be conducted. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates.
Complex regulatory environments exist in other jurisdictions in which we might consider seeking regulatory approvals for our product candidates, further complicating the regulatory landscape. For example, in the EU a special committee called the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) was established within the EMA in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced-therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) to assess the quality, safety and efficacy of ATMPs, and to follow scientific developments in the field. ATMPs include gene therapy products as well as somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products. In this regard, on May 28, 2014, the EMA issued a recommendation that UCART19 be considered a gene therapy product under Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on ATMPs. We believe our other product candidates may receive a similar recommendation.
These various regulatory review committees and advisory groups and new or revised guidelines that they promulgate from time to time may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Because the regulatory landscape for our CAR T cell immunotherapy product candidates is new, we may face even more cumbersome and complex regulations than those emerging for gene therapy products and cell therapy products. Furthermore, even if our product candidates obtain
required regulatory approvals, such approvals may later be withdrawn as a result of changes in regulations or the interpretation of regulations by applicable regulatory agencies.
Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue to maintain our business.
The FDA may disagree with our regulatory plan and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval of our CAR T cell product candidates.
If and when our ongoing and planned Phase 1 clinical trials are completed and, assuming positive data, we expect to advance to potential registrational trials. The general approach for FDA approval of a new biologic or drug is for the sponsor to provide dispositive data from two well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical studies of the relevant biologic or drug in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical studies typically involve hundreds of patients, have significant costs and take years to complete. We expect registrational trials for ALLO-501A and ALLO-715 to be designed to evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate in an open-label, non-comparative, two-stage, pivotal, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial in patients who have exhausted available treatment options. If the results are sufficiently compelling, we intend to discuss with the FDA submission of a BLA for the relevant product candidate. However, we do not have any agreement or guidance from the FDA that our regulatory development plans will be sufficient for submission of a BLA. For example, the FDA may require that we conduct a comparative trial against an approved therapy including potentially an approved autologous T cell therapy, which would significantly delay our development timelines and require substantially more resources. In addition, the FDA may only allow us to evaluate patients that have failed or who are ineligible for autologous therapy, which are extremely difficult patients to treat and patients with advanced and aggressive cancer, and our product candidates may fail to improve outcomes for such patients.
Given the molecular similarities between ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A, we may have additional difficulties progressing any clinical trial of ALLO-501A, if emerging data from the clinical trial of ALLO-501 have safety or other issues.
The FDA may grant accelerated approval for our product candidates and, as a condition for accelerated approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the drug or biologic may be subject to withdrawal procedures by the FDA that are more accelerated than those available for regular approvals. We believe our accelerated approval strategy is warranted given the limited alternatives for patients with R/R cancers, but the FDA may ultimately require a Phase 3 clinical trial prior to approval, particularly since our product candidates represent a novel treatment. In addition, the standard of care may change with the approval of new products in the same indications that we are studying. This may result in the FDA or other regulatory agencies requesting additional studies to show that our product candidate is superior to the new products.
Our clinical trial results may also not support approval. In addition, our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:
•the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;
•we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that our product candidates are safe and effective for any of their proposed indications;
•the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval, including due to the heterogeneity of patient populations;
•we may be unable to demonstrate that our product candidates’ clinical and other benefits outweigh their safety risks;
•the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials;
•the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to support the submission of a BLA or other comparable submission in foreign jurisdictions or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere;
•the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will review our manufacturing process and inspect our commercial manufacturing facility and may not approve our manufacturing process or facility; and
•the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.
We may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for ALLO-647 in a timely manner or at all, which could delay any approval or commercialization of our allogeneic T cell product candidates.
As we are concurrently developing ALLO-647 to be used as part of the lymphodepletion regimen for our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates, mapping a path for dual approval of ALLO-647 and any of our CAR T cell product candidates and coordinating concurrent review with different divisions of the FDA create additional regulatory uncertainty for us and may delay the development of our product candidates. We expect the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research division of the FDA to exercise authority over the regulatory approval of ALLO-647 while the CBER division will oversee the regulatory approval of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates.
In addition, we expect regulatory authorities will require us to demonstrate the safety of ALLO-647 and its contribution to the overall benefit to risk ratio of the lymphodepletion regimen, including through a cohort of patients that do not receive ALLO-647. If we are unable to meet any of the requirements of the regulatory authorities, we may be required to conduct additional clinical studies. We cannot be certain we will be able to successfully obtain regulatory approval of ALLO-647 in a timely manner or at all. Any delays to ALLO-647 approval could delay any approval or commercialization of our allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates.
We plan to seek orphan drug designation for some or all of our product candidates across various indications, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including market exclusivity, which may cause our revenue, if any, to be reduced.
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a disease or condition with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States when there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug or biologic in the United States will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. In order to obtain orphan drug designation, the request must be made before submitting a BLA. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.
If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval of that particular product for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a BLA, to market the same biologic (meaning, a product with the same principal molecular structural features) for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. As a result, even if one of our product candidates receives orphan exclusivity, the FDA can still approve other biologics that do not have the same principal molecular structural features for use in treating the same indication or disease or the same biologic for a different indication or disease during the exclusivity period. Furthermore, the FDA can waive orphan exclusivity if we are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of our product or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our product.
We plan to seek orphan drug designation for some or all of our product candidates in specific orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these products. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our products, if approved. In addition, although we may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations.
Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of genetic research and therapies involving gene editing may damage public perception of our product candidates or adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.
The gene-editing technologies that we use are novel. Public perception may be influenced by claims that gene editing is unsafe, and products incorporating gene editing may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians specializing in our targeted diseases prescribing our product candidates as treatments in lieu of, or in addition to, existing, more familiar, treatments for which greater clinical data may be available. Any increase in negative perceptions of gene editing may result in fewer physicians prescribing our treatments or may reduce the
willingness of patients to utilize our treatments or participate in clinical trials for our product candidates. In addition, given the novel nature of gene-editing and cell therapy technologies, governments may place import, export or other restrictions in order to retain control or limit the use of the technologies. For instance, any limits on exporting certain of our technology to China may adversely affect Allogene Overland Biopharm (CY) Limited (Allogene Overland), a joint venture established by us and Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc. Increased negative public opinion or more restrictive government regulations either in the United States or internationally, would have a negative effect on our business or financial condition and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for such product candidates.
Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and others in the medical community.
The use of engineered T cells as a potential cancer treatment is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and others in the medical community. We expect physicians in the large bone marrow transplant centers to be particularly important to the market acceptance of our products and we may not be able to educate them on the benefits of using our product candidates for many reasons. For example, certain of the product candidates that we will be developing target a cell surface marker that may be present on cancer cells as well as non-cancerous cells. It is possible that our product candidates may kill these non-cancerous cells, which may result in unacceptable side effects, including death. Additional factors will influence whether our product candidates are accepted in the market, including:
•the clinical indications for which our product candidates are approved;
•physicians, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and patients considering our product candidates as a safe and effective treatment;
•the potential and perceived advantages of our product candidates over alternative treatments;
•the prevalence and severity of any side effects;
•product labeling or product insert requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities;
•limitations or warnings contained in the labeling approved by the FDA;
•the timing of market introduction of our product candidates as well as competitive products;
•the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments;
•the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors and government authorities;
•the willingness of patients to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors and government authorities;
•relative convenience and ease of administration, including as compared to alternative treatments and competitive therapies; and
•the effectiveness of our sales and marketing efforts.
If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.
Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably.
Successful sales of our product candidates, if approved, depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors including governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care organizations and commercial payors, among others. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In addition, because our product candidates represent new approaches to the treatment of cancer, we cannot accurately estimate the potential revenue from our product candidates.
Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors is critical to new product acceptance.
The marketability of any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if government and other third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement. We expect downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing to continue. Further, coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
The advancement of healthcare reform may negatively impact our ability to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably.
Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably. In particular, in 2010 the Affordable Care Act was enacted. The Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations, among other things, revised the methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers to the state and federal government for covered outpatient drugs and certain biologics, including our product candidates, under the Medicaid drug rebate program are calculated, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid drug rebate program, extended the Medicaid drug rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs, and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research. Additionally, the Affordable Care Act allowed states to implement expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs, imposed a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program and implemented a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. There have been legal and political challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, but it is unknown when a decision will be reached. It is unclear how the Supreme Court ruling, other such litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the Affordable Care Act and our business.
There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.
Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties and termination of any of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights, which would harm our business.
We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology, both our own and licensed from others.
We depend substantially on our license agreements with Pfizer, Servier and Cellectis. These licenses may be terminated upon certain conditions. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. For example, we are dependent on our license with Cellectis for gene-editing technology that is necessary to produce our engineered T cells. In addition, we are reliant on Servier in-licensing from Cellectis some of the intellectual property rights they are licensing to us, including certain intellectual property rights relating to ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A. To the extent these licensors fail to meet their obligations under their license agreements, which we are not in control of, we may lose the benefits of our license agreements with these licensors. In the future, we may also enter into additional license agreements that are material to the development of our product candidates.
Disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including those related to:
•the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;
•whether and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;
•our right to sublicense patent and other rights to third parties under collaborative development relationships;
•our diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to our development and commercialization of our product candidates, and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; and
•the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners.
If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed, or license in the future, prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.
We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we license, as we are for intellectual property that we own, which are described below. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize products could suffer.
If our efforts to protect the proprietary nature of the intellectual property related to our technologies are not adequate, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.
We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and license agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.
We have an exclusive collaboration with Servier to develop and commercialize certain anti-CD19 allogeneic T cell product candidates, including ALLO-501A, and we hold the commercial rights to these product candidates in the United States. We also have an exclusive worldwide license from Cellectis to its TALEN gene-editing technology for the development of allogeneic T cell product candidates directed against 15 different cancer antigens. Our collaboration with Servier gives us access to TALEN gene-editing technology for all product candidates under the Servier Agreement. Certain intellectual property which is covered by these agreements may have been developed with funding from the U.S. government. If so, our rights in this intellectual property may be subject to certain research and other rights of the government.
Additional patent applications have been filed, and we anticipate additional patent applications will be filed, both in the United States and in other countries, as appropriate. However, we cannot predict:
•if and when patents will issue;
•the degree and range of protection any issued patents will afford us against competitors including whether third parties will find ways to invalidate or otherwise circumvent our patents;
•whether or not others will obtain patents claiming aspects similar to those covered by our patents and patent applications; or
•whether we will need to initiate litigation or administrative proceedings which may be costly whether we win or lose.
Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical products such as CAR-based product candidates often provide a strong form of intellectual property protection for those types of products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. We cannot be certain that the claims in our pending patent applications covering composition of matter of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or by patent offices in foreign countries, or that the claims in any of our issued patents will be considered valid and enforceable by courts in the United States or foreign countries. Method of use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products “off-label.” Although off-label prescriptions may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method of use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute.
The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the patentability, validity, enforceability or scope thereof, for example through inter partes review (IPR) post-grant review or ex parte reexamination before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, which may result in such patents being cancelled, narrowed, invalidated or held
unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing their products to avoid being covered by our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced. United States patent applications containing or that at any time contained a claim not entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013 are subject to the “first to file” system implemented by the America Invents Act (2011).
This first to file system will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Furthermore, for United States applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the USPTO, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. For United States applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law in view of the passage of the America Invents Act, which brought into effect significant changes to the United States patent laws, including new procedures for challenging patent applications and issued patents.
Confidentiality agreements with employees, Allogene Overland and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.
In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we seek to rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. Trade secrets, however, may be difficult to protect. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and require all of our employees and key consultants who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain 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. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. For example, we plan to transfer technology to Allogene Overland in certain developing countries, and we cannot be certain that we or Allogene Overland will be able to protect or enforce any proprietary rights in these countries. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.
Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our product discovery and development efforts and our ability to commercialize our product candidates.
Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. 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 our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others.
Third parties may assert that we infringe their patents or are otherwise employing their proprietary technology without authorization and may sue us. We are aware of several U.S. patents held by third parties relating to certain CAR compositions of matter and their methods of use. Generally, conducting clinical trials and other development activities in the United States is not considered an act of infringement. If and when any of our product candidates is approved by the FDA, third parties may then seek to enforce their patents by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. Patents issued in the United States by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. We may not be able to prove in litigation that any patent enforced against us is invalid.
Additionally, there may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware 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 which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may be alleged to 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 our product candidates, constructs or molecules used in or 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 the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held not infringed, unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held not infringed, unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.
Parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize 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 and may impact our reputation. 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, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.
We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to product components and processes for our development pipeline through acquisitions and in-licenses.
Presently we have rights to the intellectual property, through licenses from third parties and under patent applications that we own or will own, that we believe will facilitate the development of our product candidates. Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that 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.
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. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, which would harm our business. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights.
The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and companies, which may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.
We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly and could put one or more of our pending patent applications at risk of not issuing. 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, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.
Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights and 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. Litigation or interference proceedings may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.
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. In addition, there could 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 substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.
Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.
Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.
The lives of our patents may not be sufficient 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 first effective filing date. Although various extensions may be available, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from biosimilar or generic medications. In addition, although upon issuance in the United States a patent’s life can be increased based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution. If we do not have sufficient patent life to protect our products, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected.
We or our licensors may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and other intellectual property.
We or our licensors may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an interest in our 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. If we or our licensors 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 or our licensors are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.
Issued patents covering our product candidates could be found unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or the USPTO.
If we or one of our licensing partners 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, as applicable, is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include IPR, ex parte re-examination and post grant review in the United States, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could
result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover and protect our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of unpatentability, invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of unpatentability, invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.
Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.
As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Recent U.S. 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 decisions by the U.S. 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 new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, in the 2013 case, Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. While we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on this decision, we cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights outside the United States. 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 can 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. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may 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 products and our 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 where Allogene Overland may do business, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us or Allogene Overland to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our 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.
We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties.
We have received confidential and proprietary information from third parties. In addition, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of these third parties or our employees’ former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and employees.
Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock
The price of our stock has been and may continue to be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.
The trading price of our common stock following our IPO in October 2018 has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control, including limited trading volume. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section, these factors include:
•the commencement, enrollment or results of our ongoing and planned clinical trials of our product candidates or any future clinical trials we or Servier may conduct, or changes in the development status of our product candidates;
•our or Servier’s decision to initiate a clinical trial, not to initiate a clinical trial or to terminate an existing clinical trial;
•adverse results or delays in clinical trials;
•any delay in our regulatory filings for our product candidates and any adverse development or perceived adverse development with respect to the applicable regulatory authority’s review of such filings, including without limitation the FDA’s issuance of a “refusal to file” letter or a request for additional information;
•our failure to commercialize our product candidates;
•adverse regulatory decisions, including failure to receive regulatory approval of our product candidates;
•changes in laws or regulations applicable to our products, including but not limited to clinical trial requirements for approvals;
•adverse developments concerning the manufacture or supply of our product candidates;
•our inability to obtain adequate product supply for any approved product or inability to do so at acceptable prices;
•our inability to establish collaborations if needed;
•additions or departures of key scientific or management personnel;
•unanticipated serious safety concerns related to immuno-oncology or related to the use of our product candidates or pre-conditioning regimen;
•introduction of new products or services offered by us or our competitors;
•announcements of significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments by us or our competitors;
•our ability to effectively manage our growth;
•the size and growth of our initial cancer target markets;
•our ability to successfully treat additional types of cancers or at different stages;
•actual or anticipated variations in quarterly operating results;
•our cash position;
•our failure to meet the estimates and projections of the investment community or that we may otherwise provide to the public;
•publication of research reports about us or our industry, or immunotherapy in particular, or positive or negative recommendations or withdrawal of research coverage by securities analysts;
•changes in the market valuations of similar companies;
•overall performance of the equity markets;
•sales of our common stock by us or our stockholders in the future;
•trading volume of our common stock;
•changes in accounting practices;
•ineffectiveness of our disclosure controls or internal controls;
•disagreements with our auditor or termination of an auditor engagement;
•disputes or other developments relating to proprietary rights, including patents, litigation matters and our ability to obtain patent protection for our technologies;
•changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems;
•significant lawsuits, including patent or stockholder litigation;
•significant business disruptions caused by natural or man-made disasters, such as the COVID-19 pandemic;
•general political and economic conditions; and
•other events or factors, many of which are beyond our control.
In addition, the stock market in general, and the Nasdaq Global Select Market and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities. This type of litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which would harm our business, operating results or financial condition.
We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock so any returns will be limited to the value of our stock.
We currently anticipate that we will retain any future cash flow or earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.
Anti-takeover provisions under our charter documents and Delaware law could delay or prevent a change of control which could limit the market price of our common stock and may prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change of control of our company or changes in our board of directors that our stockholders might consider favorable. Some of these provisions include:
•a board of directors divided into three classes serving staggered three-year terms, such that not all members of the board will be elected at one time;
•a prohibition on stockholder action through written consent, which requires that all stockholder actions be taken at a meeting of our stockholders;
•a requirement that special meetings of stockholders be called only by the chair of the board of directors, the chief executive officer, or by a majority of the total number of authorized directors;
•advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and nominations for election to our board of directors;
•a requirement that no member of our board of directors may be removed from office by our stockholders except for cause and, in addition to any other vote required by law, upon the approval of not less than two-thirds of all outstanding shares of our voting stock then entitled to vote in the election of directors;
•a requirement of approval of not less than two-thirds of all outstanding shares of our voting stock to amend any bylaws by stockholder action or to amend specific provisions of our certificate of incorporation; and
•the authority of the board of directors to issue preferred stock on terms determined by the board of directors without stockholder approval and which preferred stock may include rights superior to the rights of the holders of common stock.
In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporate Law, which may prohibit certain business combinations with stockholders owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock. These anti-takeover provisions and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirors to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by the then-current board of directors and could also delay or impede a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing or cause us to take other corporate actions you desire. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.
General Risk Factors
Unstable market and economic conditions may have serious adverse consequences on our business, financial condition and stock price.
The global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruptions in the past, most recently as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. These disruptions can result in severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. There can be no assurance that further deterioration in credit and financial markets and confidence in economic conditions will not occur. Our general business strategy may be adversely affected by any such economic downturn, volatile business environment or continued unpredictable and unstable market conditions. If the current equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly and more dilutive. Our portfolio of corporate and government bonds would also be adversely impacted. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our operations, growth strategy, financial performance and stock price and could require us to delay or abandon clinical development plans. In addition, there is a risk that one or more of our current service providers, manufacturers and other partners may not survive an economic downturn, which could directly affect our ability to attain our operating goals on schedule and on budget.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock by our existing stockholders in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market or the perception that these sales might occur, including by any of our directors, officers or larger shareholders, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that sales may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.
If securities or industry analysts issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding our stock, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock could be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if the clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
Item 2. Properties.
Our corporate headquarters are located in South San Francisco, California, which consists of approximately 68,000 square feet for office and laboratory space. The lease for our headquarters commenced March 1, 2019 and has an initial 10-year term expiring on June 15, 2023. We entered into an additional lease in October 2018 for approximately 14,943 square feet of office and laboratory space in South San Francisco near our headquarters. This lease has an initial term of ten years and four months and commenced on November 1, 2018.
In February 2019, we entered into a lease for approximately 118,000 square feet to develop a state-of-the-art cell therapy manufacturing facility in Newark, California. The lease commenced in November 2020 and has an initial term of 15 years and eight months.
We believe that our existing facilities and other available properties will be sufficient for our needs for the foreseeable future.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
From time to time, we may become involved in litigation or other legal proceedings. We are not currently a party to any litigation or legal proceedings that, in the opinion of our management, are likely to have a material adverse effect on our
business. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Our common stock has been listed on The Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “ALLO” since October 11, 2018. Prior to that date, there was no public trading market for our common stock.
Holders of Common Stock
As of February 25, 2021, there were approximately 69 holders of record of our common stock.
Stock Performance Graph
This performance graph shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or incorporated by reference into any of our filings under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.
The following graph shows the value of an investment of $100 from October 11, 2018 (the date our common stock commenced trading on The Nasdaq Global Select Market) through December 31, 2020, in our common stock, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (S&P 500), the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index, and Nasdaq Composite Index. The historical stock price performance of our common stock shown in the performance graph is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.
|Cumulative Total Return date ended|
|Allogene Therapeutics, Inc.||$||100.00 ||$||122.41 ||$||122.05 ||$||118.09 ||$||194.64 ||$||114.73 |
|S&P 500||$||100.00 ||$||90.28 ||$||105.94 ||$||116.35 ||$||111.65 ||$||135.26 |
|Nasdaq Biotechnology||$||100.00 ||$||87.25 ||$||98.26 ||$||108.54 ||$||123.19 ||$||136.42 |
|Nasdaq Composite||$||100.00 ||$||89.81 ||$||108.37 ||$||121.45 ||$||136.15 ||$||174.45 |
We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to support our operations and finance the growth and development of our business. We do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future. Any future determination related to our dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon, among other factors, our results of operations, financial condition, capital requirements, contractual restrictions, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant.
Use of Proceeds from Initial Public Offerings of Common Stock
In October 2018, we completed our initial public offering, and sold 18,000,000 shares of our common stock at a price of $18.00 per share pursuant to registration statements on Form S-1 (File Nos. 333-227333 and 333-227774) that were declared or became effective on October 10, 2018. Additionally, the underwriters exercised their option to purchase additional shares for an additional 2,700,000 shares at $18.00 per share. As a result of our IPO, we raised a total of approximately $343.3 million in net proceeds after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of $26.1 million and offering expenses of $3.2 million. Upon completion of our IPO, (1) all outstanding shares of our Series A convertible preferred stock were converted into 61,655,922 shares of common stock and (2) we issued 7,856,176 shares of common stock upon the automatic conversion of the $120.2 million aggregate principal amount of convertible promissory notes sold in September 2018.
Upon receipt, the net proceeds from our IPO were held in cash, cash equivalents and investments. As of December 31, 2020, we have used $221.1 million of the net proceeds from our IPO. The net proceeds from our IPO are being used, together with our cash and cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments, to fund continued advancement of our product pipeline, with the balance to be used to fund working capital and other general corporate purposes, which may include licensing, acquiring or investing in complementary businesses, technologies, products or assets.
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers
Item 6. Selected Consolidated Financial Data.
We have elected to comply with Item 301 of Regulation S-K, as amended February 10, 2021, and are omitting this disclosure in reliance thereon.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
The following discussion contains management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations and should be read together with “Selected Financial Data” and the historical consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates and beliefs and involve numerous risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those described in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report. Actual results may differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. You should carefully read “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors.”
We are a clinical stage immuno-oncology company pioneering the development and commercialization of genetically engineered allogeneic T cell therapies for the treatment of cancer. We are developing a pipeline of off-the-shelf T cell product candidates that are designed to target and kill cancer cells. Our engineered T cells are allogeneic, meaning they are derived from healthy donors for intended use in any patient, rather than from an individual patient for that patient’s use, as in the case of autologous T cells. We believe this key difference will enable us to deliver readily available treatments faster, more reliably, at greater scale, and to more patients.
We have a deep pipeline of allogeneic chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell product candidates targeting multiple promising antigens in a host of hematological malignancies and solid tumors. Pursuant to the Exclusive Collaboration and License Agreement with Servier (Servier Agreement), we have exclusive rights to ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A, CAR T cell product candidates targeting CD19, in the United States, while Servier retains exclusive rights for these product candidates for all other countries. ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A use Cellectis S.A. (Cellectis) technologies under which Servier holds an exclusive worldwide license from Cellectis.
We are sponsoring a Phase 1 clinical trial (the ALPHA trial) of ALLO-501 in patients with R/R non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). We are continuing the ALPHA trial to further explore and optimize the lymphodepletion regimen and treatment. We are also progressing the development of the second-generation version of ALLO-501, known as ALLO-501A. We have removed rituximab recognition domains in ALLO-501A, which we believe will potentially facilitate treatment of more patients, as rituximab is a typical part of a treatment regimen for a patient with NHL. We initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for ALLO-501A (the ALPHA2 trial) in the second quarter of 2020 and, subject to data, we plan to progress to the Phase 2 portion of the trial in 2021.
We are also progressing three programs targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) for the treatment of multiple myeloma. We initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial (the UNIVERSAL trial) of ALLO-715, an allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate targeting BCMA, in adult patients with R/R multiple myeloma in the third quarter of 2019. In January 2020, we entered into a clinical trial collaboration agreement with SpringWorks Therapeutics, Inc. (SpringWorks) to evaluate ALLO-715 in combination with SpringWorks’ investigational gamma secretase inhibitor, nirogacestat, in patients with R/R multiple myeloma. In December 2020, the FDA cleared our investigational new drug application (IND) and we recently initiated this combination trial as a cohort of the UNIVERSAL trial. Finally, we are advancing ALLO-605, an allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate targeting BCMA and our first product candidate to incorporate our TurboCAR technology. We expect to submit an IND in the first half of 2021 to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of ALLO-605.
We are continuing to enroll patients in the ALPHA trial, ALPHA2 trial and UNIVERSAL trial, however, enrollment of new patients in all three trials and the ability to conduct patient follow-up is being adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We have also limited the number of staff working at our facilities. The exact timing of delays and overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials is currently unknown, and we are monitoring the pandemic as it continues to rapidly evolve.
In December 2020, the FDA cleared our IND to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial (the TRAVERSE trial) of ALLO-316, an allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate targeting CD70, in adult patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). The TRAVERSE trial is expected to initiate in the first quarter of 2021.
Since inception, we have had significant operating losses. Our net loss was $250.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $646.3 million. As of December 31, 2020, we had $1.0 billion in cash and cash equivalents and investments. We expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect our research and development expenses and general and administrative expenses will continue to increase.
Our Research and Development and License Agreements
Asset Contribution Agreement with Pfizer
In April 2018, we entered into an Asset Contribution Agreement (Pfizer Agreement) with Pfizer pursuant to which we acquired certain assets and assumed certain liabilities from Pfizer, including agreements with Cellectis and Servier as described below, and other intellectual property for the development and administration of CAR T cells for the treatment of cancer. See Notes 6 and 7 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report for further description of the Pfizer Agreement.
Research Collaboration and License Agreement with Cellectis
In June 2014, Pfizer entered into a Research Collaboration and License Agreement with Cellectis. In April 2018, Pfizer assigned the agreement to us pursuant to the Pfizer Agreement. In March 2019, we terminated the agreement with Cellectis and entered into a new license agreement with Cellectis. See Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report for further descriptions of the prior agreement with Cellectis and the new license agreement with Cellectis.
Exclusive License and Collaboration Agreement with Servier
In October 2015, Pfizer entered into an Exclusive License and Collaboration Agreement (Servier Agreement) with Servier to develop, manufacture and commercialize certain allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR products, including UCART19, in the United States with the option to obtain the rights over certain additional allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR product candidates and for allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates directed against one additional target. In April 2018, Pfizer assigned the agreement to
us pursuant to the Pfizer Agreement. In October 2019, we agreed to waive our rights to the one additional target. See Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report for further description of the Servier Agreement.
Collaboration and License Agreement with Notch
On November 1, 2019, we entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement (the Notch Agreement) with Notch Therapeutics Inc. (Notch), pursuant to which Notch granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license under certain of Notch’s intellectual property to develop, make, use, sell, import, and otherwise commercialize therapeutic gene-edited T cell and/or natural killer cell products from induced pluripotent stem cells directed at certain CAR targets for initial application in NHL, ALL and multiple myeloma. In addition, Notch has granted us an option to add certain specified targets to our exclusive license in exchange for an agreed upon per-target option fee.
The Notch Agreement includes a research collaboration to conduct research and pre-clinical development activities to generate engineered cells directed to our exclusive targets, which will be conducted in accordance with an agreed research plan and budget under the oversight of a joint development committee. See Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report for further description of the Notch Agreement.
In connection with the execution of the Notch Agreement, we made an upfront payment to Notch of $10.0 million. In addition, we made a $5.0 million investment in Notch’s series seed convertible preferred stock. In February 2021, we made a further investment as part of a Series A preferred stock financing of Notch of approximately $15.9 million. Immediately following this investment, we had a 17% ownership interest in Notch’s capital stock on a fully diluted basis.
Strategic Alliance with The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
On October 6, 2020, we entered into a strategic five-year collaboration agreement with The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MD Anderson) for the preclinical and clinical investigation of allogeneic CAR T cell product candidates. See Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report for further description of the agreement with MD Anderson.
License Agreement with Allogene Overland Biopharm (CY) Limited
On December 14, 2020, we entered into a License Agreement with Allogene Overland Biopharm (CY) Limited (Allogene Overland), a joint venture established by us and Overland Pharmaceuticals (CY) Inc. (Overland), pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement, dated December 14, 2020, for the purpose of developing, manufacturing and commercializing certain allogeneic CAR T cell therapies for patients in greater China, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore (the JV Territory).
Pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement, we acquired Seed Preferred Shares in Allogene Overland representing 49% of Allogene Overland's outstanding stock as partial consideration for the License Agreement, and Overland acquired Seed Preferred Shares representing 51% of Allogene Overland's outstanding stock for $117.0 million in upfront and certain quarterly cash payments, to support operations of Allogene Overland. As of December 31, 2020, Allogene and Overland are the sole equity holders in Allogene Overland. The Company received $40 million from Allogene Overland as partial consideration for the License Agreement .
Pursuant to the License Agreement, we granted Allogene Overland an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize certain allogeneic CAR T cell candidates directed at four targets, BCMA, CD70, FLT3, and DLL3, in the JV Territory. As consideration, we would also be entitled to additional regulatory milestone payments of up to $40.0 million and, subject to certain conditions, tiered low-to-mid single-digit sales royalties.
Promises that we concluded were distinct performance obligations in the License Agreement included: (1) the license of intellectual property and delivery of know-how, (2) the manufacturing license, related know-how and support, (3) if and when available know-how developed in future periods, and (4) participation in the joint steering committee.
In order to determine the transaction price, we evaluated all the payments to be received during the duration of the contract. Fixed consideration exists in the form of the upfront payment. Regulatory milestones and royalties were considered variable consideration. We constrain the estimated variable consideration when we assess it is probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognized may occur in future periods. Milestone fees were constrained and not included in the transaction price due to the uncertainties of research and development. We re-evaluate the transaction price, including the estimated variable consideration included in the transaction price and all constrained amounts, in each reporting
period and as uncertain events are resolved or other changes in circumstances occur. The shares of Series Seed Preferred Stock were accounted for as part of our joint venture and equity method accounting upon formation of the joint venture, and as such, were excluded from the transaction price. We determined that the initial transaction price consists of the upfront payment of $40.0 million. The allocation of the transaction price is performed based on standalone selling prices, which are based on estimated amounts that we would charge for a performance obligation if it were sold separately. The transaction price allocated to the license of intellectual property and delivery of know-how will be recognized upon grant of license and delivery of know-how. The transaction price allocated to (i) the manufacturing license, related know-how and support services, (ii) if and when available know-how developed in future periods, and (iii) participation in the joint steering committee, will be recognized over time as the services are delivered. Funds received in advance are recorded as deferred revenue and will be recognized as the performance obligations are satisfied. We expect a substantial portion of the upfront payment of $40 million will be recognized during the quarter ending on March 31, 2021. See Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report for further description of the License Agreement and Share Purchase Agreement with Allogene Overland.
Transition Services Agreement
In connection with the closing of the Pfizer Agreement, we entered into a Transition Services Agreement (TSA) with Pfizer in April 2018, pursuant to which we obtained from Pfizer certain (i) research and development services, including services relating to testing, studies, and clinical trials, project management services, laboratory equipment and operations services, animal care services, data storage services and regulatory strategy services, and (ii) general and administrative services, including business technology services, compliance services, finance/accounting services, and procurement, manufacturing and supply chain services, with respect to the assets that we purchased from Pfizer. Under the TSA, Pfizer also provided us with certain facilities and facility management services. The services were provided by certain employees of Pfizer as independent contractors of Allogene. We believe that it was helpful for Pfizer to provide such services to us under the TSA to help facilitate the efficient operation of our business after the asset purchase. Pfizer began providing the services in May 2018 and the TSA was terminated in September 2019.
Components of Results of Operations
Research and Development
To date, our research and development expenses have related primarily to discovery efforts, preclinical and clinical development, and manufacturing of our product candidates. Research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020 included costs associated with our clinical and preclinical stage pipeline candidates and research into newer technologies. The most significant research and development expenses for the year relate to costs incurred for the development of our most advanced product candidates and include:
•expenses incurred under agreements with our collaboration partners and third-party contract organizations, investigative clinical trial sites that conduct research and development activities on our behalf, and consultants;
•costs related to the production of clinical materials, including fees paid for raw materials and to contract manufacturers;
•laboratory and vendor expenses related to the execution of preclinical and clinical trials;
•employee-related expenses, which include salaries, benefits and stock-based compensation;
•facilities and other expenses, which include expenses for rent and maintenance of facilities, depreciation and amortization expense and other supplies; and
•other significant research and development costs, which include overhead costs.
We expense all research and development costs in the periods in which they are incurred. We accrue for costs incurred as the services are being provided by monitoring the status of the project and the invoices received from our external service providers. We adjust our accrual as actual costs become known. Where contingent milestone payments are due to third parties under research and development arrangements or license agreements, milestone payment obligations are expensed when the milestone results are achieved.
We are required to reimburse Servier for 60% of the costs associated with the prior development of UCART19, including for the CALM and PALL clinical trials of UCART19. We accrue for costs incurred by monitoring the status of
clinical trials and the invoices received from Servier. We adjust our accrual as actual costs become known. Servier is required to reimburse us for 40% of the costs associated with the development of ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A. Collaboration expenses and cost reimbursement are recorded on a net basis as a research and development expense in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.
Research and development activities are central to our business model. Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. We expect our research and development expenses to increase in the future as our clinical programs progress and as we seek to initiate clinical trials of additional product candidates. The cost of advancing our manufacturing process as well as the cost of manufacturing product candidates for clinical trials are included in our research and development expense. We also expect to incur increased research and development expenses as we selectively identify and develop additional product candidates. However, it is difficult to determine with certainty the duration and completion costs of our current or future preclinical programs and clinical trials of our product candidates.
The duration, costs and timing of clinical trials and development of our product candidates will depend on a variety of factors that include, but are not limited to, the following:
•per patient trial costs;
•biomarker analysis costs;
•the cost and timing of manufacturing for the trials;
•the number of patients that participate in the trials;
•the number of sites included in the trials;
•the countries in which the trials are conducted;
•the length of time required to enroll eligible patients;
•the total number of cells that patients receive;
•the drop-out or discontinuation rates of patients;
•potential additional safety monitoring or other studies requested by regulatory agencies;
•the duration of patient follow-up; and
•the efficacy and safety profile of the product candidates.
In addition, the probability of success for each product candidate will depend on numerous factors, including safety, efficacy, competition, manufacturing capability and commercial viability. We will determine which programs to pursue and how much to fund each program in response to the scientific and clinical success of each product candidate, as well as an assessment of each product candidate’s commercial potential.
Because our product candidates are still in clinical and preclinical development and the outcome of these efforts is uncertain, we cannot estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of product candidates or whether, or when, we may achieve profitability.
General and Administrative
General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and other staff-related costs, including stock-based compensation for options and restricted stock units granted. General and administrative expenses also include stock-based compensation expense related to the modification of shares of common stock issued to our founders to include vesting conditions. Other significant costs include costs relating to facilities and overhead costs, legal fees relating to corporate and patent matters, insurance, investor relations costs, fees for accounting and consulting services, information technology, and other general and administrative costs. General and administrative costs are expensed as incurred, and we accrue for services provided by third parties related to the above expenses by monitoring the status of services provided and receiving estimates from our service providers, and adjusting our accruals as actual costs become known.
We expect our general and administrative expenses to increase over the next several years to support our continued research and development activities, manufacturing activities, potential commercialization of our product candidates and the increased costs of operating as a public company, including additional compliance-related expenses as a result of no longer being an emerging growth company. These increases are anticipated to include increased costs related to the hiring of additional
personnel, developing infrastructure, fees to outside consultants, lawyers and accountants, and increased costs associated with being a public company such as expenses related to services associated with maintaining compliance with Nasdaq listing rules and SEC requirements, insurance and investor relations costs.
Other (Expense) Income, Net:
Change in Fair Value of 2018 Notes
In September 2018, we sold and issued an aggregate of $120.2 million in convertible promissory notes (2018 Notes) and received net cash proceeds of $116.8 million. We elected on issuance to account for the 2018 Notes at fair value until their settlement. In the year ended December 31, 2018, the change in fair value of the 2018 Notes was recognized through the statement of operations. The 2018 Notes settled on the closing of our IPO in October 2018.
Interest expense consists of debt issuance costs we incurred to issue the 2018 Notes. The debt issuance costs were expensed on issuance because we elected to record the 2018 Notes at fair value.
Interest and Other Income, Net
Interest and other income, net consists of interest earned on our cash, cash equivalents and investments and gains and losses recognized during the period.
Other expense consists of non-operating expenses, including our share of equity investments' net losses for the period.
Results of Operations
Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018
The following sets forth our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 (in thousands):
|Year Ended December 31,||Change|
|2020||2019||2018||2020 vs 2019||2019 vs 2018|
|Research and development||192,987 ||144,535 ||151,860 ||48,452 ||(7,325)|
|General and administrative||65,256 ||57,473 ||40,982 ||7,783 ||16,491 |
|Total operating expenses||258,243 ||202,008 ||192,842 ||56,235 ||9,166 |
|Loss from operations||(258,243)||(202,008)||(192,842)||(56,235)||(9,166)|
|Other (expense) income, net:|
|Change in fair value of convertible note payable||— ||— ||(21,211)||— ||21,211 |
|Interest expense||— ||— ||(3,358)||— ||3,358 |
|Interest and other income, net||9,164 ||17,351 ||5,789 ||(8,187)||11,562 |