UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 20-F

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

Or

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

Or

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

Or

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

Date of event requiring this shell company report________________________

For the transition period from__________ to ___________

Commission File No. 001-36203

Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd., an Israeli Limited Company

(Translation of Registrant’s name into English)

Israel

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

26 Ben Gurion Street

Ramat Gan 5257346 Israel

(Address of principal executive offices)

Motti Farbstein
Chief Executive, Financial and Operating Officer
Tel: +972 (3) 924-1114
Fax: +972 (3) 924-9378
motti@canfite.co.il

26 Ben Gurion Street

Ramat Gan 5257346 Israel

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

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

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

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act:

None

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report (December 31, 2023): 1,359,837,393 ordinary shares are outstanding.

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

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes ☐  No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such a 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, or an emerging growth company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

Ϯ The term “new or revised financial accounting standard” refers to any update issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to its Accounting Standards Codification after April 5, 2012.

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. ☐

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

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

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

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow. Item 17 ☐  Item 18 ☐

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐  No ☒

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Can-Fite is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops orally bioavailable small molecule therapeutic products for the treatment of cancer, liver and inflammatory diseases and erectile dysfunction. We are also developing specific formulations of cannabis components for the treatment of cancer, inflammatory, and metabolic diseases. Our platform technology utilizes the Gi protein associated A3 adenosine receptor, or A3AR, as a therapeutic target. A3AR is highly expressed in pathological body cells such as inflammatory and cancer cells, and has a low expression in normal cells, suggesting that the receptor could be a specific target for pharmacological intervention. Our pipeline of drug candidates are synthetic, highly specific agonists and allosteric modulators targeting the A3AR.

Our ordinary shares have been trading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, or TASE, under the symbol “CFBI” since October 2005. On October 2, 2012, our ADSs began trading over the counter, or OTC, in the United States under the symbol “CANFY” and on November 19, 2013, our ADSs began trading on the NYSE American under the symbol “CANF.”

Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “Can-Fite” refer to Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. and its consolidated subsidiary. References to “ordinary shares”, “ADSs”, “warrants” and “share capital” refer to the ordinary shares, ADSs, warrants and share capital, respectively, of Can-Fite.

References to “U.S. dollars”, “dollars”, “USD”, and “$” are to currency of the United States of America, and references to “NIS” are to New Israeli Shekels. References to “ordinary shares” are to our ordinary shares, no par value. We report financial information under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, or U.S. GAAP.

Unless otherwise indicated, U.S. dollar translations of NIS amounts presented in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended on December 31, 2023 are translated using the rate of NIS 3.627 to $1.00, the exchange rate reported by the Bank of Israel on December 29, 2023, U.S. dollar translations of NIS amounts presented in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended on December 31, 2022 are translated using the rate of NIS 3.519 to $1.00, the exchange rate reported by the Bank of Israel on December 30, 2022, and U.S. dollar translations of NIS amounts presented in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended on December 31, 2021 are translated using the rate of NIS 3.11 to $1.00, the exchange rate reported by the Bank of Israel on December 31, 2021.

On January 9, 2023, we effected a change in the ratio of our ADSs to ordinary shares from one (1) ADS representing thirty (30) ordinary shares to a new ratio of one (1) ADS representing three hundred (300) ordinary shares. For ADS holders, the ratio change had the same effect as a one-for-ten reverse ADS split. All ADS and related option and warrant information presented in this Annual Report on Form 20-F have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the reduced number of ADSs and the increase in the ADS price which resulted from this action. Unless otherwise indicated, in this Annual Report on Form 20-F fractional ADSs have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 20-F contains forward-looking statements, about our expectations, beliefs or intentions regarding, among other things, our product development efforts, business, financial condition, results of operations, strategies or prospects. In addition, from time to time, we or our representatives have made or may make forward-looking statements, orally or in writing. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “may,” “should” or “anticipate” or their negatives or other variations of these words or other comparable words or by the fact that these statements do not relate strictly to historical or current matters. These forward-looking statements may be included in, but are not limited to, various filings made by us with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, press releases or oral statements made by or with the approval of one of our authorized executive officers. Forward-looking statements relate to anticipated or expected events, activities, trends or results as of the date they are made. Because forward-looking statements relate to matters that have not yet occurred, these statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from any future results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Many factors could cause our actual activities or results to differ materially from the activities and results anticipated in forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the factors summarized below.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F identifies important factors which could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements, particularly those set forth under the heading “Risk Factors.” The risk factors included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F are not necessarily all of the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any of our forward-looking statements. Given these uncertainties, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to:

All forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 20-F and are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. We undertake no obligations to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. In evaluating forward-looking statements, you should consider these risks and uncertainties.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Market data and certain industry data and forecasts used throughout this Annual Report on Form 20-F were obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, including market research databases, publicly available information, reports of governmental agencies and industry publications and surveys. We have relied on certain data from third-party sources, including internal surveys, industry forecasts and market research, which we believe to be reliable based on our management’s knowledge of the industry. Forecasts are particularly likely to be inaccurate, especially over long periods of time. In addition, we do not necessarily know what assumptions regarding general economic growth were used in preparing the third-party forecasts we cite. Statements as to our market position are based on the most currently available data. While we are not aware of any misstatements regarding the industry data presented in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, our estimates involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors, including those discussed under the heading “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

PART I

ITEM 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisers.

Not applicable.

ITEM 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable.

Not applicable.

ITEM 3. Key Information.

A. [Reserved]

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness.

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds.

Not applicable.

D. Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the risks we describe below, in addition to the other information set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes beginning on page F-1, before deciding to invest in our ordinary shares and American Depositary Shares, or ADSs. These material risks could adversely impact our results of operations, possibly causing the trading price of our ordinary shares and ADSs to decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Summary Risk Factors

The principal factors and uncertainties that make investing in our ordinary shares risky, include, among others:

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

Risks Related to Our Business and Regulatory Matters

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Risks Related to Our Industry

Risks Related to Our Operations in Israel

Risks Related to Our Ordinary Shares and ADSs

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We have incurred operating losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops orally bioavailable small molecule therapeutic products for the treatment of cancer, liver and inflammatory diseases and erectile dysfunction. Since our incorporation in 1994, we have been focused on research and development activities with a view to developing our product candidates, CF101, also known as Piclidenoson, CF102, also known as Namodenoson, and CF602. We have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities (both in private placements and in public offerings on the TASE and NYSE American) and payments received under out-licensing agreements and have incurred losses in each year since our inception in 1994. We have historically incurred substantial net losses, including net losses of approximately $7.6 million in 2023, $10.1 million in 2022, and $12.6 million in 2021. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $158.5 million. We do not know whether or when we will become profitable. To date, we have not commercialized any products or generated any revenues from product sales and accordingly we do not have a revenue stream to support our cost structure. Our losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in development and discovery activities. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and these losses will likely increase as we:

If our product candidates fail in clinical trials or do not gain regulatory clearance or approval, or if our product candidates do not achieve market acceptance, we may never become profitable. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our inability to achieve and then maintain profitability would negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Moreover, our prospects must be considered in light of the risks and uncertainties encountered by an early-stage company and in highly regulated and competitive markets, such as the biopharmaceutical market, where regulatory approval and market acceptance of our products are uncertain. There can be no assurance that our efforts will ultimately be successful or result in revenues or profits.

We will need to raise additional capital to meet our business requirements in the future, and such capital raising may be costly or difficult to obtain and will dilute current shareholders’ ownership interests.

As of December 31, 2023, we had cash and cash equivalents of $4.3 million and short-term deposits of $4.6 million. In January 2023, we raised approximately $7.5 million in gross proceeds (approximately $6.5 million net of issuance costs) from a registered direct offering and a concurrent private placement and subsequently in November 2023, we raised approximately $3.0 million in gross proceeds (approximately $2.61 million net of issuance costs) from a warrant repricing and exercise transaction. We believe that our existing financial resources will be sufficient to meet our requirements for the next twelve months from the date of issuance of this Annual Report on Form 20-F. We have expended and believe that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future developing our product candidates. These expenditures will include costs associated with research and development, manufacturing, conducting preclinical experiments and clinical trials and obtaining regulatory approvals, as well as commercializing any products approved for sale. Because the outcome of our planned and anticipated clinical trials is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. As a result of these and other factors currently unknown to us, we will require additional funds, through public or private equity or debt financings or other sources, such as strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including the progress and results of our clinical trials, the duration and cost of discovery and preclinical development, and laboratory testing and clinical trials for our product candidates, the timing and outcome of regulatory review of our product candidates, the number and development requirements of other product candidates that we pursue, and the costs of activities, such as product marketing, sales, and distribution. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development and commercialization of our product candidates, we are unable to estimate the amounts of increased capital outlays and operating expenditures associated with our anticipated clinical trials.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. General market conditions may make it very difficult for us to seek financing from the capital markets and the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the current war between Israel and Hamas could impact the availability or cost of future financings. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate preclinical studies, clinical trials or other research and development activities for one or more of our product candidates or delay, limit, reduce or terminate our establishment of sales and marketing capabilities or other activities that may be necessary to commercialize our product candidates. 

We may incur substantial costs in pursuing future capital financing, including investment banking fees, legal fees, accounting fees, securities law compliance fees, printing and distribution expenses and other costs. We may also be required to recognize non-cash expenses in connection with certain securities we issue, such as convertible notes and warrants, which may adversely impact our financial condition.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interests of existing shareholders will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect shareholder rights. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financing when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Risks Related to Our Business and Regulatory Matters

We have not yet commercialized any products or technologies, and we may never become profitable.

We have not yet commercialized any products or technologies, and we may never be able to do so. We do not know when or if we will complete any of our product development efforts, obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates incorporating our technologies or successfully commercialize any approved products. Even if we are successful in developing products that are approved for marketing, we will not be successful unless these products gain market acceptance for appropriate indications at favorable reimbursement rates. The degree of market acceptance of these products will depend on a number of factors, including:

Physicians, patients, thirty-party payors or the medical community in general may be unwilling to accept, utilize or recommend, and in the case of third-party payors, cover any of our products or products incorporating our technologies. As a result, we are unable to predict the extent of future losses or the time required to achieve profitability, if at all. Even if we successfully develop one or more products that incorporate our technologies, we may not become profitable.

Our product candidates are at various stages of clinical and preclinical development and may never be commercialized.

Our product candidates are at various stages of clinical development and may never be commercialized. The progress and results of any future pre-clinical testing or future clinical trials are uncertain, and the failure of our product candidates to receive regulatory approvals will have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition to the extent we are unable to commercialize any products. None of our product candidates has received regulatory approval for commercial sale. In addition, we face the risks of failure inherent in developing therapeutic products. Our product candidates are not expected to be commercially available for several years, if at all.

In order to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, approval or approval from foreign regulatory authorities to market a product candidate or to distribute our products, we must demonstrate thorough pre-clinical testing and thorough human clinical trials that the product candidate is safe and effective for its intended uses (e.g., treatment of a specific condition in a specific way subject to contraindications and other limitations). If the FDA, or foreign regulatory authorities, determine that data from our pre-clinical testing and clinical trials are not sufficient to support approval, the FDA, or foreign regulatory authorities, may require additional pre-clinical testing or clinical trials for our product candidates. Even if we comply with all FDA requests, the FDA may ultimately reject one or more of our New Drug Applications, or NDA, or grant approval for a narrowly intended use that is not commercially feasible. We might not obtain regulatory approval for our drug candidates in a timely manner, if at all. Failure to obtain FDA approval of any of our drug candidates in a timely manner or at all will severely undermine our business by reducing the number of salable products and, therefore, corresponding product revenues.

Results of earlier clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials.

The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Also, interim results, if at all, during a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy results despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. For example, our former subsidiary OphthaliX Inc, or OphthaliX, announced top-line results of a Phase III study with Piclidenoson for dry-eye syndrome in which Piclidenoson did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of complete clearing of corneal staining, nor the secondary efficacy endpoints, OphthaliX released top-line results from its Phase II clinical trial of Piclidenoson for the treatment of glaucoma in which no statistically significant differences were found between the Piclidenoson treated group and the placebo group in the primary endpoint of lowering intraocular pressure, or IOP. In addition, two Phase IIb studies in rheumatoid arthritis, utilizing Piclidenoson in combination with methotrexate, a generic drug commonly used for treating rheumatoid arthritis patients, or MTX, failed to reach their primary endpoints and we ended our Phase III ACROBAT study after the independent data monitoring committee, or IDMC recommended in a pre-planned interim analysis not to continue this study. A Phase II/III study of Piclidenoson for psoriasis did not meet its primary endpoint although positive data from further analysis of the Phase II/III study suggests Piclidenoson as a potential systemic therapy for patients with moderate-severe psoriasis. Furthermore, a Phase II study for advanced HCC in subjects with Child-Pugh B who failed Nexavar as a first line treatment did not meet its primary endpoint although it showed superiority in overall survival in the largest study subpopulation.

Many companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to adverse safety profiles or lack of efficacy, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies. Any delay in, or termination or suspension of, our clinical trials will delay the requisite filings with the FDA, the EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate product revenues. If the clinical trials do not support our product claims, the completion of development of such product candidates may be significantly delayed or abandoned, which will significantly impair our ability to generate product revenues and will materially adversely affect our results of operations.

This drug candidate development risk is heightened by any changes in the planned clinical trials compared to the completed clinical trials. As product candidates are developed from preclinical through early to late stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is customary that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing and methods of administration, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. While these types of changes are common and are intended to optimize the product candidates for late stage clinical trials, approval and commercialization, such changes do carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives.

Changes in our planned clinical trials or future clinical trials could cause our product candidates to perform differently, including causing toxicities, which could delay completion of our clinical trials, delay approval, if any, of our product candidates, and/or jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues.

We might be unable to develop product candidates that will achieve commercial success in a timely and cost-effective manner, or ever.

Even if regulatory authorities approve our product candidates, they may not be commercially successful. Our product candidates may not be commercially successful because government agencies and other third-party payors may not cover the product or the coverage may be too limited to be commercially successful; physicians and others may not use or recommend our products, even following regulatory approval. A product approval, assuming one issues, may limit the uses for which the product may be distributed thereby adversely affecting the commercial viability of the product. Third parties may develop superior products or have proprietary rights that preclude us from marketing our products. We also expect that at least some of our product candidates will be expensive, if approved. Patient acceptance of and demand for any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval or license will depend largely on many factors, including but not limited to the extent, if any, of reimbursement of costs by government agencies and other third-party payors, pricing, the effectiveness of our marketing and distribution efforts, the safety and effectiveness of alternative products, and the prevalence and severity of side effects associated with our products. If physicians, government agencies and other third-party payors do not accept our products, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. In addition, government regulators and legislative bodies in the U.S. are considering numerous proposals that may result in limitations on the prices at which we could charge customers for our products if we have products that are ultimately approved for sale. At this time, we are unable to predict how these potential legislative changes might affect our business.

Our current pipeline is based on our platform technology utilizing the Gi protein associated A3AR, as a potent therapeutic target and currently includes three molecules, Piclidenoson, Namodenoson and CF602 product candidates, of which Piclidenoson is the most advanced. Failure to develop these molecules will have a material adverse effect on us.

Our current pipeline is based on a platform technology where we target the A3AR with highly selective ligands, or small signal triggering molecules that bind to specific cell surface receptors, such as the A3AR, including Piclidenoson, Namodenoson and CF602. A3ARs are structures found in cell surfaces that record and transfer messages from small molecules or ligands, such as Piclidenoson, Namodenoson and CF602 to the rest of the cell. Piclidenoson is the most advanced of our drug candidates. As such, we are currently dependent on only three molecules for our potential commercial success, and any safety or efficacy concerns related to such molecules would have a significant impact on our business. Failure to develop our drug candidates, in whole or in part, will have a material adverse effect on us.

Clinical trials are very expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement, and, as a result, we may suffer delays or suspensions in future trials which would have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenues.

Human clinical trials are very expensive and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. Regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, may preclude or prohibit clinical trials from proceeding. Additionally, the clinical trial process is time-consuming, failure can occur at any stage of the trials, and we may encounter problems that cause us to abandon or repeat clinical trials. The commencement and completion of clinical trials may be delayed by several factors, including:

We have experienced the risks involved with conducting clinical trials, including but not limited to, increased expense and delay and failure to meet end points of the trial. For example, OphthaliX, announced top-line results of a Phase III study with Piclidenoson for dry-eye syndrome in which Piclidenoson did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of complete clearing of corneal staining, nor the secondary efficacy endpoints and OphthaliX released top-line results from its Phase II clinical trial of Piclidenoson for the treatment of glaucoma in which no statistically significant differences were found between the Piclidenoson treated group and the placebo group in the primary endpoint of lowering IOP. In addition, two Phase IIb studies in rheumatoid arthritis, utilizing Piclidenoson in combination with MTX failed to reach their primary end points and we ended our Phase III ACROBAT study after the IDMC recommended in a pre-planned interim analysis not to continue this study. A Phase II/III study of Piclidenoson for psoriasis did not meet its primary endpoint although positive data from further analysis of the Phase II/III study suggests Piclidenoson as a potential systemic therapy for patients with moderate-severe psoriasis. Furthermore, a Phase II study of Namodenoson for advanced HCC in subjects with Child-Pugh B who failed Nexavar as a first line treatment did not meet its primary endpoint although it showed superiority in overall survival in the largest study subpopulation.

In addition, we or regulatory authorities may suspend our clinical trials at any time if it appears that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks or if the regulatory authorities find deficiencies in our regulatory submissions or the conduct of these trials. Any suspension of clinical trials will delay possible regulatory approval, if any, increase costs, and adversely impact our ability to develop products and generate revenue.

We seek to partner with third-party collaborators with respect to the development and commercialization of Piclidenoson and for any other product candidate, and we may not succeed in establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships, which may significantly limit our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates successfully, if at all.

Our business strategy relies in part on partnering with pharmaceutical companies to complement our internal development efforts. We will be competing with many other companies as we seek partners for Piclidenoson, Namodenoson and for any other product candidate and we may not be able to compete successfully against those companies. If we are not able to enter into collaboration arrangements for Piclidenoson, Namodenoson and for any other product candidate, we may be required to undertake and fund further development, clinical trials, manufacturing and commercialization activities solely at our own expense and risk. If we are unable to finance and/or successfully execute those expensive activities, or we delay such activities due to capital availability, our business could be materially and adversely affected, and potential future product launch could be materially delayed, be less successful, or we may be forced to discontinue clinical development of these product candidates. The process of establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships is difficult, time-consuming and involves significant uncertainty, including:

Any collaborative partners we enter into agreements with in the future may shift their priorities and resources away from our product candidates or seek to renegotiate or terminate their relationships with us. If any collaborator fails to fulfill its responsibilities in a timely manner, or at all, our research, clinical development, manufacturing or commercialization efforts related to that collaboration could be delayed or terminated, or it may be necessary for us to assume responsibility for expenses or activities that would otherwise have been the responsibility of our collaborator. If we are unable to establish and maintain collaborative relationships on acceptable terms or to successfully transition terminated collaborative agreements, we may have to delay or discontinue further development of one or more of our product candidates, undertake development and commercialization activities at our own expense or find alternative sources of capital.

If we acquire or license additional technology or product candidates, we may incur a number of costs, may have integration difficulties and may experience other risks that could harm our business and results of operations.

We may acquire and license additional product candidates and technologies. Any product candidate or technology we license from others or acquire will likely require additional development efforts prior to commercial sale, including extensive pre-clinical or clinical testing, or both, and approval by the FDA and applicable foreign regulatory authorities, if any. All product candidates are prone to risks of failure inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that the product candidate or product developed based on licensed technology will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, we cannot assure you that any product candidate that we develop based on acquired or licensed technology that is granted regulatory approval will be manufactured or produced economically, successfully commercialized or widely accepted in the marketplace. Moreover, integrating any newly acquired product candidates could be expensive and time-consuming. If we cannot effectively manage these aspects of our business strategy, our business may not succeed.

The manufacture of our product candidates is a chemical synthesis process and if one of our materials suppliers encounters problems manufacturing our products, our business could suffer.

The FDA and foreign regulators require manufacturers to register manufacturing facilities. The FDA and foreign regulators also inspect these facilities to confirm compliance with requirements that the FDA or foreign regulators establish. We do not intend to engage in the manufacture of our products other than for pre-clinical and clinical studies, but we or our materials suppliers may face manufacturing or quality control problems causing product production and shipment delays or a situation where we or the supplier may not be able to maintain compliance with the FDA’s or foreign regulators’ requirements necessary to continue manufacturing our drug substance. Drug manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA, and corresponding foreign regulators to ensure strict compliance with requirements and other governmental regulations and corresponding foreign standards. Any failure to comply with DEA requirements or FDA or foreign regulatory requirements could adversely affect our clinical research activities and our ability to develop our product candidates, and delay possible regulatory approval.

We do not currently have sales, marketing or distribution capabilities or experience, and we are unable to effectively sell, market or distribute our product candidates now and we do not expect to be able to do so in the future. The failure to enter into agreements with third parties that are capable of performing these functions would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We do not currently have, and we do not expect to develop, sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. If we are unable to enter into agreements with third parties to perform these functions, we will not be able to successfully market any of our platforms or product candidates. In order to successfully market any of our platform or product candidates, we must make arrangements with third parties to perform these services.

As we do not intend to develop a marketing and sales force with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities, we will be unable to market any of our product candidates directly. To promote any of our potential products through third parties, we will have to locate acceptable third parties for these functions and enter into agreements with them on acceptable terms, and we may not be able to do so. Any third-party arrangements we are able to enter into may result in lower revenues than we could achieve by directly marketing and selling our potential products. In addition, to the extent that we depend on third parties for marketing and distribution, any revenues we receive will depend upon the efforts of such third parties, as well as the terms of our agreements with such third parties, which cannot be predicted in most cases at this time. As a result, we might not be able to market and sell our products in the United States or overseas, which would have a material adverse effect on us.

We will to some extent rely on third parties to implement our manufacturing and supply strategies. Failure of these third parties in any respect could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If our current and future manufacturing and supply strategies are unsuccessful, then we may be unable to conduct and complete any future pre-clinical or clinical trials or commercialize our product candidates in a timely manner, if at all. Completion of any potential future pre-clinical or clinical trials and commercialization of our product candidates will require access to, or development of, facilities to manufacture a sufficient supply of our product candidates. We do not have the resources, facilities or experience to manufacture our product candidates for commercial purposes on our own and do not intend to develop or acquire facilities for the manufacture of product candidates for commercial purposes in the foreseeable future. We may rely on contract manufacturers to produce sufficient quantities of our product candidates necessary for any pre-clinical or clinical testing we undertake in the future. Such contract manufacturers may be the sole source of production and they may have limited experience at manufacturing, formulating, analyzing, filling and finishing our types of product candidates.

We also intend to rely on third parties to supply the requisite materials needed for the manufacturing of our active pharmaceutical ingredients, or API. There may be a limited supply of these requisite materials. We might not be able to enter into agreements that provide us assurance of availability of such components in the future from any supplier. Our potential suppliers may not be able to adequately supply us with the components necessary to successfully conduct our pre-clinical and clinical trials or to commercialize our product candidates. In particular, the any resurgence of COVID-19 globally could result in the inability of our suppliers to deliver components or raw materials on a timely basis or at all. If we cannot acquire an acceptable supply of the requisite materials to produce our product candidates, we will not be able to complete pre-clinical and clinical trials delaying possible regulatory approval, and adversely impacting our ability to develop products, and will not be able to market or commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

We depend on key members of our management and key consultants and will need to add and retain additional leading experts. Failure to retain our management and consulting team and add additional leading experts could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We are highly dependent on our executive officers and other key management and technical personnel. Our failure to retain our Executive Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer, Pnina Fishman, Ph.D., who has developed much of the technology we utilize today, or any other key management and technical personnel, could have a material adverse effect on our future operations. Our success is also dependent on our ability to attract, retain and motivate highly trained technical, and management personnel, among others, to continue the development and commercialization, if approved, of our current and future product candidates.

Our success also depends on our ability to attract, retain and motivate personnel required for the development, maintenance and expansion of our activities. There can be no assurance that we will be able to retain our existing personnel or attract additional qualified employees or consultants. The loss of key personnel or the inability to hire and retain additional qualified personnel in the future could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

We face significant competition and continuous technological change, and developments by competitors may render our products or technologies obsolete or non-competitive. If we cannot successfully compete with new or existing products, our marketing and sales will suffer and we may not ever be profitable.

We will compete against fully integrated pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and smaller companies that are collaborating with larger pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations. In addition, many of these competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, operate larger research and development programs than we do, and have substantially greater financial resources than we do, as well as significantly greater experience in:

If our competitors develop and commercialize products faster than we do, or develop and commercialize products that are superior to our product candidates, our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated. The extent to which any of our product candidates achieve market acceptance will depend on competitive factors, many of which are beyond our control. Competition in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industry is intense and has been accentuated by the rapid pace of technology development. Our competitors include large integrated pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies that currently have drug and target discovery efforts, universities, and public and private research institutions. Almost all of these entities have substantially greater research and development capabilities and financial, scientific, manufacturing, marketing and sales resources than we do. These organizations also compete with us to:

Our competitors may succeed in developing and commercializing products earlier and obtaining regulatory approvals from the FDA or foreign regulators more rapidly than we do. Our competitors may also develop products or technologies that are superior to those we are developing, and render our product candidates or technologies obsolete or non-competitive. If we cannot successfully compete with new or existing products, our marketing and sales will suffer and we may not ever be profitable.

Our competitors currently include companies with marketed products and/or an advanced research and development pipeline. The major competitors in the psoriasis therapeutic field include Amgen, J&J, Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB and more. Competitors in the HCC field include companies such as Bayer, Exelixis, Merck, Roche, Eisai, Astrazenca, Beigene, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Competitors in the nonalcoholic steatohepatisi, or NASH, field (also known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis, or MASH)) include companies such as Gilead, Genfit, Galmed, Madrigal, Akero, 89Bio, Viking, and Terns. Competitors in the erectile dysfunction field include Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Bayer, and Petros Pharmaceuticals. See “Item 4. Information on the Company—B. Business Overview—Competition.”

Moreover, several companies have reported the commencement of research projects related to the A3AR. Such companies include CV Therapeutics Inc. (which was acquired by Gilead), King Pharmaceuticals R&D Inv. (which was acquired by Pfizer), Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc. (which was acquired by Aventis), Novo Nordisk A/S and Inotek Pharmaceuticals. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no approved drug currently on the market, which is similar to our A3AR agonists, nor are we aware of any allosteric modulator in the A3AR product pipeline similar to our allosteric modulator with respect to chemical profile and mechanism of action.

We may suffer losses from product liability claims if our product candidates cause harm to patients.

Any of our product candidates could cause adverse events. Although a pooled safety analysis from clinical trials encompassing more than 1,600 humans dosed with Piclidenoson through the completion of our Phase II rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis trials indicated that Piclidenoson is generally well-tolerated at doses up to 4.0 mg administered twice daily for up to 12-48 weeks, there were incidences (less than or equal to 5%) of adverse events in eight completed and fully analyzed trials in inflammatory disease. Such adverse events included nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, constipation, common bacterial and viral syndromes (such as tonsillitis, otitis and respiratory and urinary tract infections), abdominal pain, vomiting, myalgia, arthralgia, dizziness, headache and pruritus. We observed an even lower incidence (less than or equal to 2%) of serious adverse events, although only one type of event was reported in more than a single Piclidenoson-treated subject, which was exacerbation of chronic obstructive lung disease reported in two subjects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the placebo group in such studies had a higher incidence of overall adverse events than the pooled Piclidenoson groups. In addition, in normal volunteers, Piclidenoson at doses 3-4-fold higher than those to be used in therapeutic trials, but not at therapeutic doses, was associated with prolongation of the electrocardiographic QT intervals. No new safety concerns have been identified and no novel or unexpected safety concerns have appeared over 48 weeks of treatment in more recent trials.

There is also a risk that certain adverse events may not be observed in clinical trials, but may nonetheless occur in the future. If any of these adverse events occur, they may render our product candidates ineffective or harmful in some patients, and our sales would suffer, materially adversely affecting our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, potential adverse events caused by our product candidates could lead to product liability lawsuits. If product liability lawsuits are successfully brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit the marketing and commercialization of our product candidates. Our business exposes us to potential product liability risks, which are inherent in the testing, manufacturing, marketing and sale of pharmaceutical products. We may not be able to avoid product liability claims. Product liability insurance for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is generally expensive, if available at all. If, at any time, we are unable to obtain sufficient insurance coverage on reasonable terms or to otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, we may be unable to clinically test, market or commercialize our product candidates. A successful product liability claim brought against us in excess of our insurance coverage, if any, may cause us to incur substantial liabilities, and, as a result, our business, liquidity and results of operations would be materially adversely affected.

Our product candidates will remain subject to ongoing regulatory requirements even if they receive marketing approval, and if we fail to comply with these requirements, we could lose these approvals, and the sales of any approved commercial products could be suspended.

Even if we receive regulatory approval to market a particular product candidate, the product will remain subject to extensive regulatory requirements, including requirements relating to manufacturing, labelling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, distribution and recordkeeping. Even if regulatory approval of a product is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the uses for which the product may be marketed or the conditions of approval, or may contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product, which could negatively impact us or our collaboration partners by reducing revenues or increasing expenses, and cause the approved product candidate not to be commercially viable. In addition, as clinical experience with a drug expands after approval, typically because it is used by a greater number and more diverse group of patients after approval than during clinical trials, side effects and other problems may be observed after approval that were not seen or anticipated during pre-approval clinical trials or other studies. Any adverse effects observed after the approval and marketing of a product candidate could result in limitations on the use of or withdrawal of any approved products from the marketplace. Absence of long-term safety data may also limit the approved uses of our products, if any. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements of the FDA and other applicable U.S. and foreign regulatory authorities, or previously unknown problems with any approved commercial products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes are discovered, we could be subject to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions or other setbacks, including the following:

If we or our collaborators are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing regulatory requirements or adoption of new regulatory requirements or policies, marketing approval for our product candidates may be lost or cease to be achievable, resulting in decreased revenue from milestones, product sales or royalties, which would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We deal with hazardous materials and must comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do business.

Our activities and those of our third-party manufacturers on our behalf involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including corrosive, explosive and flammable chemicals and other hazardous compounds. We and our manufacturers are subject to U.S. federal, state, and local, and Israeli and other foreign laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In addition, if we develop a manufacturing capacity, we may incur substantial costs to comply with environmental regulations and would be subject to the risk of accidental contamination or injury from the use of hazardous materials in our manufacturing process.

In the event of an accident, government authorities may curtail our use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In addition, we could be liable for any civil damages that result, which may exceed our financial resources and may seriously harm our business. Although our Israeli insurance program covers certain unforeseen sudden pollutions, we do not maintain a separate insurance policy for any of the foregoing types of risks. In addition, although the general liability section of our life sciences policy covers certain unforeseen, sudden environmental issues, pollution in the United States and Canada is excluded from the policy. In the event of environmental discharge or contamination or an accident, we may be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. In addition, we may be subject to liability and may be required to comply with new or existing environmental laws regulating pharmaceuticals or other medical products in the environment.

Environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) issues, including those related to climate change and sustainability, may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and damage our reputation.

There is an increasing focus from certain investors, customers, consumers, employees and other stakeholders concerning ESG matters. Additionally, public interest and legislative pressure related to public companies’ ESG practices continue to grow. If our ESG practices fail to meet regulatory requirements or investor, customer, consumer, employee or other shareholders’ evolving expectations and standards for responsible corporate citizenship in areas including environmental stewardship, support for local communities, Board of Director and employee diversity, human capital management, employee health and safety practices, product quality, supply chain management, corporate governance and transparency, our reputation, brand and employee retention may be negatively impacted, and our customers and suppliers may be unwilling to continue to do business with us.

Customers, consumers, investors and other shareholders are increasingly focusing on environmental issues, including climate change, energy and water use, plastic waste and other sustainability concerns. Concern over climate change may result in new or increased legal and regulatory requirements to reduce or mitigate impacts to the environment. Changing customer and consumer preferences or increased regulatory requirements may result in increased demands or requirements regarding plastics and packaging materials, including single-use and non-recyclable plastic products and packaging, other components of our products and their environmental impact on sustainability, or increased customer and consumer concerns or perceptions (whether accurate or inaccurate) regarding the effects of substances present in certain of our products. Complying with these demands or requirements could cause us to incur additional manufacturing, operating or product development costs.

If we do not adapt to or comply with new regulations, including the SEC’s newly adopted rules that would require companies to provide expanded climate-related disclosures in their periodic reporting, which may require us to incur significant additional costs to comply and impose increased oversight obligations on our management and board of directors, or fail to meet evolving investor, industry or stakeholder expectations and concerns regarding ESG issues, investors may reconsider their capital investment in our Company, we may become subject to penalties, and customers and consumers may choose to stop purchasing our products, if approved for commercialization, which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business or financial condition.

Our business and operations may be materially adversely affected in the event of computer system failures or security breaches.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of our contract research organizations, or CROs, and other third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, cyber-attacks, natural disasters, fire, terrorism, war, and telecommunication and electrical failures. If such an event were to occur and interrupt our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, loss of trade secrets or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, including protected health information or personal data of employees or former employees, access to our clinical data, or disruption of the manufacturing process, we could incur liability and the further development of our drug candidates could be delayed. We may also be vulnerable to cyber-attacks by hackers or other malfeasance. This type of breach of our cybersecurity may compromise our confidential information and/or our financial information and adversely affect our business or result in legal proceedings. Further, these cybersecurity breaches may inflict reputational harm upon us that may result in decreased market value and erode public trust.

We may not be able to successfully grow and expand our business. Failure to manage our growth effectively will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may not be able to successfully grow and expand. Successful implementation of our business plan will require management of growth, including potentially rapid and substantial growth, which will result in an increase in the level of responsibility for management personnel and place a strain on our human and capital resources. To manage growth effectively, we will be required to continue to implement and improve our operating and financial systems and controls to expand, train and manage our employee base. Our ability to manage our operations and growth effectively requires us to continue to expend funds to enhance our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures and to attract and retain sufficient numbers of talented personnel. If we are unable to scale up and implement improvements to our control systems in an efficient or timely manner, or if we encounter deficiencies in existing systems and controls, then we will not be able to make available the products required to successfully commercialize our technology. Failure to attract and retain sufficient numbers of talented personnel will further strain our human resources and could impede our growth or result in ineffective growth. Moreover, the management, systems and controls currently in place or to be implemented may not be adequate for such growth, and the steps taken to hire personnel and to improve such systems and controls might not be sufficient. If we are unable to manage our growth effectively, it will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If we are unable to obtain adequate insurance, our financial condition could be adversely affected in the event of uninsured or inadequately insured loss or damage. Our ability to effectively recruit and retain qualified officers and directors could also be adversely affected if we experience difficulty in obtaining adequate directors’ and officers’ liability insurance.

We may not be able to obtain insurance policies on terms affordable to us that would adequately insure our business and property against damage, loss or claims by third parties. To the extent our business or property suffers any damages, losses or claims by third parties, which are not covered or adequately covered by insurance, our financial condition may be materially adversely affected.

We may be unable to maintain sufficient insurance as a public company to cover liability claims made against our officers and directors. Our insurance costs have increased for directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and we may be required to incur further substantial increased costs to maintain the same or similar coverage or be forced to accept reduced coverage in future. If we are unable to adequately ensure our officers and directors, we may not be able to retain or recruit qualified officers and directors to manage us.

Our cannabinoid initiative is uncertain and may not yield commercial results and is subject to significant regulatory risks.

We are developing formulations of cannabis components for the treatment of diseases in which there is an overexpression of A3AR. While we believe there are substantial business opportunities for us in this field, there can be no assurance that our activities will be successful, or that any research and development and product testing efforts will result in commercially saleable products, or that the market will accept or respond positively to our products. In addition, our current and potential involvement in cannabis-related activity may expose us to legal and reputational risks. Such risks include:

Complying with laws and regulations relating to cannabinoids is evolving, complex and expensive, and may divert management’s attention and resources from other aspects of our business. Failure to maintain compliance with such laws and regulations may result in regulatory action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The DEA, FDA or state agencies may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings.

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by natural disasters and/or health epidemics, and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage, health epidemic or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our office, manufacturing and/or lab spaces, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, CROs, clinical sites, third parties ongoing activities and schedules or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our plans and business for a substantial period of time.

In late 2019, a novel strain of COVID-19, also known as coronavirus, was reported in Wuhan, China and began spreading to various parts of the world. Epidemics such as this can adversely impact our business and that of third parties with whom we engage as they can cause disruptions, such as travel bans, quarantines, and interruptions to access the trial sites and supply chain, which could result in material delays and complications with respect to our research and development programs and clinical trials. If there are future outbreaks of COVID-19 this may result in a period of business disruption in these and other areas impacting our business, including the establishment of contractual relationships with investigators enrolling subjects in our clinical trials, the continuity of care provided by these institutions to the subjects we seek to enroll and their ability to support industry-funded research as a means of caring for their subjects, supply of these sites with study materials, and the enrollment of subjects and their adherence with study requirements.

The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

The expiry of a patent that we licensed from the National Institute of Health, or NIH, and the consequent loss of composition of matter exclusivity that we had by virtue of this license may diminish our proprietary position.

As a result of the expiry in June 2015 of a patent that provided composition of matter protection over Piclidenoson and Namodenoson, that we licensed from the NIH, we no longer enjoy composition of matter patent exclusivity relating to Piclidenoson and Namodenoson. Nevertheless, because Piclidenoson and Namodenoson may each be a new chemical entity, or NCE, following approval of an NDA, we, if we are the first applicant to obtain NDA approval, may be entitled to five years of data exclusivity in the United States with respect to such NCEs. Analogous data and market exclusivity provisions, of varying duration, may be available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions. We also have rights under our pharmaceutical use issued patents with respect to Piclidenoson and Namodenoson and under our Piclidenoson manufacturing process patents, which provide patent exclusivity within our field of activity until the mid- to late-2020s. While we believe that we may be able to protect our exclusivity through such use patent portfolio and such period of exclusivity, the lack of composition of matter patent protection may diminish our ability to maintain a proprietary position for our intended uses of Piclidenoson or Namodenoson. Moreover, we cannot be certain that we will be the first applicant to obtain an FDA approval for any indication of Piclidenoson or Namodenoson and we cannot be certain that we will be entitled to NCE exclusivity. In addition, we have discontinued the prosecution of a family of pending patent applications under joint ownership of us and NIH pertaining to the use of A3AR agonists for the treatment of uveitis. Such diminution of our proprietary position could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation and financial condition.

We license from Leiden University intellectual property, which protects certain small molecules which target the A3AR, in furtherance of our platform technology, and we could lose our rights to this license if a dispute with Leiden University arises or if we fail to comply with the financial and other terms of the license.

We have licensed intellectual property from Leiden University pursuant to a license agreement. The license agreement imposes certain payment, reporting, confidentiality and other obligations on us. In the event that we were to breach any of the obligations and fail to cure, Leiden University would have the right to terminate the license agreement. In addition, Leiden University has the right to terminate the license agreement upon our bankruptcy, insolvency, or receivership. If any dispute arises with respect to our arrangements with Leiden University, such dispute may disrupt our operations and may have a material adverse impact on us if resolved in a manner that is unfavorable to us.

The failure to obtain or maintain patents, licensing agreements, including our current licensing agreements, and other intellectual property could impact our ability to compete effectively.

To compete effectively, we need to develop and maintain a proprietary position with regard to our own technologies, intellectual property, licensing agreements, product candidates and business. Legal standards relating to the validity and scope of claims in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical fields are still evolving. Therefore, the degree of future protection for our proprietary rights in our core technologies and any products that might be made using these technologies is also uncertain. The risks and uncertainties that we face with respect to our patents and other proprietary rights include the following:

If patent rights covering our products and methods are not sufficiently broad or not issued at all by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, or by foreign patent offices, we may not have adequate protection against competitors with similar products and technologies. Furthermore, if the USPTO or foreign patent offices issue patents to us or our licensors, others may challenge the patents or design around the patents, or the patent office or the courts may invalidate the patents. Thus, any patents we own or license from third parties may not provide any protection against our competitors.

We cannot be certain that patents will be issued as a result of any pending applications, and we cannot be certain that any of our issued patents will give us adequate protection from competing products. For example, issued patents, including the patents in-licensed by us, may be circumvented or challenged, declared invalid or unenforceable, or narrowed in scope. In addition, since publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make our inventions or to file patent applications covering those inventions.

It is also possible that others may obtain issued patents that could prevent us from commercializing our products or require us to obtain licenses requiring the payment of significant fees or royalties in order to enable us to conduct our business. As to those patents that we have in-licensed, our rights depend on maintaining our obligations to the licensor under the applicable license agreement, and we may be unable to do so.

In addition to patents and patent applications, we depend upon trade secrets and proprietary know-how to protect our proprietary technology. We require our employees, consultants, advisors and collaborators to enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information to any other parties. We require our employees and consultants to disclose and assign to us their ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions. These agreements may not, however, provide adequate protection for our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information in the event of any unauthorized use or disclosure.

Costly litigation may be necessary to protect our intellectual property rights and we may be subject to claims alleging the violation of the intellectual property rights of others.

We may face significant expense and liability as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to patents and other intellectual property rights of others. In the event that another party has also filed a patent application or been issued a patent relating to an invention or technology claimed by us in pending applications, we may be required to participate in an interference proceeding declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention, which could result in substantial uncertainties and costs for us, even if the eventual outcome were favorable to us. We, or our licensors, also could be required to participate in interference proceedings involving issued patents and pending applications of another entity. An adverse outcome in an interference proceeding could require us to cease using the technology or to license rights from prevailing third parties.

The cost to us of any patent litigation or other proceeding relating to our own or in-licensed patents or patent applications, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Our ability to enforce our patent protection could be limited by our financial resources, and may be subject to lengthy delays. If we are unable to effectively enforce our proprietary rights, or if we are found to infringe the rights of others, we may be in breach of our License Agreement.

A third party may claim that we are using inventions claimed by their patents and may go to court to stop us from engaging in our normal operations and activities, such as research, development and the sale of any future products. Such lawsuits are expensive and would consume time and other resources. There is a risk that the court will decide that we are infringing the third party’s patents and will order us to stop the activities claimed by the patents, redesign our products or processes to avoid infringement or obtain licenses (which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms). In addition, there is a risk that a court will order us to pay the other party damages for having infringed their patents and possibly also their legal fees.

Moreover, there is no guarantee that any prevailing patent owner would offer us a license so that we could continue to engage in activities claimed by the patent, or that such a license, if made available to us, could be acquired on commercially acceptable terms. In addition, third parties may, in the future, assert other intellectual property infringement claims against us with respect to our product candidates, technologies or other matters.

We rely on confidentiality agreements that could be breached and may be difficult to enforce, which could result in third parties using our intellectual property to compete against us.

Although we believe that we take reasonable steps to protect our intellectual property, including the use of agreements relating to the non-disclosure of confidential information to third parties, as well as agreements that purport to require the disclosure and assignment to us of the rights to the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions of our employees and consultants while we employ them, the agreements can be difficult and costly to enforce. Although we seek to obtain these types of agreements from our contractors, consultants, advisors and research collaborators, to the extent that employees and consultants utilize or independently develop intellectual property in connection with any of our projects, disputes may arise as to the intellectual property rights associated with our products. If a dispute arises, a court may determine that the right belongs to a third party. In addition, enforcement of our rights can be costly and unpredictable. We also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how that we seek to protect in part by confidentiality agreements with our employees, contractors, consultants, advisors or others. Despite the protective measures we employ, we still face the risk that:

International patent protection is particularly uncertain, and if we are involved in opposition proceedings in foreign countries, we may have to spend substantial sums and management resources.

Patent law outside the United States is different than in the United States. Further, the laws of some foreign countries may not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, if at all. A failure to obtain sufficient intellectual property protection in any foreign country could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and future prospects. Moreover, we may participate in opposition proceedings to determine the validity of our foreign patents or our competitors’ foreign patents, which could result in substantial costs and divert management’s resources and attention.

Although most jurisdictions in which we have applied for, intend to apply for, or have been issued patents have patent protection laws similar to those of the United States, some of them do not. For example, we expect to do business in Brazil and India in the future. However, the Brazilian drug regulatory agency, ENVISA, has the authority to nullify patents on the basis of its perceived public interest and the Indian patent law does not allow patent protection for new uses of pharmaceuticals (many of our current patent applications are of such nature). Additionally, due to uncertainty in patent protection law, we have not filed applications in many countries where significant markets exist, including Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, African countries and Taiwan.

We may be unable to protect the intellectual property rights of the third parties from whom we license certain of our intellectual property or with whom we have entered into other strategic relationships.

Certain of our intellectual property rights are currently licensed from Leiden University, and, in the future, we wish to continue to license intellectual property from Leiden University and/or other universities and/or strategic partners. Such third parties may determine not to protect the intellectual property rights that we license from them and we may be unable to defend such intellectual property rights on our own or we may have to undertake costly litigation to defend the intellectual property rights of such third parties. There can be no assurances that we will be able to obtain licenses to such third party intellectual property or otherwise have the right to use through similar strategic relationships. Any loss or limitations on use with respect to our right to use such intellectual property licensed from third parties or otherwise obtained from third parties with whom we have entered into strategic relationships could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Under applicable U.S. and Israeli law, we may not be able to enforce covenants not to compete and therefore, may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of some of our former employees. In addition, employees may be entitled to seek compensation for their inventions irrespective of their agreements with us, which in turn could impact our future profitability.

We generally enter into confidentiality and non-competition agreements with our employees and certain key consultants, or our employment and consulting agreements contain confidentiality and non-competition provisions. These agreements, to the extent they are in place and in effect, prohibit our employees and certain key consultants, if they cease working for us, from competing directly with us or working for our competitors or clients for a limited period of time and maintain confidentiality of our know-how and trade secrets, as long as they do not enter the public domain. We may be unable to enforce these agreements under the laws of the jurisdictions in which our employees work and it may be difficult for us to restrict our competitors from benefitting from the expertise our former employees or consultants developed while working for us. For example, Israeli courts have required employers seeking to enforce non-compete undertakings of a former employee to demonstrate that the competitive activities of the former employee will harm one of a limited number of material interests of the employer which have been recognized by the courts, such as the secrecy of a company’s confidential commercial information or the protection of its intellectual property. If we cannot demonstrate that such interests will be harmed, we may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of our former employees or consultants and our ability to remain competitive may be diminished.

In addition, Chapter 8 to the Israeli Patents Law, 5727-1967, or the Patents Law, deals with inventions made in the course of an employee’s service and during his or her term of employment, whether or not the invention is patentable, or service inventions. Section 134 of the Patents Law provides that if there is no agreement that explicitly determines whether the employee is entitled to compensation for the service inventions and the extent and terms of such compensation, such determination will be made by the Compensation and Rewards Committee, a statutory committee of the Israeli Patents Office. Although our employees have agreed to assign to us service invention rights, we may face claims demanding remuneration in consideration for assigned inventions. As a consequence of such claims, we could be required to pay additional remuneration or royalties to our current and/or former employees, or be forced to litigate such claims, which could negatively affect our business.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. The following examples are illustrative:

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

We may 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 fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Risks Related to Our Industry

We are subject to government regulations and we may experience delays in obtaining required regulatory approvals in the United States and the regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdiction in which we intend to market our proposed product candidates, of which there can be no assurance.

Various aspects of our operations are subject to foreign, federal, state or local laws, and rules and regulations, any of which may change from time to time. We are not permitted to market our product candidates as prescription pharmaceutical products in the United States until we receive approval of a New Drug Application, or NDA, from the FDA or in any foreign countries until we receive the requisite approval from such countries. Costs arising out of any regulatory developments could be time-consuming and expensive and could divert management resources and attention and, consequently, could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance.

Delays in regulatory approval, limitations in regulatory approval and withdrawals of regulatory approval may have a material adverse effect on us. In the United States, the FDA generally requires the completion of clinical trials of each drug to establish its safety and efficacy and extensive pharmaceutical development to ensure its quality before an NDA is approved. If we experience significant delays in testing or receiving approvals or sign-offs to conduct clinical trials, our product development costs, or our ability to license product candidates, will increase. If the FDA grants regulatory approval to market a product, this approval will be limited to those disease states and conditions and populations for which the product has demonstrated, through clinical trials, to be safe and effective. Any product approvals that we receive in the future could also include significant restrictions on the use or marketing of our products. Product approvals, if granted, can be withdrawn for failure to comply with regulatory requirements or upon the occurrence of adverse events following commercial introduction of the products. Failure to comply with applicable FDA or other applicable regulatory requirements may result in criminal prosecution, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production or injunction, as well as other regulatory action against our product candidates or us. If approval is withdrawn for a product, or if a product were seized or recalled, we would be unable to sell or license that product and our revenues would suffer. In addition, outside the United States, our ability to market any of our potential products is contingent upon receiving market application authorizations from the appropriate regulatory authorities and these foreign regulatory approval processes include all of the risks associated with the FDA approval process described above.

Our success depends on our receipt of the regulatory approvals described above, and the issuance of such regulatory approvals is uncertain and subject to a number of risks, including the following:

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals is expensive, often takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon, among other things, the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved, the jurisdiction in which regulatory approval is sought and the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Changes in regulatory approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for a submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory approval obtained in one jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that a product candidate will receive regulatory approval in all jurisdictions in which we may seek approval, but the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to seek approval in a different jurisdiction.

Clinical testing is expensive, is difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome.

Our business model depends entirely on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. Our product candidates are in the early stages of development and as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 20-F. We may not be successful in obtaining approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to start or continue clinical trials for any of our product candidates. Moreover, there is no guarantee that we will receive approval to commence human clinical trials or that our clinical trials will be successful or that we will continue clinical development in support of an approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any indication. We note that most product candidates never reach the clinical development stage and even those that do commence clinical development have only a small chance of successfully completing clinical development and gaining regulatory approval. Success in early phases of pre-clinical and clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. A failure of one or more of our clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, the clinical trial process that could delay or prevent our ability to receive regulatory approval or commercialize our product candidates. Therefore, our business currently depends entirely on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur.

The results of previous clinical trials may not be predictive of future results, our progress in trials for one product candidate may not be indicative of progress in trials for other product candidates, and our trials may not be designed so as to support regulatory approval.

We currently have no products approved for sale and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have marketable products. Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or any of our current and future collaborators may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical or non-clinical testing. We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can obtain regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Success in early clinical trials does not mean that future clinical trials will be successful because product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and other regulatory authorities despite having progressed through initial clinical trials. Product candidates that have shown promising results in early clinical trials may still suffer significant setbacks in subsequent clinical trials. Similarly, the outcome of non-clinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Progress in trials of one product candidate does not indicate that we will make similar progress in additional trials for that product candidate or in trials for our other product candidates. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including those with greater resources and experience than us, have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after obtaining promising results in earlier clinical trials.

The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product. We may be unable to design and/or execute a clinical trial to support regulatory approval. Flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced or completed. In addition, we or our investigators may have little control over whether subjects comply with important aspects of clinical trial protocols.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and/or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols, modifications in the formulation throughout the course of development and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. While we have not had any serious adverse events in our clinical trials to date that are believed to be related to our oral product candidates, we may need to change future trial designs in response to adverse events that occur during future clinical development. We do not know whether any Phase 2, Phase 3 or other clinical trials we or any of our collaborators may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we may not be able to successfully commercialize the product and the revenue that we generate from its sales, if any, may be limited.

If approved for marketing, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon each product’s acceptance by the medical community, including physicians, patients and health care payors. The degree of market acceptance for any of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any of our product candidates are approved, but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, health care payors, and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue and we may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

In addition, even if we obtain regulatory approvals, the timing or scope of any approvals may prohibit or reduce our ability to commercialize our product candidates successfully. For example, if the approval process takes too long, we may miss market opportunities and give other companies the ability to develop competing products or establish market dominance. Any regulatory approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render our product candidates not commercially viable. For example, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for any of our product candidates, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve any of our product candidates with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that indication. Further, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may place conditions on approvals or require risk management plans or a REMS to assure the safe use of the drug. Moreover, product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following the initial marketing of the product. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial success of our product candidates.

Even if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidates could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and withdrawal from the market and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates for an indication, the FDA or foreign equivalent may still impose significant restrictions on their indicated uses or marketing or the conditions of approval, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly and time-consuming post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and post-market surveillance to monitor safety and efficacy. Our product candidates will also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements governing the manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, safety surveillance, advertising, promotion, recordkeeping and reporting of adverse events and other post-market information. These requirements include registration with the FDA, as well as continued compliance with current Good Clinical Practices regulations, or cGCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMPs, requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents.

The FDA has the authority to require a REMS as part of an NDA or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug, such as limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria or requiring patient testing, monitoring and/or enrollment in a registry. 

With respect to sales and marketing activities related to our product candidates, advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules in addition to other applicable federal, state and local laws in the United States and similar legal requirements in other countries. In the United States, the distribution of product samples to physicians must comply with the requirements of the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act. Application holders must obtain FDA approval for product and manufacturing changes, depending on the nature of the change. We may also be subject, directly or indirectly through our customers and partners, to various fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute, U.S. False Claims Act, and similar state laws, which impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing, and scientific/educational grant programs. If we participate in the U.S. Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the Federal Supply Schedule of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or other government drug programs, we will be subject to complex laws and regulations regarding reporting and payment obligations. All of these activities are also potentially subject to U.S. federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. Similar requirements exist in many of these areas in other countries.

In addition, if any of our product candidates are approved for a particular indication, our product labeling, advertising and promotion would be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for our product candidates, physicians may nevertheless legally prescribe our products to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability and government fines. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees of permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product candidate, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or we or our manufacturers fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, we may be subject to the following administrative or judicial sanctions:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue. Adverse regulatory action, whether pre- or post-approval, can also potentially lead to product liability claims and increase our product liability exposure.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad, and compliance with such regulation may be expensive and consume substantial financial and management resources. If we or any future marketing collaborators or contract manufacturers are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies or are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, it could delay or prevent the promotion, marketing or sale of our products, which would adversely affect our business and results of operations. 

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/ or to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

Even though we may apply for orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we may not be able to obtain orphan drug status or marketing exclusivity.

We believe that in some cases our dry powder drug products may qualify for the FDA’s orphan drug status. There is no guarantee that the FDA will grant any future application for orphan drug designation for any of our product candidates, which would make us ineligible for the additional exclusivity and other benefits of orphan drug designation.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug 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 and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of regulatory review and approval process. In addition to the potential period of exclusivity, orphan designation makes a company eligible for grant funding of up to $500,000 per year for four years to defray costs of clinical trial expenses, tax credits for clinical research expenses and potential exemption from the FDA application user fee.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as (i) the drug’s orphan designation is revoked; (ii) its marketing approval is withdrawn; (iii) the orphan exclusivity holder consents to the approval of another applicant’s product; (iv) the orphan exclusivity holder is unable to assure the availability of a sufficient quantity of drug; or (v) a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by a competitor product. If a drug designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. There can be no assurance that we will receive orphan drug designation for any of our product candidates in the indications for which we think they might qualify, if we elect to seek such applications.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval for our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell our product candidates. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We do not know whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

In the United States, the Medicare Modernization Act, or MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for drugs. In addition, this legislation authorized Medicare Part D prescription drug plans to use formularies where they can limit the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. As a result of this legislation and the expansion of federal coverage of drug products, we expect that there will be additional pressure to contain and reduce costs. These cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for our product candidates and could seriously harm our business. While the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, and any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 or, collectively, the ACA, is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The ACA revised the definition of “average manufacturer price” for reporting purposes, which could increase the amount of Medicaid drug rebates to states. Further, the law imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In 2011, the U.S. Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011, or the Budget Control Act, which included provisions intended to reduce the federal deficit. The Budget Control Act resulted in the imposition of 2% reductions in Medicare payments to providers beginning in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2027 absent additional congressional action. However, pursuant to the CARES Act, and subsequent legislation, these reductions were suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations. If government spending is further reduced, anticipated budgetary shortfalls may also impact the ability of relevant agencies, such as the FDA, to continue to function at current levels, which may impact the ability of relevant agencies to timely review and approve research and development, manufacturing and marketing activities, which may delay our ability to develop, market and sell any product candidates we may develop. In addition, any significant spending reductions affecting Medicare, Medicaid or other publicly funded or subsidized health programs that may be implemented, or any significant taxes or fees that may be imposed on us, as part of any broader deficit reduction effort or legislative replacement to the Budget Control Act, could have an adverse impact on our anticipated product revenues.

There have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect such challenges to continue. In 2017, the U.S. Congress enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the 2017 Tax Act, which eliminated the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On January 22, 2018, President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain fees mandated by the ACA, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans and the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amends the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans. In July 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain ACA qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation, regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Moreover, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products. There have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. On September 24, 2020, the FDA released a final rule providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or 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 rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which includes several provisions to lower prescription drug costs for people with Medicare, including price negotiation requirements for drugs covered under Medicare, rebate requirements when drug prices rise faster than inflation, and a cap on out-of-pocket spending for Medicare Part D enrollees. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

On November 20, 2020, the HHS Office of Inspector General finalized further modifications to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Under the final rules, the HHS Office of Inspector General added safe harbor protections under the Anti-Kickback Statute for certain coordinated care and value-based arrangements among clinicians, providers, and others, yet removed 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 rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. This rule (with exceptions) became effective January 19, 2021. We continue to evaluate what effect, if any, these rules will have on our business. CMS issued a final rule, effective on July 9, 2019, that requires direct-to-consumer advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products, for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid, to include in the advertisement the Wholesale Acquisition Cost, or list price, of that drug or biological product if it is equal to or greater than $35 for a monthly supply or usual course of treatment. Prescription drugs and biological products that are in violation of these requirements will be included on a public list. Any adopted health reform measure could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. 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. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future.

The delivery of healthcare in the EU, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Both in the United States and in the EU, legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We do not know whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be.

Any termination or suspension of, or delays in the commencement or completion of, any necessary studies of any of our product candidates for any indications could result in increased costs to us, delay or limit our ability to generate revenue and adversely affect our commercial prospects.

The commencement and completion of clinical studies can be delayed for a number of reasons, including delays related to:

Product development costs for any of our product candidates will increase if we have delays in testing or approval or if we need to perform more or larger clinical studies than planned. Additionally, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur and we may need to amend study protocols to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our study protocols to the FDA, comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of that study. If we experience delays in completion of, or if we, the FDA or other regulatory authorities, the IRB, or other reviewing entities, or any of our clinical study sites suspend or terminate any of our clinical studies of any of our product candidates, its commercial prospects may be materially harmed and our ability to generate product revenues will be delayed. Any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, termination or suspension of, or a delay in the commencement or completion of, clinical studies may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In addition, if one or more clinical studies are delayed, our competitors may be able to bring competing products to market before we do, and the commercial viability of any of our affected product candidates could be significantly reduced.

If we or any of our independent contractors, consultants, collaborators, manufacturers, or service providers fail to comply with healthcare and data privacy laws and regulations, we or they could be subject to enforcement actions, which could result in penalties and affect our ability to develop, market and sell our product candidates and may harm our reputation.

We are or may in the future be subject to federal, state, and foreign healthcare and data privacy laws and regulations pertaining to, among other things, fraud and abuse of patients’ rights. These laws and regulations include:

If our operations are found to be in violation of any such healthcare laws and regulations, we may be subject to penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, monetary damages, disgorgement, imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, or exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, any of which could adversely our financial results. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable laws and regulations may be costly to us in terms of money, time and resources. 

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants, commercial partners or vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards.

We are also exposed to the risk of employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial partners or vendors engaging in fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial partners and vendors could include intentional failures to comply with EU regulations, to provide accurate information to the EMA or EU Member States authorities or to comply with manufacturing or quality standards we have or will have established. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices such as promotion of products by medical practitioners. The EU Member States in which we operate have different statutory provisions regulating the cooperation of pharmaceutical companies with healthcare professionals. In addition to these statutory provisions, codes of conduct issued by business associations or other non-statutory standards may be applicable to our activities. Both statutory provisions and non-statutory codes or standards restrict payments or other benefits provided to healthcare professionals, and in case of non-compliance, may result in severe sanctions such as bans, administrative fines, criminal fines or even imprisonment. The advertising of medicinal products for human use in the EU is regulated by Title VIII of European Directive 2001/83/EC. These provisions have been implemented into the law of the EU member States. Such laws inter alia restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical studies, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious and irreparable harm to our reputation. 

This could also apply with respect to data privacy. In the EU, the EU Directive 95/46/EEC was replaced by the GDPR on May 25, 2018. The GDPR as an EU regulation does not have to be implemented into Member States’ national law, but applies directly in all Member States since May 25, 2018. It applies to companies with an establishment in the European Economic Area (EEA) and to certain other companies not in the EEA that offer or provide goods or services to individuals located in the EEA or monitor individuals located in the EEA. The GDPR implements more stringent operational requirements for controllers of personal data, including, for example, expanded disclosures about how personal information is to be used, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to health data and pseudonymized (i.e., key-coded) data, increased cyber security requirements, mandatory data breach notification requirements and higher standards for controllers to demonstrate that they have obtained a valid legal basis for certain data processing activities. The GDPR provides that EU Member States may continue to make their own further laws and regulations in relation to the processing of genetic, biometric or health data, which could result in continued or new differences between Member States, limit our ability to use and share personal data or could cause our costs to increase, and harm our business and financial condition. We are also subject to evolving and strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States. Further prospective revision of the Directive on privacy and electronic communications (Directive 2002/58/EC), or ePrivacy Directive, may affect our marketing communications.

Our actual or alleged failure to comply with this regulation, or to protect personal data, could result in enforcement actions and significant penalties against us, which could result in negative publicity, increase our operating costs, subject us to claims or other remedies and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees or other parties. The precautions we take to detect and prevent such activity may not protect us from legal or regulatory action resulting from a failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations. Misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, consultants, commercial partners or vendors could result in significant financial penalties, criminal sanctions, civil law claims and/or negative media coverage, and thus have a material adverse effect on our business, including through the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions, and our reputation. In particular, failure to comply with EU laws, including failure under the GDPR, ePrivacy Directive and other laws relating to the security of personal data may result in fines up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, if greater, and other administrative penalties including criminal liability, which may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Failure to comply with the GDPR and related laws may also give risk to increase risk of private actions, including a new form of class action that is available under the GDPR.

Risks Related to Our Operations in Israel

We conduct our operations in Israel and therefore our results may be adversely affected by political, economic and military instability in Israel and its region.

Our headquarters are located in Israel and we conduct operations in Israel. Accordingly, political, economic and military conditions in the Middle East may affect our business directly. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, a number of armed conflicts have taken place between Israel and its neighboring countries, as well as terrorist acts committed within Israel by hostile elements.

In particular, in October 2023, Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel’s southern border from the Gaza Strip and conducted a series of attacks on civilian and military targets. Hamas also launched extensive rocket attacks on the Israeli population and industrial centers located along Israel’s border with the Gaza Strip and in other areas within the State of Israel. These attacks resulted in thousands of deaths and injuries, and Hamas additionally kidnapped many Israeli civilians and soldiers. Following the attack, Israel’s security cabinet declared war against Hamas and commenced a military campaign against Hamas and these terrorist organizations in parallel continued rocket and terror attacks. As a result of the events of October 7, 2023 whereby Hamas terrorists invaded southern Israel and launched thousands of rockets in a widespread terrorist attack on Israel, the Israeli government declared that the country was at war and the Israeli military began to call-up reservists for active duty, including our CEO who was called up for reserve service during which time he continued to perform his main work duties and has since been released from reserve service. Military service call ups that result in absences of personnel from us for an extended period of time may materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. As of the date hereof, we currently have five full-time employees, all of whom are located in Israel, and two external consultants, both of whom are located in the United States.

In addition, since the commencement of these events, there have been continued hostilities along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon (with the Hezbollah terror organization) and southern border (with the Houthi movement in Yemen). It is possible that hostilities with Hezbollah in Lebanon will escalate, and that other terrorist organizations, including Palestinian military organizations in the West Bank as well as other hostile countries, such as Iran, will join the hostilities. Such clashes may escalate in the future into a greater regional conflict. In addition, Iran has threatened to attack Israel and is widely believed to be developing nuclear weapons. Iran is also believed to have a strong influence among extremist groups in the region, such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi movement in Yemen and various rebel militia groups in Syria and Iraq. These situations may potentially escalate in the future to more violent events which may affect Israel and us. Any hostilities, armed conflicts, terrorist activities involving Israel or the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its trading partners, or any political instability in the region could adversely affect business conditions and our results of operations and could make it more difficult for us to raise capital and could adversely affect the market price of our ordinary share. An escalation of tensions or violence might result in a significant downturn in the economic or financial condition of Israel, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations in Israel and our business. Parties with whom we do business have sometimes declined to travel to Israel during periods of heightened unrest or tension, forcing us to make alternative arrangements when necessary in order to meet our business partners face to face. In addition, the political and security situation in Israel may result in parties with whom we have agreements involving performance in Israel claiming that they are not obligated to perform their commitments under those agreements pursuant to force majeure provisions in such agreements.

Since the war broke out on October 7, 2023, our operations have not been adversely affected by this situation, and we have not experienced disruptions to our clinical studies. Of the 58 clinical sites currently participating in our clinical studies, only 4 are located in Israel. Additionally, all of our manufacturing and supply of our drug candidates takes place outside of Israel. As such, our clinical and business development activities remain on track. However, the intensity and duration of Israel’s current war against Hamas is difficult to predict at this stage, as are such war’s economic implications on the Company’s business and operations and on Israel’s economy in general. if the war extends for a long period of time or expands to other fronts, such as Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank, our operations may be adversely affected.

Our commercial insurance does not cover losses that may occur as a result of events associated with the security situation in the Middle East. Although the Israeli government currently covers the reinstatement value of direct damages that are caused by terrorist attacks or acts of war, we cannot assure you that this government coverage will be maintained. Any losses or damages incurred by us could have a material adverse effect on our business. Any armed conflicts or political instability in the region would likely negatively affect business conditions and could harm our results of operations.

Finally, political conditions within Israel may affect our operations. Israel has held five general elections between 2019 and 2022, and prior to October 2023, the Israeli government pursued extensive changes to Israel’s judicial system, which sparked extensive political debate and unrest. To date, these initiatives have been substantially put on hold. Actual or perceived political instability in Israel or any negative changes in the political environment, may individually or in the aggregate adversely affect the Israeli economy and, in turn, our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Because a certain portion of our expenses is incurred in currencies other than U.S. dollars, our results of operations may be harmed by currency fluctuations and inflation.

Company’s functional and presentation currency is U.S. dollar. To date, we have not engaged in hedging transactions. Although the Israeli rate of inflation has not had a material adverse effect on our financial condition during 2021, 2022 or 2023 to date, we may, in the future, decide to enter into currency hedging transactions to decrease the risk of financial exposure from fluctuations in the exchange rates of the currencies mentioned above in relation to U.S. dollars. These measures, however, may not adequately protect us from material adverse effects.

It may be difficult to enforce a U.S. judgment against us and our officers and directors named in this Annual Report on Form 20-F in Israel or the United States, or to serve process on our officers and directors.

We are incorporated in Israel. All of our executive officers and directors listed in this Annual Report on Form 20-F reside outside of the United States, and all of our assets and most of the assets of our executive officers and directors are located outside of the United States. Therefore, a judgment obtained against us or most of our executive officers and all of our directors in the United States, including one based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws, may not be collectible in the United States and may not be enforced by an Israeli court. It also may be difficult for you to effect service of process on these persons in the United States or to assert U.S. securities law claims in original actions instituted in Israel.

Your rights and responsibilities as a shareholder will be governed by Israeli law which may differ in some respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders of U.S. companies.

We are incorporated under Israeli law. The rights and responsibilities of the holders of our shareholders are governed by our Amended and Restated Articles of Association and Israeli law. These rights and responsibilities differ in some respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders in typical U.S.-based corporations. In particular, a shareholder of an Israeli company has a duty to act in good faith toward the company and other shareholders and to refrain from abusing its power in the company, including, among other things, in voting at the general meeting of shareholders on matters such as amendments to a company’s articles of association, increases in a company’s authorized share capital, mergers and acquisitions and interested party transactions requiring shareholder approval. In addition, a shareholder who knows that it possesses the power to determine the outcome of a shareholder vote or to appoint or prevent the appointment of a director or executive officer in the company has a duty of fairness toward the company. There is limited case law available to assist us in understanding the implications of these provisions that govern shareholders’ actions. These provisions may be interpreted to impose additional obligations and liabilities of our shareholders that are not typically imposed on shareholders of U.S. corporations.

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

Israeli corporate law regulates mergers, requires tender offers for acquisitions of shares above specified thresholds, requires special approvals for transactions involving directors, officers or significant shareholders and regulates other matters that may be relevant to these types of transactions. For example, a merger may not be consummated unless at least 50 days have passed from the date that a merger proposal was filed by each merging company with the Israel Registrar of Companies and at least 30 days from the date that the shareholders of both merging companies approved the merger. In addition, a majority of each class of securities of the target company must approve a merger. Moreover, a full tender offer can only be completed if the acquirer receives at least 95% of the issued share capital; provided that, pursuant to an amendment to the Companies Law, 5759-1999, as amended, or the Israeli Companies Law, effective as of May 15, 2011, a majority of the offerees that do not have a personal interest in such tender offer shall have approved the tender offer; except that, if the total votes to reject the tender offer represent less than 2% of our issued and outstanding share capital, in the aggregate, approval by a majority of the offerees that do not have a personal interest in such tender offer is not required to complete the tender offer, and the shareholders, including those who indicated their acceptance of the tender offer, may, at any time within six months following the completion of the tender offer, petition the court to alter the consideration for the acquisition (unless the acquirer stipulated in the tender offer that a shareholder that accepts the offer may not seek appraisal rights and the acquirer or the company published all required information with respect to the tender offer prior to the tender offer’s response date).

Furthermore, Israeli tax considerations may make potential transactions unappealing to us or to our shareholders whose country of residence does not have a tax treaty with Israel exempting such shareholders from Israeli tax. For example, Israeli tax law does not recognize tax-free share exchanges to the same extent as U.S. tax law. With respect to mergers, Israeli tax law allows for tax deferral in certain circumstances but makes the deferral contingent on the fulfillment of numerous conditions, including, in some cases, requirement for a holding period of two years from the date of the transaction during which sales and dispositions of shares of the participating companies are restricted. Moreover, with respect to certain share swap transactions, the tax deferral is limited in time, and when such time expires, the tax becomes payable even if no actual disposition of the shares has occurred.

These and other similar provisions could delay, prevent or impede an acquisition of us or our merger with another company, even if such an acquisition or merger would be beneficial to us or to our shareholders. See “Description of the Offered Securities—Articles of Association.”

Inflation could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

While inflation in the United States and global markets has been relatively low in recent years, during 2021 and 2022, the economy in the United States and global markets encountered a material increase in the level of inflation. The impact of any resurgence of COVID-19, geopolitical developments such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the war between Israel and Hamas and global supply chain disruptions continue to increase uncertainty in the outlook of near-term and long-term economic activity, including whether inflation will continue and how long, and at what rate. Increases in inflation raise our costs for commodities, labor, materials and services and other costs required to grow and operate our business, and failure to secure these on reasonable terms may adversely impact our financial condition. Additionally, increases in inflation, along with the uncertainties surrounding COVID-19, including any potential resurgence thereof, geopolitical developments and global supply chain disruptions, have caused, and may in the future cause, global economic uncertainty and uncertainty about the interest rate environment, which may make it more difficult, costly or dilutive for us to secure additional financing. A failure to adequately respond to these risks could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Risks Related to Our Ordinary Shares and ADSs

Our business, operating results and growth rates may be adversely affected by current or future unfavorable economic and market conditions and adverse developments with respect to financial institutions and associated liquidity risk.

Our business depends on the economic health of the global economies. If the conditions in the global economies remain uncertain or continue to be volatile, or if they deteriorate, including as a result of the impact of military conflict, such as the war between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas, terrorism or other geopolitical events, our business, operating results and financial condition may be materially adversely affected.

In addition, increases in inflation raise our costs for commodities, labor, materials and services and other costs required to grow and operate our business, and failure to secure these on reasonable terms may adversely impact our financial condition. Additionally, increases in inflation, along with the uncertainties surrounding COVID-19, geopolitical developments and global supply chain disruptions, have caused, and may in the future cause, global economic uncertainty and uncertainty about the interest rate environment, which may make it more difficult, costly or dilutive for us to secure additional financing. A failure to adequately respond to these risks could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

There can be no assurance that future credit and financial market instability and a deterioration in confidence in economic conditions will not occur. Our general business strategy may be adversely affected by any such economic downturn, liquidity shortages, volatile business environment or continued unpredictable and unstable market conditions. If the current equity and credit markets deteriorate, or if adverse developments are experienced by financial institutions, it may cause short-term liquidity risk and also make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly, more onerous with respect to financial and operating covenants and more dilutive. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our growth strategy, financial performance and stock price and could require us to alter our operating plans. In addition, there is a risk that one or more of our service providers, financial institutions, manufacturers, suppliers and other partners may be adversely affected by the foregoing risks, which could directly affect our ability to attain our operating goals on schedule and on budget.

There can be no assurance that we will not be a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes in 2024 or in any subsequent year. If we are a PFIC, there may be negative tax consequences for U.S. taxpayers that are holders of our ordinary shares, ADSs, Warrants, or Pre-funded Warrants.

We will be treated as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes in any taxable year in which either (i) at least 75% of our gross income is “passive income” or (ii) on average at least 50% of our assets by value produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income. Passive income for this purpose generally includes, among other things, certain dividends, interest, royalties, rents and gains from commodities and securities transactions and from the sale or exchange of property that gives rise to passive income. Passive income also includes amounts derived by reason of the temporary investment of funds, including those raised in a public offering. In determining whether a non-U.S. corporation is a PFIC, a proportionate share of the income and assets of each corporation in which it owns, directly or indirectly, at least a 25% interest (by value) is taken into account.

Based on our analysis of our income, assets, and operations, we may have been a PFIC for 2023. Because the PFIC determination is highly fact intensive, there can be no assurance that we will not be a PFIC in 2024 or in any other taxable year. Even if we determine that we are not a PFIC after the close of a taxable year, there can be no assurance that a court or the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, will agree with our conclusion. If we were to be characterized as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes in any taxable year during which a U.S. shareholder owns our ordinary shares, ADSs, Warrants, or Pre-funded Warrants, then “excess distributions” to such U.S. shareholder, and any gain realized on the sale or other disposition of our ordinary shares, ADSs, Warrants, or Pre-funded Warrants, as applicable, will be subject to special rules. Under these rules: (i) the excess distribution or gain would be allocated ratably over the U.S. shareholder’s holding period for the ordinary shares (or ADSs, Warrants, or Pre-funded Warrants, as the case may be); (ii) the amount allocated to the current taxable year and any period prior to the first day of the first taxable year in which we were a PFIC would be taxed as ordinary income; and (iii) the amount allocated to each of the other taxable years would be subject to tax at the highest rate of tax in effect for the applicable class of taxpayer for that year, and an interest charge for the deemed deferral benefit would be imposed with respect to the resulting tax attributable to each such other taxable year. Certain of the adverse consequences of PFIC status can be mitigated if a U.S. shareholder makes an election to treat us as a “qualified electing fund,” or QEF, or makes a “mark-to-market” election. In addition, if the IRS, determines that we are a PFIC for a year with respect to which we have determined that we were not a PFIC, it may be too late for a U.S. shareholder to make a timely QEF or mark-to-market election. U.S. shareholders who hold our ordinary shares, ADSs, Warrants or Pre-funded Warrants during a period when we are a PFIC will be subject to the foregoing rules, even if we cease to be a PFIC in subsequent years, subject to exceptions for U.S. shareholders who made a timely QEF or mark-to-market election (to the extent available). A U.S. shareholder can make a QEF election by completing the relevant portions of and filing IRS Form 8621 in accordance with the instructions thereto. Upon request, we intend to annually furnish U.S. shareholders with information needed in order to complete IRS Form 8621 (which form would be required to be filed with the IRS on an annual basis by the U.S. shareholder) and to make and maintain a valid QEF election for any year in which we are a PFIC. There is no assurance, however, that we will have timely knowledge of our status as a PFIC, or that the information that we provide will be adequate to allow U.S. shareholders to make a QEF election. For further discussion, see “Item 10.E—Additional Information—Taxation—Certain Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Passive Foreign Investment Company.”

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

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

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

Provisions in articles of association may discourage, delay, prevent or otherwise impede a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that shareholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which they might otherwise receive a premium for their ADSs. On February 20, 2020, we amended our articles of association to establish a staggered board of directors, which divides the board into three groups, with directors in each group serving a three-year term. The existence of a staggered board can make it more difficult for shareholders to replace or remove incumbent members of our Board of Directors. As such, these provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for our ADSs, thereby depressing the market price of our ADSs. In addition, because our Board of Directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our shareholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for shareholders to replace members of our Board of Directors.

In addition, Israeli corporate law regulates mergers, requires tender offers for acquisitions of shares above specified thresholds, requires special approvals for transactions involving directors, officers or significant shareholders and regulates other matters that may be relevant to these types of transactions. For example, a merger may not be consummated unless at least 50 days have passed from the date that a merger proposal was filed by each merging company with the Israel Registrar of Companies and at least 30 days from the date that the shareholders of both merging companies approved the merger. In addition, a majority of each class of securities of the target company must approve a merger. Moreover, a full tender offer can only be completed if the acquirer receives at least 95% of the issued share capital; provided that, pursuant to an amendment to the Companies Law, 5759-1999, as amended, or the Israeli Companies Law, effective as of May 15, 2011, a majority of the offerees that do not have a personal interest in such tender offer shall have approved the tender offer; except that, if the total votes to reject the tender offer represent less than 2% of our issued and outstanding share capital, in the aggregate, approval by a majority of the offerees that do not have a personal interest in such tender offer is not required to complete the tender offer, and the shareholders, including those who indicated their acceptance of the tender offer, may, at any time within six months following the completion of the tender offer, petition the court to alter the consideration for the acquisition (unless the acquirer stipulated in the tender offer that a shareholder that accepts the offer may not seek appraisal rights).

Furthermore, Israeli tax considerations may make potential transactions unappealing to us or to our shareholders whose country of residence does not have a tax treaty with Israel exempting such shareholders from Israeli tax. For example, Israeli tax law does not recognize tax-free share exchanges to the same extent as U.S. tax law. With respect to mergers, Israeli tax law allows for tax deferral in certain circumstances but makes the deferral contingent on the fulfillment of numerous conditions, including a holding period of two years from the date of the transaction during which sales and dispositions of shares of the participating companies are restricted. Moreover, with respect to certain share swap transactions, the tax deferral is limited in time, and when such time expires, the tax becomes payable even if no actual disposition of the shares has occurred.

Our business could be negatively impacted by unsolicited takeover proposals, by shareholder activism or by proxy contests relating to the election of directors or other matters.

Our business could be negatively affected as a result of an unsolicited takeover proposal, by shareholder activism or a proxy contest. During 2019, an activist shareholder sought to make changes to our Board of Directors, among other matters, which ultimately resulted in us entering into a settlement agreement with the shareholder, and for which considerable costs were incurred and absorbed significant time and attention by management and the Board of Directors. A future proxy contest, unsolicited takeover proposal, or other shareholder activism relating to the election of directors or other matters would most likely require us to incur significant legal fees and proxy solicitation expenses and require significant time and attention by management and our Board of Directors. The potential of a proxy contest, unsolicited takeover proposal, or other shareholder activism could interfere with our ability to execute our strategic plan, give rise to perceived uncertainties as to our future direction, result in the loss of potential business opportunities or make it more difficult to attract and retain qualified personnel, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business and operating results.

Issuance of additional equity securities may adversely affect the market price of our ADSs or ordinary shares.

We are currently authorized to issue 5,000,000,000 ordinary shares, no par value. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 20-F, we had 1,497,128,493 ordinary shares issued and outstanding, 316,800,000 shares in abeyance and we had no preferred shares outstanding. As of the date of this Annual Report, we also had warrants to purchase 1,852,010,606 ordinary shares and options to purchase 82,477,000 ordinary shares outstanding, of which options to purchase 33,623,875 ordinary shares are currently fully vested or vest within the next 60 days.

To the extent that ADSs or ordinary shares are issued or options and warrants are exercised, holders of our ADSs and our ordinary shares will experience dilution. In addition, in the event of any future issuances of equity securities or securities convertible into or exchangeable for ADSs or ordinary shares, holders of our ADSs or our ordinary shares may experience dilution. We also consider from time to time various strategic alternatives that could involve issuances of additional ADSs or ordinary shares, including but not limited to acquisitions and business combinations, but do not currently have any definitive plans to enter into any of these transactions.

We have no plans to pay dividends on our ordinary shares, and you may not receive funds without selling our ADSs or ordinary shares.

We have not declared or paid any cash dividends on our ordinary shares, nor do we expect to pay any cash dividends on our ordinary shares for the foreseeable future. We currently intend to retain any additional future earnings to finance our operations and growth and for future stock repurchases and, therefore, we have no plans to pay cash dividends on our ordinary shares at this time. Any future determination to pay cash dividends on our ordinary shares will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will be dependent on our earnings, financial condition, operating results, capital requirements, any contractual restrictions, and other factors that our Board of Directors deems relevant. Accordingly, you may have to sell some or all of our ADSs or ordinary shares in order to generate cash from your investment. You may not receive a gain on your investment when you sell our ADSs or ordinary shares and may lose the entire amount of your investment.

The market price of our ordinary shares and ADSs is subject to fluctuation, which could result in substantial losses by our investors.

The stock market in general and the market price of our ordinary shares on the TASE and our ADSs on the NYSE American is subject to fluctuation, and changes in our share price may be unrelated to our operating performance. The market price of our ordinary shares and ADSs are and will be subject to a number of factors, including:

These factors and any corresponding price fluctuations may materially and adversely affect the market price of our ordinary shares and our ADSs and result in substantial losses by our investors.

Additionally, market prices for securities of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies historically have been very volatile. The market for these securities has from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations for reasons unrelated to the operating performance of any one company. See also Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Ordinary Shares and ADSs “Our business, operating results and growth rates may be adversely affected by current or future unfavorable economic and market conditions and adverse developments with respect to financial institutions and associated liquidity risk.” In the past, following periods of market volatility, shareholders have often instituted securities class action litigation and we have been named in the past in a lawsuit requesting recognition as a class action, in which we ultimately prevailed. If we were involved in securities litigation, it could have a substantial cost and divert resources and attention of management from our business, even if we are successful.

Future sales of our ordinary shares or ADSs could reduce the market price of our ordinary shares and ADSs.

Substantial sales of our ordinary shares or our ADSs either on the TASE or on the NYSE American, as applicable, may cause the market price of our ordinary shares or our ADSs to decline.

Sales by us or our security-holders of substantial amounts of our ordinary shares or our ADSs, or the perception that these sales may occur in the future, could cause a reduction in the market price of our ordinary shares or our ADSs. The issuance of any additional ordinary shares or ADSs, or any securities that are exercisable for or convertible into our ordinary shares or our ADSs, may have an adverse effect on the market price of our ordinary shares or our ADSs, as applicable, and will have a dilutive effect on our shareholders.

We may not satisfy the NYSE American requirements for continued listing. If we cannot satisfy these requirements, the NYSE American could delist our securities.

Our ADSs are listed on the NYSE American under the symbol “CANF.” To continue to be listed on the NYSE American, we are required to satisfy a number of conditions, including maintaining a share price and shareholders’ equity above certain thresholds. If we are delisted from the NYSE American, trading in our securities may be conducted, if available, on the OTC Markets or, if available, via another market. In the event of such delisting, our shareholders would likely find it significantly more difficult to dispose of, or to obtain accurate quotations as to the value of our securities, and our ability to raise future capital through the sale of our securities could be severely limited. In addition, if our securities were delisted from the NYSE American, our ADSs could be considered a “penny stock” under the U.S. federal securities laws. Additional regulatory requirements apply to trading by broker-dealers of penny stocks that could result in the loss of an effective trading market for our securities. Moreover, if our ADSs were delisted from the NYSE American, we will no longer be exempt from certain provisions of the Israeli Securities Law, and therefore will have increased disclosure requirements.

ADS holders are not shareholders and do not have shareholder rights.

The Bank of New York Mellon, as Depositary, delivers our ADSs. Each ADS represents two of our ordinary shares. ADS holders will not be treated as shareholders and do not have the rights of shareholders. The Depositary will be the holder of the shares underlying our ADSs. Holders of ADSs will have ADS holder rights. A deposit agreement among us, the Depositary, ADS holders and the beneficial owners of ADSs sets out ADS holder rights as well as the rights and obligations of the Depositary. New York law governs the deposit agreement and our ADSs. Our shareholders have shareholder rights. Israeli law and our Amended and Restated Articles of Association govern shareholder rights. ADS holders do not have the same voting rights as our shareholders. Shareholders are entitled to our notices of general meetings and to attend and vote at our general meetings of shareholders. At a general meeting, every shareholder present (in person or by proxy, attorney or representative) and entitled to vote has one vote. This is subject to any other rights or restrictions which may be attached to any shares. ADS holders may instruct the Depositary how to vote the number of deposited shares their ADSs represent. Otherwise, you won’t be able to exercise your right to vote unless you withdraw the shares. However, you may not know about the meeting enough in advance to withdraw the shares. The Depositary will notify ADS holders of shareholders’ meetings and arrange to deliver our voting materials to them if we ask it to. Those materials will describe the matters to be voted on and explain how ADS holders may instruct the Depositary how to vote. For instructions to be valid, they must reach the Depositary by a date set by the Depositary. The Depositary will try, as far as practical, subject to the laws of Israel and our Amended and Restated Articles of Association or similar documents, to vote or to have its agents vote the shares or other deposited securities as instructed by ADS holders. The Depositary will only vote or attempt to vote as instructed. We cannot assure you that you will receive the voting materials in time to ensure that you can instruct the Depositary to vote your shares. In addition, the Depositary and its agents are not responsible for failing to carry out voting instructions or for the matter of carrying out voting instructions. This means that you may not be able to exercise your right to vote and there may be nothing you can do if your shares are not voted as requested.

ADS holders do not have the same rights to receive dividends or other distributions as our shareholders. Subject to any special rights or restrictions attached to a share, the directors may determine that a dividend will be payable on a share and fix the amount, the time for payment and the method for payment (although we have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our ordinary shares and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future). Dividends and other distributions payable to our shareholders with respect to our ordinary shares generally will be payable directly to them. Any dividends or distributions payable with respect to ordinary shares deposited in the ADS facility will be paid to the Depositary, which has agreed to pay to ADS holders the cash dividends or other distributions it or the custodian receives on shares or other deposited securities, after deducting its fees and expenses. ADS holders will receive these distributions in proportion to the number of ordinary shares their ADSs represent. In addition, there may be certain circumstances in which the Depositary may not pay ADS holder’s amounts distributed by us as a dividend or distribution.

Our ordinary shares and our ADSs are traded on different markets and this may result in price variations.

Our ordinary shares have traded on the TASE since October 2005 and our ADSs have been listed on the NYSE American since November 2013. Trading on these markets will take place in different currencies (U.S. dollars on the NYSE American and NIS on the TASE), and at different times (resulting from different time zones, different trading days and different public holidays in the United States and Israel). The trading prices of our securities on these two markets may differ due to these and other factors. Any decrease in the price of our securities on one of these markets could cause a decrease in the trading price of our securities on the other market.

We have incurred significant additional increased costs as a result of the listing of our ADSs for trading on the NYSE American, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives as well as to compliance with ongoing U.S. and Israeli reporting requirements.

As a public company in the United States, we incur additional significant accounting, legal and other expenses that we did not incur before becoming a reporting company in the United States. We also incur costs associated with corporate governance requirements of the SEC and the NYSE American Company Guide, as well as requirements under Section 404 and other provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as a result of our ADSs being listed on the NYSE American. These rules and regulations have increased our legal and financial compliance costs, introduced new costs such as investor relations, stock exchange listing fees and shareholder reporting, and made some activities more time consuming and costly. Since we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, and are no longer able to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to public companies that are “emerging growth companies” and that were applicable to us prior to January 1, 2020, we may incur additional compliance costs in the future. The implementation and testing of such processes and systems may require us to hire outside consultants and incur other significant costs. Any future changes in the laws and regulations affecting public companies in the United States and Israel, including Section 404 and other provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the rules and regulations adopted by the SEC and the NYSE American Company Guide, as well as applicable Israeli reporting requirements, for so long as they apply to us, may result in increased costs to us as we respond to such changes. These laws, rules and regulations could make it more difficult or more costly for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including director and officer liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our Board of Directors, our Board committees or as executive officers.

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted to follow certain home country corporate governance practices instead of applicable SEC and NYSE American requirements, which may result in less protection than is accorded to investors under rules applicable to domestic issuers.

As a foreign private issuer, we will be permitted to follow certain home country corporate governance practices instead of those otherwise required under the NYSE American Company Guide for domestic issuers. For instance, we may follow home country practice in Israel with regard to, among other things, composition and function of the audit committee and other committees of our Board of Directors and certain general corporate governance matters. In addition, in certain instances we will follow our home country law, instead of the NYSE American Company Guide, which requires that we obtain shareholder approval for certain dilutive events, such as an issuance that will result in a change of control of the company, certain transactions other than a public offering, involving issuances of a 20% or more interest in the company and certain acquisitions of the stock or assets of another company. We comply with the director independence requirements of the NYSE American Company Guide, including the requirement that a majority of the Board of Directors be independent. Following our home country governance practices as opposed to the requirements that would otherwise apply to a U.S. company listed on the NYSE American may provide less protection than is accorded to investors under the NYSE American Company Guide applicable to domestic issuers.

In addition, as a foreign private issuer, we are exempt from the rules and regulations under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, related to the furnishing and content of proxy statements, and our officers, directors and principal shareholders are exempt from the reporting and short-swing profit recovery provisions contained in Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In addition, we will not be required under the Exchange Act to file annual, quarterly and current reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as domestic companies whose securities are registered under the Exchange Act.

Because we became a reporting company under the Exchange Act by means of filing a Form 20-F, we may have difficulty attracting the attention of research analysts at major brokerage firms.

Because we did not become a reporting company by conducting an underwritten initial public offering in the United States, we may have difficulty attracting the attention of security analysts at major brokerage firms in order for them to provide coverage of our company. The failure to receive research coverage or support in the market for our shares will have an adverse effect on our ability to develop a liquid market for our ADSs.

If we are unable to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as they apply to a foreign private issuer that is listed on a U.S. exchange, or our internal control over financial reporting is not effective, the reliability of our financial statements may be questioned and our share price and the ADS price may suffer.

We are subject to the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires companies subject to the reporting requirements of the U.S. securities laws to do a comprehensive evaluation of its and its subsidiaries’ internal control over financial reporting. To comply with this statute, we must document and test our internal control procedures and our management and issue a report concerning our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, as long as we do not become an accelerated or large accelerated filer, we are exempt from the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Under this exemption, our auditor will not be required to attest to and report on our management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting until the date we are no longer a non-accelerated filer. We will need to prepare for compliance with Section 404 by strengthening, assessing and testing our system of internal controls to provide the basis for our report. However, the continuous process of strengthening our internal controls and complying with Section 404 is complicated and time-consuming. Furthermore, as our business continues to grow both domestically and internationally, our internal controls will become more complex and will require significantly more resources and attention to ensure our internal controls remain effective overall. During the course of the testing, our management may identify material weaknesses or significant deficiencies, which may not be remedied in a timely manner to meet the deadline imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If our management cannot favorably assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, or our independent registered public accounting firm identifies material weaknesses in our internal controls, investor confidence in our financial results may weaken, and the market price of our securities may suffer.

ITEM 4. Information on the Company

A. History and Development of the Company

Our legal name is Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. and our commercial name is “Can-Fite.” We are a company limited by shares organized under the laws of the State of Israel. Our principal executive offices are located at 26 Ben Gurion Street, Ramat Gan 5257346 Israel. Our telephone number is +972 (3) 924-1114.

We were founded on September 11, 1994 by Pnina Fishman, Ph.D., our Executive Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer, and Ilan Cohn, Ph.D., our member of the Board of Directors, under the name Can-Fite Technologies Ltd. On January 7, 2001, we changed our name to Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. We completed our initial public offering in Israel in October 2005 and our ordinary shares are traded on the TASE under the symbol “CFBI.” On October 2, 2012, our ADSs began trading over the counter in the United States under the symbol “CANFY” and on November 19, 2013, our ADSs began trading on the NYSE American under the symbol “CANF.”

In November 2011, through a series of transactions, we spun-off our activity in the ophthalmic field to our now former subsidiary, OphthaliX, a Delaware corporation and successor-in-interest to Denali Concrete Management, Inc., a Nevada corporation, whose common shares were traded in the United States on OTC under the symbol “OPLI.” In the spin-off transactions, we granted an exclusive license for the use of our Piclidenoson drug candidate in the ophthalmic field, or the License Agreement, to Eye-Fite Ltd., an Israel limited company, or Eye-Fite, and transferred our issued and outstanding ordinary shares in Eye-Fite to OphthaliX in exchange for an 86.7% interest in OphthaliX. In connection with the spin-off transactions, OphthaliX completed a series of private placement financing transactions. Following the spin-off transactions and the private placement financing transactions, we held approximately 82% interest in OphthaliX. In July 2016, OphthaliX released top-line results from its Phase II clinical trial of Piclidenoson for the treatment of glaucoma. In this trial, no statistically significant differences were found between the Piclidenoson treated group and the placebo group in the primary endpoint of lowering IOP. High IOP is a characteristic of glaucoma. Piclidenoson was found to have a favorable safety profile and was generally well-tolerated. Based on these overall results, OphthaliX saw no immediate path forward in glaucoma and ceased active business operations. Subsequently, on May 21, 2017, OphthaliX and a wholly owned private Israeli subsidiary of OphthaliX, Bufiduck Ltd, or the Merger Sub, and Wize Pharma Ltd., or Wize Israel, an Israeli company formerly listed on the TASE entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, providing for the merger of the Merger Sub with and into Wize Israel, with Wize Israel becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of OphthaliX and the surviving corporation of the merger, or the Merger. On November 16, 2017, the Merger was completed. As a result of the Merger, our ownership of OphthaliX, immediately post-Merger, became approximately 8% of the outstanding shares of common stock. In addition, immediately prior to the Merger, OphthaliX sold on an “as is” basis to us all the ordinary shares of Eye-Fite in exchange for the irrevocable cancellation and waiver of all indebtedness owed by OphthaliX and Eye-Fite to us, including approximately $5 million of deferred payments owed by OphthaliX and Eye-Fite to us and, as part of the purchase of Eye-Fite, we also assumed certain accrued milestone payments in the amount of $175,000 under a license agreement previously entered into with NIH. In addition, that certain License Agreement granted to OphthaliX by us and a related services agreement was terminated.

Our capital expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021 were $2,000, $9,000 and $11,000, respectively. Our current capital expenditures are made solely within Israel and primarily consist of the acquisition of computers and related communications equipment. Such capital expenditures are financed internally.

We use our website (http://www.canfite.com) as a channel of distribution of Company information. The information we post on our website may be deemed material. Accordingly, investors should monitor the website, in addition to following our press releases, SEC filings and public conference calls and webcasts. The contents of our website are not, however, a part of this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

B. Business Overview

We are an advanced clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops orally bioavailable small molecule therapeutic products for the treatment of cancer, liver and inflammatory diseases. Our platform technology utilizes the Gi protein associated A3 adenosine receptor, or A3AR, as a therapeutic target. A3AR is highly expressed in pathological body cells such as inflammatory and cancer cells, and has a low expression in normal cells, suggesting that the receptor could be a specific target for pharmacological intervention. Our pipeline of drug candidates are synthetic, highly specific agonists and allosteric modulators targeting the A3AR.

Our product pipeline is based on the research of Dr. Pnina Fishman, who investigated a clinical observation that tumor metastasis can be found in most body tissues, but are rarely found in muscle tissue, which constitutes approximately 60% of human body weight. Dr. Fishman’s research revealed that one reason that striated muscle tissue is resistant to tumor metastasis is that muscle cells release small molecules which bind with high selectivity to the A3AR. As part of her research, Dr. Fishman also discovered that A3ARs have significant expression in tumor and inflammatory cells, whereas normal cells have low or no expression of this receptor. The A3AR agonists and allosteric modulators, currently our pipeline of drug candidates, bind with high selectivity and affinity to the A3ARs and initiate down-stream signal transduction pathways resulting in apoptosis, or programmed cell death, of tumor and inflammatory cells and to the inhibition of inflammatory cytokines. Cytokines are proteins produced by cells that interact with cells of the immune system in order to regulate the body’s response to disease and infection. Overproduction or inappropriate production of certain cytokines by the body can result in disease. In addition, our product candidates also induce the production of positive cytokines such as granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and adiponectin which are responsible for the chemo-protective and liver-protective effects of the drugs on liver.

Our product candidates, CF101, CF102 and CF602, are being developed to treat oncological and inflammatory diseases, as well as erectile dysfunction. CF101, also known as Piclidenoson, is in an advanced stage of clinical development for the treatment of psoriasis. CF102, also known as Namodenoson, is being developed for the treatment of HCC and has orphan drug designation for this indication in the United States and Europe. Namodenoson was granted Fast Track designation by the FDA for patients with advanced HCC who failed first line treatment. Namodenoson is also being developed for the treatment of pancreatic cancer based on pre-clinical findings showing robust anti-pancreatic tumor growth. Due to the liver protective effect of Namidenoson, it is also being developed for the treatment of NASH (also known as MASH). , CF602 is our second generation allosteric drug candidate for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, which has shown efficacy in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in preclinical studies and we are investigating additional compounds, targeting A3AR, for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Preclinical studies revealed that our drug candidates have potential to treat additional inflammatory diseases, such as Crohn’s disease, prostate cancer, oncological diseases, viral diseases, such as the JC virus, obesity and Lowe Syndrome.

We believe our pipeline of drug candidates represent a significant market opportunity. For instance, according to iHealthcareAnalyst, the psoriasis drug market is forecasted to be worth $11.3 billion by 2025. According to DelveInsight, the HCC drug market in the G8 countries (U.S., Germany, France, Italy, Spain, UK, Japan and China) is expected to reach $3.8 billion by 2027. 

We have in-licensed an allosteric modulator of the A3AR, CF602 from Leiden University. In addition, we have out-licensed the following product candidates for indications that we are currently pursuing:

Currently, (i) we are undertaking preparatory work for pivotal Phase III studies for Piclidenoson in the treatment of psoriasis, following meetings with the FDA & EMA, which we expect to commence in the second half of 2024 (ii) we are conducting a pivotal Phase III trial for Namodenoson in the treatment of advanced liver cancer which is enrolling patients, (iii) we are conducting a Phase IIb study of Namodenoson in the treatment of NASH which is enrolling patients, (iv) we are undertaking preparatory work for Phase IIa study with Namodenoson for the treatment of pancreatic cancer, (v) we are investigating additional compounds, targeting the A3 adenosine receptor, for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, and (vi) we are conducting pre-clinical studies with formulations of cannabis components for the treatment of diseases in which there is an overexpression of A3AR. Since inception, we have incurred significant losses in connection with our research and development.

Moreover, we believe characteristics of Piclidenoson, as exhibited in our clinical studies to date, including its good safety profile, clinical activity, simple and less frequent delivery through oral administration and its low cost of production, position it well against the competition in psoriasis markets, where treatments, when available, often include injectable drugs, many of which can be highly toxic, expensive and not always effective.

Like Piclidenoson, Namodenoson has a good safety profile, is orally administered and has a low cost of goods, which we believe may position it well in the HCC market, where no drug has yet been approved by the FDA for patients with advanced liver cancer disease defined as Child Pugh B7. In addition, pre-clinical studies show Namodenoson’s novel mechanism of action which entails de-regulation of three key signaling pathways which mediate the etiology and pathology of NAFLD/NASH and are responsible for the anti-inflammatory, anti-steatotic and anti-fibrotic effect in the liver. Most recently, pre-clinical data support Piclidenoson’s potential utilization for the treatment of Lowe Syndrome and Namodenoson’s potential utilization as an anti-obesity drug.

Nevertheless, other drugs on the market, new drugs under development (including drugs that are in more advanced stages of development in comparison to our drug candidates) and additional drugs that were originally intended for other purposes, but were found effective for purposes targeted by us, may all be competitive to the current drugs in our pipeline. In fact, some of these drugs are well established and accepted among patients and physicians in their respective markets, are orally bioavailable, can be efficiently produced and marketed, and are relatively safe. None of our product candidates have been approved for sale or marketing and, to date, there have been no commercial sales of any of our product candidates.

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to build a fully integrated biotechnology company that discovers, in-licenses and develops an innovative and effective small molecule drug portfolio of ligands that bind to a specific therapeutic target for the treatment of liver, oncological and inflammatory diseases as well as erectile dysfunction. We continue to develop and test our existing pipeline, while also testing other indications for our existing drugs and examining, from time to time, the potential of other small molecules that may fit our platform technology of utilizing small molecules to target the A3AR. We generally focus on drugs with global market potential and we seek to create global partnerships to effectively assist us in developing our portfolio and to market our products. Our approach allows us to:

Using this approach, we have successfully advanced our product candidates for a number of indications into various stages of clinical development. Specific elements of our current strategy include the following: 

Successful development of our existing portfolio of small molecule orally bioavailable drugs for the treatment of various diseases. We intend to continue to develop our existing portfolio of small molecule orally bioavailable drugs, both for existing targeted diseases, as well as other potential indications. Our drug development will continue to focus on cancer, liver and inflammatory diseases. We intend to focus most prominently on advancing our product candidates that are in the most advanced stages, i.e., psoriasis with respect to Piclidenoson, and HCC, NASH and pancreatic cancer with respect to Namodenoson.

Use our expertise with our platform technology to evaluate in-licensing opportunities. We continuously seek attractive product candidates and innovative technologies to in-license or acquire. We intend to focus on product candidates that would be synergistic with our A3AR expertise. We believe that by pursuing selective acquisitions of technologies in businesses that complement our own, we will be able to enhance our competitiveness and strengthen our market position. We intend to utilize our expertise in A3AR and our pharmacological expertise to validate new classes of small molecule orally bioavailable drugs. We will then seek to grow our product candidate portfolio by attempting to in-license those various candidates and to develop them for a variety of indications.

Primarily develop products that target major global markets. Our existing product candidates are almost all directed at diseases that have major global markets. Our intent is to continue to develop products that target diseases that affect significant populations using our platform technology. We believe these arrangements will allow us to share the high development cost, minimize the risk of failure and enjoy our partners’ marketing capabilities, while also enabling us to treat a more significant number of persons. We believe further that this strategy will increase the likelihood of advancing clinical development and potential commercialization of our product candidates.

Commercialize our product candidates throughout-licensing arrangements. We have entered into several out-licensing arrangements with leading pharmaceutical companies in the Far East, Canada and Europe. We intend to continue to commercialize our product candidates throughout-licensing arrangements with third parties who may perform any or all of the following tasks: completing development, securing regulatory approvals, manufacturing, marketing and sales. We do not intend to develop our own manufacturing facilities or sales forces. If appropriate, we may enter into co-development and similar arrangements with respect to any product candidate with third parties or commercialize a product candidate ourselves. We believe these arrangements will allow us to share the high development cost, minimize the risk of failure and enjoy our partners’ marketing capabilities. We believe further that this strategy will increase the likelihood of advancing clinical development and potential commercialization of our product candidates.

Our Product Pipeline

The table below sets forth our current pipeline of product candidates, including the target indication and status of each. 

Piclidenoson (CF101)

Piclidenoson, our lead therapeutic product candidate, is in development for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. Piclidenoson is a highly-selective, orally bioavailable small molecule synthetic drug, which targets the A3AR. Based on our clinical studies to date, we believe that Piclidenoson has a favorable safety profile and significant anti-inflammatory effects as a result of its capability to inhibit the production of inflammatory cytokines, such as TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-1, chemokines and MMPs, by modulating key proteins such as NF-kB-;and PKB/AKT. Overall, these up-stream events result in apoptosis of inflammatory cells. See Figure 1 below. Piclidenoson’s anti-inflammatory effect is mediated via the A3AR, which is highly expressed in inflammatory cells.

Figure 1: Piclidenoson anti-inflammatory mechanism of action

Psoriasis is an inflammatory hereditary disease that affects the skin. In psoriasis, immune cells move from the dermis to the epidermis, where they stimulate keratinocytes, or skin cells, to proliferate. DNA acts as an inflammatory stimulus to stimulate receptors which produce cytokines, such as IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-α, and antimicrobial peptides. These cytokines and antimicrobial peptides signal more inflammatory cells to arrive and produce further inflammation. In other words, psoriasis occurs when the immune system overreacts and mistakes the skin cells as a pathogen, and sends out faulty signals that speed up the growth cycle of skin cells. Normally, skin cells grow gradually and flake off approximately every four weeks. New skin cells grow to replace the outer layers of the skin as they shed. But in psoriasis, new skin cells move rapidly to the surface of the skin in days rather than weeks. They build up and form thick patches called plaques.

There are five types of psoriasis: plaque, guttate, inverse, pustular and erythrodermic. The most common form, plaque psoriasis, is commonly seen as red and white hues of scaly patches appearing on the top first layer of the epidermis, or skin. In plaque psoriasis, skin rapidly accumulates at these sites, which gives it a silvery-white appearance. Plaques frequently occur on the skin of the lower back, elbows and knees, but can affect any area, including the scalp, palms of hands, soles of feet and genitals. The plaques range in size from small to large. In contrast to eczema, psoriasis is more likely to be found on the outer side of the joint. Some patients, though, have no dermatological symptoms.

Psoriasis is a chronic recurring condition that varies in severity from minor localized patches to complete body coverage. Fingernails and toenails are frequently affected, known as psoriatic nail dystrophy, and can be seen as an isolated symptom. Psoriasis can also cause inflammation of the joints, which is known as psoriatic arthritis.  

Pre-Clinical Studies with Piclidenoson

The information below is based on the various studies conducted with Piclidenoson, including preclinical studies. All of the studies were conducted by Can-Fite and/or by Can-Fite’s partners or affiliates.

Pre-clinical studies are a set of experiments carried out in animals to show that a certain drug does not evoke toxicity. Based on the animal studies and safety data, one can approach the FDA and request permission to conduct a Phase I study in human beings.

The toxicity of Piclidenoson has been evaluated following 28-day, 90-day, six-month and nine-month good laboratory practice repeated-dose toxicity studies in male and female mice (28-day, 90-day and six-month), dogs (single-dose only), and monkeys (28-day, 90-day and nine-month). Even though the dose of Piclidenoson in these studies was escalated to an exposure that is many folds higher than the dose used in human clinical studies, no toxic side effects were identified.

Effects on cardiovascular parameters were evaluated in conscious instrumented monkeys and anesthetized dogs. These studies demonstrated no significant cardiovascular risk.

Genotoxicity studies were conducted in bacterial and mammalian mutation assays in vitro (i.e., laboratory) and in an in vivo (i.e., animal) mouse micronucleus assay. These studies were all negative, indicating no deleterious action on cellular genetic material.

Reproductive toxicology studies that we completed in mice and rabbits did not reveal evidence of negative effects on male or female fertility. In mouse teratology studies, or studies for abnormalities of physiological developments, craniofacial and skeletal abnormalities were observed at doses greater than 10 mg/kg; however, no such effects were observed at 3 mg/kg demonstrating the safety of the drug in this concentration range. Teratogenicity, or any developmental anomaly in a fetus, was not observed in rabbits given doses (greater than 13 mg/kg) that induced severe maternal toxicity in such rabbits.

Studies of P450 enzymes, or enzymes that participate in the metabolism of drugs, showed that Piclidenoson caused no P450 enzyme inhibition, or increased drug activity, or induction, or reduced drug activity. Studies carried out with radiolabeled (C¹⁴) Piclidenoson in rats showed that the drug is excreted essentially unchanged. These studies also showed that the drug is widely distributed in all body parts, except the central nervous system.

In pre-clinical studies with skin cells, modeling psoriasis in humans, Piclidenoson destroyed pathological skin cells. We observed that in a cell culture of human HaCaT cells, incubated with Piclidenoson, cell apoptosis was induced with an increase in the caspase protein, known to mediate apoptotic responses.

Clinical Studies with Piclidenoson

The information below is based on the various studies conducted with Piclidenoson, including clinical studies in patients with autoimmune-inflammatory and ophthalmic diseases. All of the studies were conducted by Can-Fite and/or by Can-Fite’s partners or affiliates.

Phase I Clinical Studies of Piclidenoson

Piclidenoson has been studied comprehensively in normal volunteer trials to assess safety, pharmacokinetic metabolism and food interaction. Two Phase I studies in 40 healthy volunteers, single dose and repeated dose, indicated that Piclidenoson is rapidly absorbed (reaching a maximal concentration within one to two hours) with a half-life of eight to nine hours. Some mild adverse events (principally, increased heart rate) were observed at doses higher than single doses of 10.0 mg and twice-daily doses of 5.0 mg. Such increase in heart rate was not accompanied by any change in QT intervals. The drug showed linear kinetics, in that the concentration that results from the dose is proportional to the dose and the rate of elimination of the drug is proportional to the concentration, and low inter-subject variability, meaning that the same dose of the drug does not produce large differences in pharmacological responses in different individuals. A fed-fast Phase I study (with and without food) demonstrated that food causes some attenuation in Piclidenoson absorption; accordingly, Piclidenoson is administered to patients on an empty stomach in our trials. An additional Phase I study of the absorption, metabolism, excretion and mass balance of 4.0 mg (C¹⁴) Piclidenoson was conducted in six healthy male subjects and demonstrated that Piclidenoson was generally well-tolerated in this group.

Based on the findings from Phase I clinical studies, 4.0 mg twice daily, or BID, was selected as the upper limit for initial Phase II clinical trials.

Additionally, in preparation for Phase III studies of Piclidenoson to establish cardiac safety in humans prior to registration for marketing approval, we conducted a cardiodynamic trial that was a placebo-controlled crossover study using precise methodology to determine the effect of Piclidenoson on electrocardiograms of healthy volunteers. The primary objective of the trial was to assess whether Piclidenoson causes a delay in cardiac repolarization, as manifested by prolongation of the QT interval of the electrocardiogram. A drug-induced delay in cardiac repolarization creates an electrophysiological environment that can lead to the development of ventricular cardiac arrhythmias. In this study, Piclidenoson doses were up to 3-fold higher than the highest dose expected to be used in our registration-directed clinical trials. Trial results showed that our highest projected Piclidenoson dose had no clinically significant adverse electrocardiographic effects. 

Phase II, Phase II/III and Phase III Clinical Studies of Piclidenoson

Piclidenoson has completed eleven Phase II studies, one Phase II/III study and three Phase III studies in different clinical indications including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, glaucoma and dry eye syndrome, or DES, in approximately 1,700 patients. These studies indicate that Piclidenoson has a favorable safety profile at doses up to 4.0 mg BID for up to 48 weeks. In these studies, we did not observe a dose-response relationship between Piclidenoson and adverse events. Moreover, we did not observe any clinically significant changes in vital signs, electrocardiograms, blood chemistry or hematology. Furthermore, no new emergent safety signals have been observed in the completed or ongoing Phase III rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis trials.

In June 2022, we announced positive top-line results from our Phase III COMFORT study of Piclidenoson in the treatment of moderate to serious psoriasis in which Piclidenoson met its primary endpoint. Previously, Piclidenoson given as a standalone therapy reached the primary endpoint in Phase II clinical studies in DES; however, a Phase III study of Piclidenoson for DES failed to reach the primary endpoint. We have observed positive data utilizing Piclidenoson as a standalone drug in a Phase IIa clinical study in rheumatoid arthritis. In this study, we also observed a significant direct correlation between A3AR expression prior to treatment and the patients’ responses to Piclidenoson. However, we did not fully attain the primary endpoint in this study as we did not observe a significant difference in responses between Piclidenoson and the placebo (which for this study was 0.1 mg of Piclidenoson). Moreover, two Phase IIb studies in rheumatoid arthritis utilizing Piclidenoson in combination with MTX, also failed to reach the primary endpoints. Based on this data, we believe that the failures in the Phase IIb studies in rheumatoid arthritis may have been due to low A3AR expression in the MTX-treated patients. A Phase IIb of Piclidenoson given as a standalone therapy in patients with A3AR expression levels above a certain threshold reached the primary endpoint in rheumatoid arthritis in December 2013. Piclidenoson has been tested in Phase II trials to establish dose and activity (first, orally administered capsules and then tablets in formulations of 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 mg of Piclidenoson BID) in psoriasis (moderate to severe plaque psoriasis), rheumatoid arthritis and DES (moderate to severe). A Phase II/III study of Piclidenoson for psoriasis did not meet its primary endpoint although positive data from further analysis of the Phase II/III study suggested Piclidenoson as a potential systemic therapy for patients with moderate-severe psoriasis. In addition, a Phase II study of Piclidenoson for glaucoma showed no statistically significant differences between the Piclidenoson treated group and the placebo group in the primary endpoint of lowering IOP.

Psoriasis: The rationale for utilizing Piclidenoson to treat psoriasis stems from our pre-clinical pharmacology studies showing that Piclidenoson acts as an anti-inflammatory agent via the inhibition of inflammatory cytokines, including TNF-α, which plays a major role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. In addition, the A3AR is over-expressed in the tissue and PBMCs of patients with psoriasis.

We completed an exploratory Phase II trial in ten European and Israeli medical centers involving 76 patients. This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled and included four cohorts of 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 mg of Piclidenoson and a placebo for a 12-week period. The study objectives were efficacy and safety of daily doses of Piclidenoson administered orally in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis and the efficacy endpoints were improvements in both the Psoriasis Area Sensitivity Index score, or PASI score, and the Physicians’ Global Assessment score, or PGA score. We concluded that Piclidenoson met such efficacy endpoints and was well-tolerated and effective in ameliorating disease manifestations in these patients. The patient group receiving 2.0 mg Piclidenoson BID showed progressive improvement over the course of the 12-week study in the PGA and PASI scores. Analysis of the mean change from baseline in the PASI score at week 12 revealed a statistically significant difference between the 2.0 mg Piclidenoson BID treated group and the placebo group (p<0.001 versus baseline and p=0.031 versus placebo). Analysis of the PGA score revealed that 23.5% of the patients treated with the 2.0 mg Piclidenoson BID achieved a score of 0 or 1, in comparison to 0% in the placebo group (p<0.05). The study also demonstrated linear improvement in patients in both PASI and PGA. See Figure 2. No drug-related serious adverse events were evident during the study.

Figure 2: Psoriasis efficacy by PGA and PASI

Set forth below are representative pictures of a patient with plaque-type psoriasis on the upper and lower back treated with 2.0 mg Piclidenoson BID, both baseline and week 12.

A comparison between baseline and week 12 of a patient treated with 2.0 mg CF101

In February 2015, we completed a Phase II/III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study of the efficacy and safety of Piclidenoson administered daily orally in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. This clinical trial enrolled 326 patients in 17 clinical centers in the United States, Europe and Israel, of which 103 patients were enrolled in the first study cohort and were treated for 6 months and 223 patients were enrolled in the second study cohort and were treated for 8 months. The first study cohort was comprised of three arms with patients receiving: 1.0 mg of Piclidenoson; 2.0 mg of Piclidenoson; and placebo. All patients receiving placebo were switched to either 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg of Piclidenoson after 12 weeks. Based on a positive safety and efficacy interim analysis of the first 103 patients who completed 24 weeks of treatment in the trial, we decided to continue patient enrollment for the second stage of the study and the study protocol was amended to extend the Piclidenoson 2.0 mg BID and placebo administration for a period of 32 weeks. The positive clinical effects of the Piclidenoson 2.0 mg BID dose relative to a placebo were observed in a variety of standard psoriasis assessment parameters, including PASI 75 and PGA scores, with the responses accumulating steadily over the 24-week treatment period.

In March 2015, we announced the study did not meet its primary endpoint of a statistically significant improvement in the PASI 75 score relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment. Further analysis of the entire study period revealed that by 32 weeks of treatment with Piclidenoson, 33% of the patients achieved PASI 75 while the mean percent of improvement in PASI score was 57% (p<0.001). This was a statistically significant cumulative and linear improvement during weeks 16 to 32. Most significantly, by week 32 of the study, 20% of the study patients reached PASI 90, a result demonstrating a response rate of 90% clearing of skin lesions. PASI 90 is one of the most stringent and difficult to meet clinical endpoints for measuring responses to psoriasis treatments. Moreover, the PASI 90 subset analysis further suggests a higher and significant (p=0.026) Piclidenoson response rate of 27% among patients previously untreated with systemic psoriasis therapy compared to patients pre-treated with systemic drugs. We believe this presents the opportunity that Piclidenoson can be developed as a first-line systemic therapy for patients with moderate-severe psoriasis and for patients who do not want to be treated with the current systemic drugs due to safety issues.

Figure 3: Linear Effect of Piclidenoson on PASI Scores through 32 Weeks of Treatment

In June 2022, we announced positive top-line results from our Phase III COMFORT study of Piclidenoson in the treatment of moderate to serious psoriasis in which Piclidenoson met its primary endpoint. The trial was a Phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of daily Piclidenoson (CF101) administered orally in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of oral Piclidenoson 2 mg or 3 mg twice daily (BID) in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, compared with placebo, as determined by the proportion of subjects who achieve a PASI score response of ≥75% (PASI 75) at Week 16 (superiority); and evaluate the safety of oral Piclidenoson in this patient population. The secondary objectives of this study are to evaluate the efficacy of oral Piclidenoson 2 mg or 3 mg BID, compared with placebo, as determined by the proportion of subjects who achieve, respectively, PASI 50, Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 or 1, and improvement on the Psoriasis Disability Index (PDI) at Week 16 (superiority); evaluate the efficacy of oral Piclidenoson 2 mg or 3 mg BID, compared with Otezla (apremilast), as determined by the proportion of subjects who achieve PASI 75, PGA score of 0 or 1, PASI 50, and improvement in PDI at Weeks 16 and 32 (non-inferiority); and evaluate the efficacy and safety data for Piclidenoson through the extension period of up to 48 weeks of treatment. 

The study data showed that patients treated with oral Piclidenoson 2 mg or 3 mg twice daily, had clinically equivalent efficacy responses. At week 16, patients receiving Piclidenoson 3mg demonstrated statistically significant improvement when compared with placebo, as measured by the PASI 75 response (representing a 75% reduction in psoriasis severity): Piclidenoson 3mg: 9.7% vs. placebo: 2.6% (P< 0.04). Secondary endpoint parameters at week 32 comparing Piclidenoson to the active control drug, Otezla, revealed inferiority with respect to PASI 75 (17% vs. 26.2%, respectively) and PASI 50 (34.1% vs. 49.5%, respectively), but revealed superiority of Piclidenoson as compared to Otezla in the Psoriasis Disability Index (PDI) (20.5% vs. 10.3%, respectively, P<0.05). A linear increase in the response of patients to Piclidenoson was achieved along the study period, on week 48 reaching PASI 50 in 90% of patients, PASI 90 in 10% of patients and PDI improvement in 60% of patients. Piclidenoson had an excellent safety profile overlapping that of the placebo treated patients, showing a better safety profile when compared to Otezla.

Further analysis of the study data showed that Piclidenoson had a significantly better tolerability profile than Otezla, as GI-related adverse events were 1% for Piclidenoson vs. 6% for Otezla, nervous system disorders were 0.7% for Piclidenoson, 9.9% for Otezla and 3.3% for the placebo. The discontinuation rate was significantly higher for Otezla vs. Piclidenoson. In the secondary endpoint of achieving a PASI 75 response (at week 32, in the whole patient population, Piclidenoson was inferior to Otezla; however, in a sub-group analysis of patients who had PASI>25 (more severe psoriasis) at baseline, Piclidenoson had a comparable response to Otezla.

During 2023, we submitted a market registration plan to the EMA and FDA for Piclidenoson in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Following positive responses from the FDA and EMA for its registration plan and pivotal Phase III study protocol for Piclidenoson in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, we are preparing for study initiation. In addition, we received a positive response from the FDA on a pediatric study plan for the treatment of children suffering from psoriasis with Piclidenoson. Inclusion of adolescents for the psoriasis indication is expected to broaden the market. The FDA requested two Phase III safety and efficacy studies and to harmonize the requests of the EMA and the FDA, we plan to conduct two Phase III studies in parallel, including adolescent patients which is expected to commence in the second half of 2024. Upon positive conclusion of the Phase 3 program, we plan to submit a New Drug Application (NDA) to the FDA and Marketing Authorization Plan (MAA) to the EMA.

Rheumatoid Arthritis: We previously conducted a Phase IIa blinded to dose study in 74 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, randomized to receive Piclidenoson as a monotherapy in one of three doses-0.1 mg, 1.0 mg and 4.0 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint was ACR20 response at week 12, a criterion determined by the American College of Rheumatology that reflects 20% improvement in inflammation parameters. The study data revealed maximal response at the 1.0 mg group, showing 55.6% with ACR20, 33.3% with 50% improvement, or ACR50, and 11.5% with 70% improvement, or ACR70. Piclidenoson administered BID for 12 weeks resulted in improvement in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and was well-tolerated. 

Subsequently, two Phase IIb studies with Piclidenoson in combination with MTX were conducted. The study protocols were multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and dose-finding to determine the safety and efficacy of daily Piclidenoson administered orally when added to weekly MTX in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. The objectives of both studies were improvement in ACR20, ACR50, ACR70 and DAS28, or the Disease Activity Score of 28 Joints, and EULAR, or the European League Against Rheumatism, response criteria, as well as a positive safety profile. The trials’ primary endpoints were both ACR20. The first Phase IIb trial showed that the combined treatment had an excellent safety profile, but no significant ACR20 response was observed between the rheumatoid arthritis group treated with Piclidenoson and MTX and the group treated with MTX alone (the placebo group). However, the ACR50, ACR70 and the EULAR Good Values in the combined treatment group were higher than those of the MTX placebo group. The study also indicated that the 1.0 mg Piclidenoson dose was the most favorable dose, i.e., the dose yielded the highest ACR50 and EULAR Good Values as compared to the MTX placebo group. The most commonly reported adverse events in this study included nausea, dizziness, headache and common bacterial and viral infections and infestations. Following a decision of our Clinical Advisory Board in October 2007, an additional Phase IIb study was initiated. This study was conducted in medical centers in Europe and Israel and included 230 patients who received the drug orally BID (0.1 and 1.0 mg Piclidenoson tablets plus MTX versus a placebo, which was MTX alone) for 12 weeks. On April 30, 2009, we published preliminary results of the Phase IIb study, which were later confirmed as the final results, also indicating that the study’s objectives were not achieved. The most commonly reported adverse events in this study included nausea, myalgia and dizziness. The two Phase IIb studies failed to achieve the primary endpoint of ACR20. A cross study analysis of the three rheumatoid arthritis clinical studies revealed that in the first Phase IIa study, where Piclidenoson had been administered as a standalone drug, A3AR had been over-expressed in the patients’ PBMCs prior to Piclidenoson treatment, whereas A3AR had not been over-expressed in the Phase IIb patient population. We believe, based on the foregoing data, that there may be a direct and statistically significant correlation between A3AR over-expression at baseline and patients’ response to Piclidenoson, and that Piclidenoson should be administered as a standalone drug and not in combination with MTX. Furthermore, the correlation between A3AR expression levels prior to treatment and patients’ response to the drug suggest that the A3AR may be a predictive biomarker to be analyzed prior to Piclidenoson treatment.

Based on the results of the two Phase IIb studies, we conducted an additional Phase IIb clinical study with Piclidenoson as a stand-alone, monotherapy treatment and not in combination with MTX. The trial was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study involving 79 patients to determine the safety and efficacy of Piclidenoson administered orally daily in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and elevated baseline expression levels of the A3AR in PBMCs. Enrolled patients had high baseline A3AR biomarker expression (determined at 1.5-fold over a predetermined age-matched standard). This selection criteria was made following the findings during previous Phase IIa and IIb rheumatoid arthritis studies showing a positive correlation between A3AR expression at baseline and patients’ response to the drug, potentially rendering A3AR expression as a predictive biomarker. The primary objectives of this study were to determine the efficacy of oral Piclidenoson when administered daily as a standalone treatment for 12 weeks to patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and elevated baseline expression levels of the A3AR in the patients’ PBMCs, in comparison to a placebo treatment, and to assess the safety of daily oral Piclidenoson under the circumstances of the trial. In December 2013, we announced the results of the study in which Piclidenoson met all primary efficacy endpoints, showing statistically significant superiority over placebo in reducing signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis as compared to the placebo. The treatment had an ACR20 response rate of 49% for Piclidenoson compared to 25% for placebo (p=0.035), an ACR50 response rate of 19% for Piclidenoson compared to 9% for placebo, and an ACR70 response rate of 11% for Piclidenoson compared to 3% for placebo. Similar to our observations in the previously reported Piclidenoson psoriasis trials, the response of patients with rheumatoid arthritis was cumulative over time, suggesting a consistent anti-inflammatory effect of Piclidenoson. Moreover, half of the rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Piclidenoson showed clinically meaningful improvement. Piclidenoson was very well-tolerated and showed no evidence of immunosuppression, and there were no severe treatment-emergent adverse events during the study. A subgroup analysis of 16 patients with no prior systemic therapy showed a dramatic increase in the response showing ACR20 of 75%, ACR50 of 50%, and ACR70 of 50%. See Figure 7. We believe this may be related to the fact that in this patient population there is a full receptor expression since they had not been treated earlier with any systemic drugs.

At the end of 2017, we initiated the pivotal ACRobat Phase III trial of Piclidenoson to evaluate Piclidenoson as a first line treatment and replacement for MTX. The trial was a randomized, double-blind, active and placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in approximately 500 patients in Europe, Israel and Canada. The primary endpoint of ACRobat was low disease activity after 12 weeks of treatment in patients dosed with Piclidenoson compared to those dosed with MTX. Piclidenoson at 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg, or placebo, will be administered twice daily, and MTX or placebo will be administered once weekly. Secondary endpoints include disease activity remission at week 24, ACR 20/50/70 response rates, European League Against Rheumatism good and moderate response rates and change from baseline for disease activity and ACR responses. The total study duration was to be 24 weeks in order to provide more data on long term efficacy and safety. In October 2020, an independent data monitoring committee for an interim analysis recommended not to continue this study. Subsequently, we conducted a detailed analysis of the interim results which showed that although Piclidenoson efficacy was significantly superior to placebo, the study missed the primary endpoint which was non-inferiority vs. the comparator methotrexate. Accordingly, we decided to stop developing Piclidenoson for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis to focus on other indications. 

Additional Developments with Piclidenoson

Lowe Syndrome

In preclinical studies, Piclidenoson has been found to be effective in Lowe Syndrome, a rare genetic disease with no treatment available, and an estimated $100 million treatment market in the U.S. alone. Lowe Syndrome usually develops in the first year of life, causing brain abnormalities associated with intellectual disabilities and a life span shortened to less than 40 years.

The discovery of Piclidenoson’s efficacy in Lowe Syndrome was made by researchers at the University of Naples Federico II and The Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine in Italy after testing thousands of compounds in search of a treatment. Can-Fite and Fondazione Telethon signed an agreement outlining their collaboration for the development of Piclidenoson for the treatment of Lowe Syndrome. As a rare genetic disease in dire need of a treatment, Lowe Syndrome may qualify for an accelerated approval path, we plan to move into an advanced stage clinical study in this indication.

Topical Piclidenoson

In April 2022, we announced we are developing a topical psoriasis treatment with Piclidenoson. In a preclinical model, imiquimod-induced skin psoriasis, daily treatment with topical Piclidenoson significantly inhibited the disease as measured by PASI calculated based on observation of erythema, thickness, scaling, and a score of skin lesions.

Osteoarthritis

According to the Arthritis Foundation, osteoarthritis, or OA, is the most common arthritic disease. Currently, there is a shortage of effective drugs for treating OA patients. Piclidenoson has induced a significant anti-inflammatory effect in experimental animal models with respect to the treatment of OA. We have not yet filed an IND for this indication as Piclidenoson for the treatment of OA is not currently being clinically tested in the United States and there are no near-term plans to do so.

In November 2019, we announced that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the PTO, has issued to us Patent #10,265,337 titled “Use of A3 Adenosine Receptor Agonist in Osteoarthritis Treatment” for Piclidenoson for the treatment of osteoarthritis in mammals. We are evaluating potential partnerships with companies in the animal health pharmaceutical market that may in-license and develop Piclidenoson for the companion animal market, a substantial and rapidly growing global market.

In June 2021, we signed a development and commercialization agreement with Vetbiolix, a France-based veterinary biotech company, for the development of Piclidenoson for the treatment of osteoarthritis in companion animals including dogs and cats. During 2022, Vetbiolix completed dose-ranging pharmacokinetic (PK) studies in dogs and determined the optimal efficacy and safety dosage for a planned European multicentric clinical study. Piclidenoson was well tolerated, with the PK data proportional to dose. Pre-clinical studies were also conducted showing Piclidenoson has a very favorable safety profile. Based on these data, Vetbiolix is conducting a clinical study in dogs with osteoarthritis and results are expected during the second half of 2024. e.

Namodenoson (CF102)

Namodenoson is our second drug candidate and is under development for the treatment of HCC, hepatitis C virus, or HCV, or NAFLD, the precursor to NASH. Namodenoson is also a small, orally bioavailable molecule, and an A3AR agonist, with high affinity and selectivity to the A3AR. In comparison to the expression in adjacent normal liver tissue, the A3AR is over-expressed in tumor tissues of patients with HCC, and the over-expression is also reflected in the patients’ PBMCs. A3AR over-expression in the patients’ tumor cells and PBMCs is attributed to high expression of certain A3AR transcription factors. The binding of Namodenoson to the A3AR results in down-regulation, or a decrease in the quantity of a cellular component, such as the number of receptors on a cell’s surface, of certain A3AR transcription factors. Our studies have shown that this down-regulation leads to apoptosis of HCC cells. In our pre-clinical and clinical studies, Namodenoson demonstrated anti-cancer, anti-viral and liver protective effects. As a result, we believe that Namodenoson can be used to treat a variety of oncological and liver-related diseases and viruses.

In February 2012, the FDA granted an orphan drug status for the active moiety, or the part of the drug that is responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance, of Namodenoson for the treatment of HCC. Subsequently, in October 2015, the EMA granted Namodenoson orphan drug designation for the treatment of HCC.

An orphan drug designation is a special designation for drug approval and marketing. The special designation is granted to companies that develop a given drug for unique populations and for incurable and relatively rare diseases. The FDA orphan drug designation program provides orphan status to drugs and biologics, which are intended for the safe and effective treatment, diagnosis or prevention of rare diseases or disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States and in the EU not more than 5 per 10,000. Orphan drug designations have enabled companies to achieve medical breakthroughs that may not have otherwise been achieved due to the economics of drug research and development as this status lessens some of the regulatory burdens, for approval, including statistical requirements for efficacy, safety and stability, in an effort to maintain development momentum. Orphan drug designation also results in additional marketing exclusivity and could result in certain financial incentives.

In September 2015, the FDA granted Fast Track designation to Namodenoson as a second line treatment to improve survival for patients with advanced HCC who have previously received Nexavar (sorafenib). Fast Track, aimed at getting important new drugs that meet an unmet need to patients earlier, is expected to expedite the development of Namodenoson. Drugs that receive Fast Track designation benefit from more frequent meetings and communications with the FDA to review the drug’s development plan to support approval. It also allows us to submit parts of the NDA on a rolling basis for review as data becomes available.

Israel’s Ministry of Health has previously approved Namodenoson for Compassionate Use for HCC.

Set forth below are general descriptions of the diseases with respect to which Namodenoson has underwent or is currently undergoing or being prepared for clinical trials.

HCC: HCC is an oncological disease characterized by malignant tumors that grow on the surface or inside of the liver. This type of tumor is refractory to chemotherapy and to other anti-cancer agents. HCC, like any other cancer, develops when there is a mutation to the cellular machinery that causes the cell to replicate at a higher rate and/or results in the cell avoiding apoptosis. Chronic infections of Hepatitis B and/or C can aid the development of HCC by repeatedly causing the body’s own immune system to attack the liver cells, some of which are infected by the virus. While this constant cycle of damage followed by repair can lead to mistakes during repair which in turn lead to carcinogenesis, this hypothesis is more applicable, at present, to HCV. Chronic HCV causes HCC through cirrhosis. In chronic Hepatitis B, however, the integration of the virus into infected cells can directly induce a non-cirrhotic liver to develop HCC. Alternatively, repeated consumption of large amounts of ethanol can have a similar effect.

Hepatitis C: HCV is an infectious disease affecting primarily the liver, caused by the Hepatitis C virus. The infection is often asymptomatic, but chronic infection can lead to scarring of the liver and ultimately to cirrhosis, which is generally apparent after many years, and chronic liver disease. The virus also increases the chance for HCC development. In some cases, those with cirrhosis will develop liver failure, liver cancer or life-threatening esophageal and gastric varices, or dilated submucosal veins, which can be life-threatening. HCV is spread primarily by blood-to-blood contact often associated with intravenous drug use, poorly sterilized medical equipment, transfusions, and erectile intercourse.

NAFLD/NASH: NASH (or MASH), also called “fatty liver disease,” is a condition in which fat builds up inside the liver causing inflammation. Prior to the presence of inflammation, the disease was simply referred to as NAFLD, the most common form of liver disorder in the United States. The accumulation of macroglobular fat inside the liver causes oxidative stress that reduces the efficiency of the liver and can lead to increased liver enzymes such as alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase. Loss of liver efficiency and oxidative stress leads to inflammation, liver cell ballooning, and the development of NASH. Prolonged inflammation results in cirrhosis (scar tissue), liver failure, or liver cancer. There are currently no drugs approved for the treatment of NASH.

Pre-Clinical Studies with Namodenoson

In pre-clinical pharmacology studies, Namodenoson inhibited the growth of HCC via the induction of tumor cell apoptosis. In addition, in collaboration with leading virology labs, we observed that Namodenoson inhibited viral replication of HCV through the down-regulation of viral proteins. Both of these findings served as a basis to further explore development of this drug for HCC.

We conducted several pre-clinical studies demonstrating robust anti-inflammatory, anti-fibrogenic and anti-steatotic effects, supporting the development of Namodenoson for the NASH indication. Furthermore, the results indicated that Namodenoson was very well-tolerated.

In pre-clinical studies, we evaluated the toxicity, stability, metabolism and other safety parameters of Namodenoson at doses much higher than the doses that we currently administer to humans in our clinical trials of Namodenoson.

In preclinical studies, Namodenoson revealed its capability to act as an anti NAFLD/NASH agent and data has shown as follows:

Clinical Studies of Namodenoson

The information discussed below is based on the various studies conducted by Can-Fite with Namodenoson, including clinical studies in patients with oncological and liver-related diseases and viruses. 

Phase I Clinical Study

Namodenoson completed a Phase I double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, ascending single dose trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of orally administered Namodenoson in healthy volunteers. The study was conducted in the United States under an open IND. Namodenoson was found to be safe and well-tolerated with a half-life time of 12 hours. See Figure 8.

Figure 8: Half-life of orally administered Namodenoson - Phase I Clinical Study

Phase I/II and Phase II Clinical Studies

HCC

Namodenoson completed two Phase I/II studies in Israel, one in patients with HCC and another in patients with HCV. The HCC Phase I/II study was an open-label, dose-escalation study evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of orally administered Namodenoson in patients with advanced HCC. The primary objectives of the study were to determine the safety and tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities, maximum tolerated dose, and recommended Phase II dose of orally administered Namodenoson in patients with advanced HCC; and to assess the repeat-dose pharmacokinetics behavior of Namodenoson in those patients. The secondary objectives were to document any observed therapeutic effect of Namodenoson in patients with HCC and to evaluate the relationship between PBMCs and the A3AR expression at baseline, as a biomarker, and the effects of Namodenoson in patients with HCC. The study included 18 patients, nine of which were also carriers of HCV. The initial dose of Namodenoson was 1.0 mg BID, with planned dose escalations in subsequent cohorts to 5.0 and 25.0 mg BID. This Phase I/II study achieved its objectives, showing a good safety profile, or no material differences versus a placebo with respect to observed and patient-indicated side effects, for Namodenoson and a linear pharmacokinetic drug profile, with no dose-limiting toxicities at any dose level. The median overall survival time for the patients in this study was 7.8 months, which is encouraging data considering that (i) 67% of the patient population in the study had previously progressed on Nexavar, produced by Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Bayer, and that Namodenoson was a second line therapy for these patients and (ii) 28% of the patient population were Child-Pugh Class B patients (patients classified on the Child Pugh scoring system for chronic liver disease as having significantly impaired liver function) whose overall survival time is usually 3.5 to 5.5 months. Accordingly, we may also consider Namodenoson as a drug to be developed for this patient sub-population of Child-Pugh Class B patients. Namodenoson had no adverse effect on routine measures of liver function over a six-month period in 12 patients treated for at least that duration. These findings are consistent with our pre-clinical Namodenoson data which demonstrated a protective effect on normal liver tissue in an experimental model of liver inflammation. As such, Namodenoson may potentially be a safer alternative to patients with cirrhosis and/or hepatic impairment. The study also demonstrated a direct relationship between A3AR expression at baseline and patients’ response to Namodenoson, suggesting A3AR as a predictive biological marker. We also observed a decrease in the viral load of seven out of nine patients who were also carriers of HCV. The most commonly reported adverse events included loss of appetite, ascites, nausea, diarrhea, constipation and pain. However, many of these events are expected in a population of patients with advanced HCC. The most frequently reported drug-related adverse events included diarrhea, fatigue, loss of appetite, pain and weakness. 

Our second Phase I/II study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study evaluating the safety, tolerability, biological activity, and pharmacokinetics of orally administered Namodenoson in 32 subjects with chronic HCV genotype 1. Eligible subjects were assigned in a 3:1 ratio (eight subjects in each cohort) to receive QD or BID treatment (1.0, 5.0 and 25.0 mg of Namodenoson) for 15 days with oral Namodenoson or with a placebo. Dose escalation occurred in four sequential cohorts. The study’s primary objectives were to determine the safety and tolerability of orally administered Namodenoson in patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, to assess the effects on HCV load during 15 days of treatment with Namodenoson and to assess the repeat-dose pharmacokinetic behavior of Namodenoson under the conditions of this trial. The secondary objective of this trial was to perform an exploratory evaluation of the relationship between A3AR in PBMCs at baseline and the clinical effects of Namodenoson on the study’s patients. Following the decrease in HCV load that had been observed in HCV patients treated with Namodenoson in the parallel HCC study and the good safety profile of Namodenoson, we received Israeli Institutional Review Board, or IRB, approval to extend the treatment period of the Phase I/II in patients with HCV to four months with the 1.0 mg dose vs. the placebo. The results of this Phase I/II HCV study demonstrated a good safety profile and a linear pharmacokinetic drug profile, however, no significant decrease in the viral load was observed. Notwithstanding, we did observe in the parallel HCC study that seven out of the nine patients with both HCC and HCV experienced a decrease in viral load and that these seven patients were treated with higher Namodenoson dosages than what was administered to the patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 only, and not HCC, possibly explaining the difference in results. The most commonly reported adverse events included loss of appetite, ascites, nausea, diarrhea, constipation and pain. However, many of these events are expected in a population of patients with advanced HCV. The most frequently reported drug-related adverse events included diarrhea, fatigue, loss of appetite, pain and weakness.

In 2019, we completed a Phase II study in HCC patients. In January 2013, as part of our preparatory work for such study, we announced that we believe that the optimal drug dose for the upcoming study is Namodenoson 25.0 mg. This dose was found to be the most effective dose out of the three dosages tested (1.0 mg, 5.0 mg and 25.0 mg) in the previous Phase I/II study. We filed a patent application protecting such optimal dose of Namodenoson for HCC. A publication summarizing the results of the Phase I/II study was published in “The Oncologist,” a leading oncology scientific journal.

The Phase II study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial conducted in the United States, Europe and Israel to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Namodenoson as a second-line treatment for advanced HCC in subjects with Child-Pugh B who failed Nexavar as a first line treatment. Advanced HCC in patients with underlying cirrhosis is categorized into three subclasses based on the severity of cirrhosis, starting with Child Pugh A, or CPA, mostly treated with Nexavar and progressing to Child Pugh B, or CPB, and Child Pugh C, or CPC, for which there are no drugs on market with proven efficacy. In the study, we enrolled only patients with CPB stage liver cancer with CBP stage patients being further divided into three categories of increasing severity, namely CPB7, CPB8, and CPB9. These patients already failed first line Nexavar and were treated with Namodenoson (25mg), or placebo, as a second line treatment, twice daily, using a 2:1 randomization. The primary endpoint of the study was median overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression free survival, partial response, and disease control rate. In March 2014, the study protocol was approved by the IRB at the Rabin Medical Center in Israel and in December 2014, we dosed the first patient at the study’s Israeli site. In the third quarter of 2017, we announced that we completed enrollment and randomization of all 78 patients and in March 2019, we announced top-line results.

While the study did not achieve the primary end point of overall survival in the whole population (n=78), superiority in overall survival was found in the largest study subpopulation of CPB7 (n=56) and in secondary end points in the whole population, including objective response measured by CT or MRI. Findings from the study include the following: (i) for the whole population (n=78), median overall survival was 4.1 months for Namodenoson vs. 4.3 months for placebo (HR: 0.82), (ii) pre-planned subpopulation analysis of the CPB7 patients (n=56), revealed that the Namodenoson treated group (n=34) showed median overall survival of 6.8 months vs 4.3 months in placebo (n=22) [HR: 0.77 (95% CI 0.49-1.40)]; similarly, for this subgroup of patients, progression free survival was 3.5 months for the Namodenoson treated group vs 1.9 (HR: 0.87) in the placebo group; (iv) 1-year survival in the CPB7 population was 44% for the Namodenoson treated group, as compared to 18% for patients dosed with placebo (p=0.028); (v) objective response in the whole patient population measured by CT or MRI, demonstrated that 9% treated by Namodenoson achieved partial response vs 0% in the placebo group, (vi) consistent with safety results from previously completed clinical trials, Namodenoson was generally well-tolerated, with no treated patients being withdrawn for toxicity and no cases of treatment-related deaths, (vii) disease control rate was 18.0% in the Namodenoson group vs 7.1% in the placebo group (p=0.013) after four months of treatment, (viii) 32.0% of patients treated with Namodenoson completed at least 12 months of treatment vs 14.3% who were treated with placebo (p=0.058), (vii) as of March 27, 2019, two patients in the Namodenoson group are ongoing after 30 months of treatment; these patients will continue to receive Namodenoson, and (ix) all nine patients with CBP9 cirrhosis, the most severe grade allowed into the trial, were randomly assigned to the Namodenoson treatment group (OS=3.5 months), a fact which has distorted the results in the whole population. Subgroup analyses using a variety of demographic and baseline disease characteristics, such as sex, performance status, and HCC disease status indicate the overall survival advantage of Namodenoson over placebo persists in the vast majority of the subgroups.

A paper titled “Namodenoson in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Child-Pugh B Cirrhosis: Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial” was published in the peer reviewed journal Cancers with respect to the Phase II HCC trial.

In February 2021, we announced that two patients continued to receive Namodenoson treatment from our Phase II study of HCC after nearly four years under an open label extension. Additional findings show disappearance of ascites, normal liver function and good quality of life. In one patient stable disease has been recorded with disappearance of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Namodenoson continued to demonstrate a good safety profile and was well tolerated with no severe adverse events reported. Furthermore, in December 2021, we reported that the last patient treated under the open label extension experienced a complete response and treatment is ongoing under a compassionate use program established in Romania in August 2022. Under treatment with Namodenoson, we reported that the patient survived seven years, during which time the clinical benefits of treatment have included the disappearance of ascites, normal liver function, and the disappearance of peritoneal carcinomatosis leading to complete clearance of all cancer lesions. 

In October 2019, we held an End-of-Phase II Meeting with the FDA regarding our Phase II study of Namodenoson in the treatment of HCC. The purpose of the meeting was to review the Phase II study data with the FDA and to present our proposed Phase III study design to the regulatory agency. The FDA agreed with our proposed pivotal Phase III trial design to support an NDA submission and approval. Subsequently in June 2020, we concluded a meeting with the Scientific Advice Working Party of the EMA to discuss our planned Phase III study. Based on the input received from the FDA and EMA, we plan on conducting a Phase III, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial of Namodenoson, that will enroll approximately 450 patients with HCC and underlying CPB7 cirrhosis at multiple centers worldwide. Patients will be randomized to oral treatment with either Namodenoson 25 mg or matching placebo given twice daily. The primary efficacy endpoint of the trial is overall survival (OS), based on the favorable OS response seen in the Phase II trial in patients with HCC and CPB7 cirrhosis. Other oncology trial efficacy outcomes, such as tumor radiographic response rates and median progression-free survival, as well as standard safety parameters, will be assessed. The study is designed to support an NDA submission in the U.S. and a marketing authorization application, or MAA, in Europe. The Phase III study is currently open for enrollment.

In November 2019, we initiated a compassionate use program in Israel for Namodenoson in the treatment of HCC, the most common form of liver cancer. Our compassionate use program has enrolled and continues to treat patients. The compassionate use program, which enables liver cancer patients not enrolled in our clinical study to be treated with Namodenoson, is being administered by Dr. Salomon Stemmer, the Principal Investigator of the Company’s prior Phase II liver cancer study, and Professor at the Institute of Oncology, Rabin Medical Center, Israel. In August 2022, Namodenoson was approved for compassionate use in Romania.

NAFLD/NASH 

We conducted a Phase II double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding efficacy and safety study that enrolled 60 patients with NAFLD with or without NASH in three clinical sites in Israel including Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem; Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva; and Holy Family Hospital, Nazareth; with Prof. Rifaat Safadi as the Principal Investigator. Patients with evidence of an active inflammation were treated twice daily with 12.5 mg (n=21) or 25 mg (n=19) of oral Namodenoson vs. placebo (n=20). The patients were treated for 12 weeks and followed-up until week 16. The study’s end points included among others alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) blood level, % of liver fat, liver stiffness, serum adiponectin, leptin and patient’s weight loss. In April 2020 we announced top-line data and in June 2020 we announced our final data analysis. As a whole, the data show that Namodenoson at the 25 mg dose produced statistically significant results in all measures of efficacy, while also having a strong safety profile and well tolerated.

Therapeutically significant positive data and trends were found as follows:

Anti-Inflammatory Effect: Namodenoson significantly reduced two liver enzymes, AST and ALT, which are elevated in a damaged liver, and increased the anti-inflammatory cytokine adiponectin known also to act as an anti-fibrotic factor. Serum adiponectin levels increased in the 25 mg dose group by 220 ng/mL and the 12.5 mg dose group by 539 ng/mL (p=0.03). Adiponectin is a cytokine with robust anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects that is used as a biomarker in NAFLD/NASH trials. In addition, a dose response decrease compared to placebo was observed, indicating a reduction of hepatic inflammation was achieved: (i) % of patients who reached ALT normalization at follow up was 36.8% in the 25 mg dose vs. 10% in the placebo (p=0.038). In the 12.5 mg dose, 23.8% was recorded at follow up, (ii) ALT change from baseline (CFB) and % change from baseline (PCFB) - in the 25 mg group, CFB decreased by 15.4 U/L (p=0.066) and PCFB by 22% (p=0.079) compared to placebo (1.7 U/L, 3.0%, respectively); in the 12.5 mg group, a decrease CFB of 10.4 U/L and PCFB of 8.2% was recorded; and, (iii) AST CFB and PCFB - in the 25 mg group, CFB decreased by 8.1 U/L (p=0.03) and PCFB by 17.9% (p=0.05) compared to placebo (increase of 0.3 U/L, decrease of 1.3%, respectively). In the 12.5 mg group, a decrease in CFB of 7.4 U/L and PCFB of 8.1 % was recorded.

Reduction of Liver Steatosis: In the Namodenoson 25 mg treated group, the proportion of patients with high steatosis scores declined from 37.5% to 13.3% of the population, as compared to the placebo treated group in which the proportion of patients with high steatosis scores decreased from 37.5% to 35.3% of the population, with p=0.08. Steatosis was assessed by Controlled Attenuation Parameter (CAP) measurement of the FibroScan, a non-invasive marker of hepatic steatosis.

NASH - All Cases Resolved: 25% of patients randomized into the Namodenoson 25 mg dosed group had NASH at baseline, as compared to none in the placebo group, which comprised of patients who had NAFLD without NASH at baseline. Following 12 weeks of treatment, all NASH cases were resolved in patients treated with 25 mg of Namodenoson, as compared to new NASH that developed in the placebo group representing 5% of that population, with p<0.009. NASH was evaluated by FibroScan-AST (FAST) score, a noninvasive marker of NASH, the severe form of NAFLD (equivalent to biopsy findings of NAS≥4, F≥2), measured by FibroScan elastography, CAP and serum AST.

Decrease in Body weight: A linear decrease in body weight was recorded in the 25 mg and 12.5 mg Namodenoson groups.

A3 Adenosine Receptor (A3AR): The A3AR biomarker was stable, demonstrating the presence of the receptor after chronic treatment and reflecting the validity of the target.

Safety: Namodenoson continued to be safe and very well tolerated with no drug emergent severe adverse effects and no hepatotoxicity.

We are currently conducting a Phase IIb study Namodenoson in the treatment of NASH, having announced first patient enrollment in January 2022. The Phase IIb trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in subjects with biopsy-confirmed NASH. 140 subjects with NASH, as determined by a histological endpoint. Eligible subjects are randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to oral doses of Namodenoson 25 mg every 12 hours or a matching placebo for 36 weeks. The protocol was developed in conjunction with Dr. Scott Friedman, Chief of the Division of Liver Diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and Dr. Stephen A. Harrison, Medical Director of Pinnacle Clinical Research, both of whom were involved in the design of Namodenoson’s Phase II study in NAFLD/NASH.

Pancreatic Cancer

In January 2023, we announced that in pre-clinical studies, Namodenoson significantly inhibits the growth of pancreatic carcinoma as a stand-alone treatment. In combination with the leading chemotherapy used in pancreatic cancer, gemcitabine, Namodenoson demonstrated a significant additive effect. These pre-clinical studies were conducted on advanced pancreatic carcinoma patient cells. Namodenoson’s molecular mechanism of action in pancreatic cancer involves the regulation of the NF-κB /IκB /STAT3-mediated pathway. 

We are currently preparing for an exploratory Phase IIa study that is designed to allow treatment of patients with pancreatic carcinoma who failed first line therapy. This is a multicenter open-label trial in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma whose disease has progressed on at least first line therapy or who refuse standard treatment. The trial will evaluate the safety, clinical activity, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of Namodenoson in this population. All patients will receive oral Namodenoson 25 mg administered twice daily for consecutive 28-day cycles. Patients will be evaluated regularly for safety. Approximately 20 evaluable patients will be enrolled. The primary objective of this trial is to characterize the safety profile of Namodenoson and the secondary objective is to evaluate the clinical activity as determined by the Objective Response Rate (ORR) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Disease Control Rate (DCR), Duration of Response (DoR), and Overall Survival (OS).

Additional Developments with Namodenoson

Anti-Obesity

In January 2019, we announced new pre-clinical findings demonstrating that Namodenoson, inhibits lipid production and fat accumulation in adipocytes (lipid producing cells). More specifically, Namodenoson showed a significant decrease in lipid production and fat accumulation utilizing 3T3-L1 adipocytes, functioning as lipid producing cells and are also responsible for fat storage. Namodenoson was also shown to inhibit the proliferation of adipocytes, further hampering the expansion of fat producing cells. These findings, together with the safety profile of Namodenoson, support its potential utilization as an anti-obesity drug. A patent application for the utilization of Namodenoson as an anti-obesity drug has been filed. In January 2020, we announced further pre-clinical data generated at the Hadassah Medical Center by Dr. Rifaat Safadi’s lab that demonstrated that Namodenoson induces weight loss in experimental models and normalizes glucose levels.

In December 2023, we reported that new data on Namodenoson’s anti-obesity mechanism of action which demonstrated that treatment of fat cells (3T3-L1 adipocytes) with Namodenoson leads to modulation of proteins that increase adiponectin level. Adiponectin is a regulator of fat production in the cells, resulting in the inhibition of fat levels. Furthermore, Namodenoson reduced body weight in an experimental animal model of obesity induced by a high fat diet. In a Phase IIa NASH study, in patients treated with Namodenoson, a 2.1% weight loss was observed after 3 months of treatment (Safadi at Al) and a significant decrease in serum adiponectin levels was found.

JC Virus

In April 2011, we announced that, in laboratory study, Namodenoson inhibited the reproduction of the JC virus, a type of polyomavirus, which is dormant in approximately 70% to 90% of the world population. However, in patients treated with biological drugs, including monoclonal antibody therapeutics, such as anti-TNFs or anti-CD20, JC virus replication may occur, resulting in development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, or PML, which is characterized by progressive damage or inflammation of the white matter of the brain and, eventually, death. The ability of Namodenoson to suppress the JC virus culture, as indicated in the laboratory study, may indicate that it may be used for the treatment of PML as a combination therapy with biological drugs. As Namodenoson is already in various stages of clinical development for other indications, its efficacy for this new application may be tested in clinical trials.

CF602

The allosteric modulator, CF602, is our third drug candidate in its pipeline. CF602 is an orally bioavailable small molecule, which enhances the affinity of the natural ligand, adenosine, to its A3AR. The advantage of this molecule is its capability to target specific areas where adenosine levels are increased. Normal body cells and tissues are refractory to allosteric modulators. This approach complements the basic platform technology of Can-Fite, utilizing the Gi coupled protein A3AR as a potent target in inflammatory diseases. CF602 has demonstrated proof of concept for anti-inflammatory activity in in vitro and in vivo studies performed by us.

During clinical studies conducted with our product candidates, other than CF602, patients suffering from erectile dysfunction reported that they returned to normal functioning following the treatment with such drugs. We believe that these findings are correlated with our platform technology, which is the targeting of the A3AR. Adenosine, like nitric oxide, is a potent and short-lived vaso-relaxant that functions via intracellular signaling (in particular, through cAMP) to promote smooth muscle relaxation. Recent studies conducted by others show that adenosine functions to relax the corpus cavernosum and thereby promote penile erection.

CF602 was tested in an experimental animal model of diabetic rats, which similar to diabetic patients, suffer from erectile dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction was assessed by monitoring the ratio between intra-cavernosal pressure, or ICP, and mean arterial pressure, or MAP, as a physiological index of erectile function. The ICP/MAP for the CF602 treated group improved by 118% over the placebo group. This data is similar to that achieved earlier by sildenafil (Viagra) in preclinical studies. In addition, treatment with CF602 reversed smooth muscle and endothelial damage, in a dose dependent manner, leading to the improvement in erectile dysfunction.

Further studies of CF602 have revealed that CF602 restores the impaired vascular endothelial growth factor system in the penis of diabetes mellitus rats, thereby inducing an increase in nitric oxide resulting in significant improvement of penile erection compared to placebo. This mechanism of action is similar to that of sildenafil, with CF602 demonstrating effects on erection superior to that demonstrated by sildenafil in animal studies. Among the most important factors to affect erectile function is nitric oxide, which is released by endothelial cells that line the corpus cavernosum and control smooth muscle relaxation and vascular inflow. It has been well established that release of nitric oxide is diminished in diabetes. 

In addition, CF602 induced a dose-dependent, linear effect in a diabetic mellitus rat model after treatment with one single dose of CF602. One hour after dosing, erectile function was measured. Statistically significant full recovery from erectile dysfunction took place in rats treated with a 500 µ/kg dose.

In March 2021, we announced new data from a preclinical study of CF602 in the treatment of erectile dysfunction, or ED, in a diabetes experimental model. The study evaluated the efficacy of topically applied CF602 in a 4-cohort study with diabetic Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats receiving placebo; 100nM CF602; 500nM CF602. Naïve rats served as a comparative negative control. ED was assessed by tracing ICP under cavernous nerve stimulation. Treatment with CF602 at a dose of 500 nM resulted in statistically significant improvement of erectile dysfunction compared to vehicle treated controls when measured in a two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparisons post-hoc analysis (p<0.001). The improvement was even better than recorded for the naïve animals group. Efficacy was dose-dependent.

According to the American Diabetes Association, approximately 30 million children and adults have diabetes mellitus in the United States. It is estimated that 35-75% of men with diabetes mellitus suffer from erectile dysfunction.

In January 2017, a patent was granted to us by the USPTO covering A3AR ligands for use in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. The patent addresses methods for treating erectile dysfunction with different A3AR ligands including our erectile dysfunction drug candidate, CF602. With this new broader patent protection, we made a strategic decision to investigate additional compounds, owned by us, for the most effective and safest profile in this indication and we are seeking to partner development of CF602.

Cannabinoid-Based Pharmaceuticals

In September 2019, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Univo, a medical cannabis company, to identify and co-develop specific formulations of cannabis components for the treatment of diseases in which there is an overexpression of A3AR. Based on our recent scientific findings, we have filed patents for the use of cannabinoid-based drugs to treat cancer, autoimmune, inflammatory and metabolic diseases. Our most recent pre-clinical research revealed that cannabis derived CBD enriched fractions, supplied by Univo, inhibit the expansion of human fat cells (pre-adipocytes) by 60%, a result that points towards the potential anti-obesity effect of this agent. Although it is already documented that cannabis derived compounds possess anti-obesity effect, the novel data presented by us demonstrates the anti-obesity effect at low nano-molar concentrations. Low CBD concentrations are known to be safe and well accepted in humans. Previously, we announced pre-clinical findings demonstrating CBD’s robust anti-neoplastic effect in pre-clinical studies against liver cancer. The studies were carried out on human liver cancer cells and utilized cannabinoid fractions enriched for CBD, in nano and pico molar concentrations. Marked inhibition of Hep-3b, liver cancer cell proliferation was noted and was mediated via the A3 adenosine receptor. As of December 31, 2020, our collaboration agreement with Univo expired.

In July 2020, we completed the development of a biological cell-based in vitro assay which can identify clinically active cannabis derived compounds that bind to and activate A3AR, thus enabling the development of pharmaceuticals that use a specific cannabis derived compound to treat a variety of diseases.

In December 2020, we received approval from the Medical Cannabis Unit of Israel’s Ministry of Health to conduct pre-clinical studies on the effect of nanomolar concentrations of cannabinoid fractions on the proliferation and functionality of cancer, inflammatory and adipocyte cells (fat cells). This regulatory approval allows us to advance our cannabinoid program by evaluating the effect of cannabis fractions at nanomolar concentrations binding with A3AR.

In February 2021, we announced the completion of a set of pre-clinical studies demonstrating that cannabis derived compounds bind to A3AR, mediating therapeutic effects. CBD rich T3/C15 cannabis fraction inhibited the proliferation of LX-2 hepatic-stellate cells, the liver cell type mediating the development of fibrosis. This inhibitory response was neutralized by an antagonist to the A3AR, demonstrating that the anti-fibrotic effect was mediated via the A3AR.

In April 2021, we announced the completion of a set of pre-clinical studies demonstrating that a CBD rich T3/C15 cannabis fraction inhibited the growth of liver HEP-3b hepatocellular carcinoma cells via the A3AR by inhibiting Wnt- and NF-kappa B-related regulatory pathways. The Wnt signaling pathway is known to be highly active in controlling the growth of liver cancer cells. An A3AR antagonist, MRS1523 reversed this effect demonstrating that the inhibitory effect is mediated via our target, A3AR.

Commercial Biomarker Test

In March 2015, we completed the development of a commercial predictive biomarker blood test kit for A3AR. The biomarker test can be used at any molecular biology lab, where a small blood sample from a prospective patient would be tested and within just a few hours, results indicate if the patient would benefit from treatment with our drugs, which are currently in clinical trials for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and liver cancer.

The USPTO previously issued to us a patent for the utilization of A3AR as a biomarker to predict patient response to our drug Piclidenoson in autoimmune inflammatory indications. 

In-Licensing Agreements

The following is a summary description of our in-licensing agreement with Leiden University. Our previously granted license with NIH expired in June 2015 with the expiration of certain patents. The description provided below does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by the complete agreement, which is attached as an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 20-F

Leiden University Agreements

On November 2, 2009, we entered into a license agreement, or the Leiden University Agreement, with Leiden University. Leiden University is affiliated with NIH and is the joint owner with NIH of the patents licensed pursuant to the Leiden University Agreement. The Leiden University Agreement grants an exclusive license for the use of the patents of several compounds, including CF602, that comprise certain allosteric compound drugs, and for the use, sale, production and distribution of products derived from such patents in the territory, i.e., China and certain countries in Europe (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland and England). Subject to certain conditions, we may sublicense the Leiden University Agreement. However, the U.S. government has an irrevocable, royalty-free, paid-up right to practice the patent rights throughout the territory on behalf of itself or any foreign government or international organization pursuant to any existing or future treaty or agreement to which the U.S. government is a signatory and the U.S. government may require us to grant sublicenses when necessary to fulfill health or safety needs.

Pursuant to the Leiden University Agreement, we are committed to make the following payments: (i) a one-time concession commission of 25,000 Euros; (ii) annual royalties of 10,000 Euros until clinical trials commence; (iii) 2% to 3% of net sales value, as defined in the Leiden University Agreement, received by us; (iv) royalties of up to 850,000 Euros based on certain progress milestones in the clinical stages of the products which are the subject of the patent under the Leiden University Agreement; and (v) if we sublicense the agreement, we will provide Leiden University royalties at a rate of 2-3% of net sales value, as defined in the Leiden University Agreement, and 10% of certain consideration received for granting the sublicense. In the event that we transfer to a transferee the aspect of our business involving the Leiden University Agreement, we must pay to Leiden University an assignment royalty of 10% of the consideration received for the transfer of the agreement. However, a merger, consolidation or any other change in ownership will not be viewed as an assignment of the agreement. In addition, we have agreed to bear all costs associated with the prosecution of the patents and patent applications to which we are granted a license under the Leiden University Agreement. As of December 31, 2022, we have paid approximately 155,000 Euros in royalties to Leiden University in connection with the Leiden University Agreement.

The Leiden University Agreement expires when the last of the patents expires in each country of the territory, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms of the Leiden University Agreement. The last of such patents is set to expire on 2027. The termination rights of the parties include, but are not limited to, (i) the non-defaulting party’s right to terminate if the defaulting party does not cure within 90 days of written notice identifying the default and requesting remedy of the same; and (ii) Leiden University’s right to terminate if we become insolvent, have a receiver appointed over our assets or initiate a winding-up. In addition, Leiden University may terminate the agreement when it is determined, in consultation with NIH, that termination is necessary to alleviate health and safety needs and certain other similar circumstances.

Out-Licensing and Distribution Agreements

The following are summary descriptions of certain out-licensing and distribution agreements of Piclidenoson and Namodenoson for the indications we are currently investigating.

Cipher Pharmaceuticals Agreement

On March 20, 2015, we entered into a Distribution and Supply Agreement with Cipher granting Cipher the exclusive right to distribute Piclidenoson in Canada for the treatment of psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis. In 2020, we ended our development of Piclidenoson for rheumatoid arthritis.

Under the Distribution and Supply Agreement, we are entitled to CAD 1.65 million upon execution of the agreement plus milestone payments upon receipt of regulatory approval by the Therapeutic Products Directorate of Health Canada, or Health Canada, for Piclidenoson and the first delivery of commercial launch quantities as follows (i) CAD 1 million upon the first approved indication for either psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis, and (ii) CAD 1 million upon the second approved indication for either psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis. In addition, following regulatory approval, we shall be entitled to a royalty of 16.5% of net sales of Piclidenoson in Canada and reimbursement for the cost of manufacturing Piclidenoson. We are also entitled to a royalty payment for any authorized generic of Piclidenoson that Cipher distributes in Canada. To date, we have received a total of $1.3 million from Cipher in an upfront payment. 

We are responsible for supplying Cipher with finished product for distribution and conducting product development activities while Cipher is responsible for distributing, marketing and obtaining applicable regulatory approvals in Canada. The Distribution and Supply Agreement has an initial term of fifteen years, automatically renewable for additional five-year periods and may be terminated in certain limited circumstances including certain breaches of the agreement and failure to achieve certain minimum quantities of sales during the contract period.

The timeline to regulatory submissions to Health Canada will be determined by the completion of the remaining clinical trial program.

CKD Agreement

On October 25, 2016, we entered into an exclusive Distribution Agreement with CKD for the exclusive right to distribute Namodenoson for the treatment of liver cancer in South Korea, upon receipt of regulatory approvals. On February 25, 2019, the Distribution Agreement was amended to expand the exclusive right to distribute Namodenoson for the treatment of NASH in South Korea. The Distribution Agreement further provides that we will deliver finished product to CKD and grant CKD a right of first refusal to distribute Namodenoson for other indications for which we develop Namodenoson.

The Distribution Agreement provides for up to $3,000,000 in upfront and milestone payments payable with respect to the liver cancer indication and up to $6,000,000 with respect to the NASH indication. In addition, we are entitled to a transfer price of the higher of the manufacturing cost plus 10% or 23% of net sales of Namodenoson following commercial launch in South Korea. To date, we have received a total of $2,000,000 from CKD, $1,500,000 in upfront payments for the expansion of CKD’s existing agreement with us to include the rights to distribute Namodenoson for the treatment of NASH in South Korea, and a further $500,000 for a milestone payment received in the third quarter of 2017 upon receipt by CKD of a positive result from the preliminary review by the MFDS on obtaining orphan drug designation in South Korea.

The Distribution Agreement has an initial term of 10 years from first commercial sale of Namodenoson for the treatment of liver cancer or SL and is renewable for additional 3-year periods unless either party gives notice of termination at least 6 months prior to the then current term. The Distribution Agreement may be terminated by CKD upon 30 days prior written notice if we fail to successfully complete our ongoing Phase II clinical trial for Namodenoson and we may terminate the Distribution Agreement upon 30 days prior written notice if certain commercialization milestones are not met by CKD or certain minimum quantities of sales are not made during the contract period. In addition, either party may terminate the Distribution Agreement in the event of an uncured material breach or insolvency.

Gebro Agreement

On January 8, 2018, we entered into a Distribution and Supply Agreement with Gebro, granting Gebro the exclusive right to distribute Piclidenoson in Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Austria for the treatment of psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis. In 2020, we ended our development of Piclidenoson for rheumatoid arthritis.

Under the Distribution and Supply Agreement, we are entitled to €1,500,000 upon execution of the agreement plus milestone payments upon achieving certain clinical, launch and sales milestones, as follows: (i) €300,000 upon initiation of the ACRobat Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and €300,000 upon the initiation of the COMFORT Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of psoriasis, (ii) between €750,000 and €1,600,000 following first delivery of commercial launch quantities of Piclidenson for either the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis, and (iii) between €300,000 and up to €4,025,000 upon meeting certain net sales. In addition, following regulatory approval, we shall be entitled to double digit percentage royalties on net sales of Piclidenoson in the territories and payment for the manufacturing Piclidenoson. To date, we have received a total of €2,100,000 from Gebro in upfront and milestone payments.

We are initially responsible for supplying Gebro with finished product for distribution and obtaining EMA and Swissmedic marketing approval while Gebro is responsible for distributing, marketing and obtaining pricing and reimbursement approvals in the territories. The Distribution and Supply Agreement has an initial term of fifteen years, automatically renewable for additional five-year periods and may be terminated in certain limited circumstances including certain breaches of the agreement and failure to achieve certain minimum quantities of sales during the contract period.

CMS Medical Agreement

On August 6, 2018, we entered into a License, Collaboration and Distribution Agreement with CMS for the exclusive right to develop, manufacture and commercialize Piclidenoson for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis and Namodenoson for the treatment of HCC and NASH in China (including Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan). 

Under the License, Collaboration and Distribution Agreement, we are entitled to $2,000,000 upon execution of the agreement plus milestone payments of up to $14,000,000 upon achieving certain regulatory milestones and payments of up to $58,500,000 upon achieving certain sales milestones, as follows: (i) $500,000 upon the granting of the marketing authorization of Piclidenoson in the United States for rheumatoid arthritis; (ii) $500,000 upon the granting of the marketing authorization of Piclidenoson in the European Union for rheumatoid arthritis; (iii) $500,000 upon the granting of the marketing authorization of Piclidenoson in the United States for psoriasis; (iv) $500,000 upon the granting of the marketing authorization of Piclidenoson in the European Union for psoriasis; (v) $500,000 upon the granting of the marketing authorization of Namodenoson in the United States for HCC; (vi) $500,000 upon the granting of the marketing authorization of Namodenoson in the European Union for HCC; (vii) $500,000 upon the granting of the marketing authorization of Namodenoson in the United States for NAFLD/NASH; (viii) $500,000 upon the granting of the marketing authorization of Namodenoson in the European Union for NAFLD/NASH; (ix) $2,500,000 upon the issuance of an imported drug license permitting the product to be imported into and marketed in China, or the IDL and granting of marketing authorization of Piclidenoson in China for rheumatoid arthritis; (x) $2,500,000 upon the issuance of the IDL and granting of marketing authorization of Piclidenoson in China for psoriasis; (xi) $2,500,000 upon the issuance of the IDL and granting of marketing authorization of Namodenoson in China for HCC; (xii) $2,500,000 upon the issuance of the IDL and granting of marketing authorization of Namodenoson in China for NAFLD/NASH; and (xiii) between $1,000,000 and up to $30,000,000 upon meeting certain net sales. In addition, following regulatory approval, we shall be entitled to double-digit percentage royalties on net sales of Piclidenoson and Namodenoson in the licensed territories. To date, we have received a total of $2,000,000 from CMS in upfront and milestone payments.

According to the agreement, CMS will be responsible for the development of Piclidenoson and Namodenoson to obtain regulatory approval in China and shall be further responsible for obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval in China for the indications described above. We may, at the option of CMS, supply finished product to CMS.

The License, Collaboration and Distribution Agreement shall continue in force unless earlier terminated and may be terminated in certain limited circumstances including certain breaches of the agreement and failure to achieve certain minimum quantities of sales during the contract period. Following expiration of the term of the agreement, the license granted shall become non-exclusive, fully paid, royalty free and irrevocable.

Kyongbo Pharm Agreement

In August 2019, we entered into a License and Distribution Agreement with Kyongbo Pharm. Under the terms of agreement, Kyongbo Pharm, in exchange for exclusive distribution rights to sell Piclidenoson in the treatment of psoriasis in South Korea, made a total upfront payment of $750,000 to us, with additional payments of up to $3,250,000 upon achievement of certain milestones. We will also be entitled to a transfer price for delivering finished product to Kyongbo Pharm. To date, we have received a total of $750,000 from Kyongbo Pharm in upfront and milestone payments.

Ewopharma Agreement

In March 2021, we signed an exclusive distribution agreement with Switzerland-based Ewopharma for Piclidenoson in the treatment of psoriasis and Namodenoson in the treatment of liver diseases namely, HCC, the most common form of liver cancer, and NASH. Under the terms of the distribution agreement, Ewopharma we received $2.25 million upfront and are entitled to up to an additional $40.45 million payable upon the achievement of regulatory and sales milestones plus 17.5% royalties on net sales. In exchange, Ewopharma will have the exclusive right to market and sell Piclidenoson in Central Eastern European (CEE) countries and Namodenoson in CEE countries and Switzerland. Ewopharma has the right to extend the distribution agreement to new indications that we may identify for its drug candidates. We will also be entitled to a transfer price for delivering finished product to Ewopharma. In January 2024, we entered into an amendment to the distribution agreement with Ewopharma to expand the distribution to include the indication of pancreatic cancer with respect to Namodenoson. To date, we have received a total of $2.25 million from Ewopharma in upfront, milestone and royalty payments. 

Vetbiolix Agreement

In June 2021, we signed a development and commercialization agreement with Vetbiolix, a France-based veterinary biotech company, for the development of Piclidenoson for the treatment of osteoarthritis in companion animals including dogs and cats. Vetbiolix will have the exclusive right to Piclidenoson in the veterinary osteoarthritis market for two years, during which time Vetbiolix will conduct proof-of-concept studies and cover all associated costs. If the studies yield positive data and Vetbiolix exercises its option to obtain the license from Can-Fite, then Vetbiolix will be obligated to pay us upfront and milestone payments of €250,000, in addition to royalties on sales upon regulatory approval for veterinary use.

Total Revenues by Category of Activity and Geographic Markets

Historically, we have generated revenues from payments received pursuant to our out-licensing agreements with respect to Piclidenoson and Namodenoson. See “Item 4. Information on the Company—B. Business Overview—Out-Licensing and Distribution Agreements.”

For the year ended December 31, 2023, we recorded the following revenues: (i) $0.13 million as a result of recognition of a portion of an advance payment received in January 2018 under the distribution agreement with Gebro; (ii) $0.19 million under the Distribution Agreement with CKD which was due to the recognition of a portion of the advance payment received in December 2016 and April 2019 under the Distribution Agreement with CKD; (iii) $0.08 million under the Distribution Agreement with Cipher; and (iv) $0.34 million under the Distribution Agreement with Ewopharma.

For the year ended December 31, 2022, we recorded the following revenues: (i) $0.15 million for the as a result of recognition of a portion of an advance payment received in January 2018 under the distribution agreement with Gebro; (ii) $0.20 million under the Distribution Agreement with CKD which was due to the recognition of a portion of the advance payment received in December 2016 and April 2019 under the Distribution Agreement with CKD; (iii) $0.09 million under the Distribution Agreement with Cipher; and (iv) $0.37 million under the Distribution Agreement with Ewopharma.

For the year ended December 31, 2021, we recorded the following revenues: (i) $0.19 million as a result of recognition of a portion of an advance payment received in January 2018 under the distribution agreement with Gebro; (ii) $0.20 million under the Distribution Agreement with CKD which was due to the recognition of a portion of the advance payment received in December 2016 and April 2019 under the Distribution Agreement with CKD; and (iii) $0.11 million under the Distribution Agreement with Cipher; and (iv) $0.35 million under the Distribution Agreement with Ewopharma.

We expect to generate future revenues through our current and potential future out-licensing arrangements with respect to Piclidenoson and Namodenoson based on the progress we make in our clinical trials.

Seasonality

Our business and operations are generally not affected by seasonal fluctuations or factors. 

Raw Materials and Suppliers

We believe that the raw materials that we require to manufacture Piclidenoson, Namodenoson and CF602 are widely available from numerous suppliers and are generally considered to be generic industrial chemical supplies. We do not rely on a single or unique supplier for the current production of any therapeutic small molecule in our pipeline.

Manufacturing

We are currently manufacturing our API through a leading CRO. The relevant suppliers of our drug products are compliant with both current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP, and current Good Laboratory Practices, or cGLP, and allow us to manufacture drug products for our current clinical trials. We anticipate that we will continue to rely on third parties to produce our drug products for clinical trials and commercialization.

There can be no assurance that our drug candidates, if approved, can be manufactured in sufficient commercial quantities, in compliance with regulatory requirements and at an acceptable cost. We and our contract manufacturers are, and will be, subject to extensive governmental regulation in connection with the manufacture of any pharmaceutical products or medical devices. We and our contract manufacturers must ensure that all of the processes, methods and equipment are compliant with cGMP for drugs on an ongoing basis, as mandated by the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and conduct extensive audits of vendors, contract laboratories and suppliers.

Contract Research Organizations

We outsource certain preclinical and clinical development activities to CROs, which in pre-clinical studies work according to cGMP and cGLP. We believe our clinical CROs comply with guidelines from the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, which attempt to harmonize the FDA and the EMA regulations and guidelines. We create and implement the drug development plans and, during the preclinical and clinical phases of development, manage the CROs according to the specific requirements of the drug candidate under development.

Marketing and Sales

We do not currently have any marketing or sales capabilities. We intend to license to, or enter into strategic alliances with, larger companies in the pharmaceutical business, which are equipped to market and/or sell our products, if any, through their well-developed marketing capabilities and distribution networks. We intend to out-license some or all of our worldwide patent rights to more than one party to achieve the fullest development, marketing and distribution of any products we develop.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other filing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that we believe are important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary position. 

Patents

As of March 28, 2024, we owned or exclusively licensed (from Leiden University) 18 patent families that, collectively, contain approximately 209 issued patents and pending patent applications in various countries around the world relating to our two clinical candidates, Piclidenoson and Namodenoson, and our preclinical candidate, CF602. Patents related to our drug candidates may provide future competitive advantages by providing exclusivity related to the composition of matter, formulation and method of administration of the applicable compounds and could materially improve their value. The patent positions for our leading drug candidates are described below. In addition, we filed a patent application which is currently pending in various countries around the world concerning the use of cannabinoids for treatment of conditions associated with elevated expression of the A₃ adenosine receptor. 

With respect to our product candidates, we currently own patents and/or have patent applications pending in several countries around the world for the following families of patents:

We currently hold an exclusive license from Leiden University of the Netherlands to a family of patents and patent applications that relate to the allosteric modulators of the A3AR, which includes the allosteric modulator CF602. This exclusive license relates to patents that were granted in the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, India and in Europe (validated in, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom). These granted patents are set to expire in 2028.

We believe that our owned and licensed patents provide broad and comprehensive coverage of our technology, and we intend to aggressively enforce our intellectual property rights if necessary to preserve such rights and to gain the benefit of our investment. However, as a result of the termination of the NIH license agreement between Can-Fite and NIH in June 2015 due to patent expiration, we no longer hold rights to a family of composition of matter patents relating to Piclidenoson and Namodenoson that were licensed from NIH. Nevertheless, because Piclidenoson or Namodenoson may be a NCE following approval of an NDA, we, if we are the first applicant to obtain NDA approval, may be entitled to five years of data exclusivity in the United States with respect to such NCEs. Analogous data and market exclusivity provisions, of varying duration, may be available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions. However, we cannot be certain that we will be the first applicant to obtain an FDA approval for any indication of Piclidenoson or Namodenoson and we cannot be certain that we will be entitled to NCE exclusivity. In addition, we have discontinued the prosecution of a family of pending patent applications under joint ownership of Can-Fite and NIH pertaining to the use of A3AR agonists for the treatment of uveitis. Such diminution of our proprietary position could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation and financial condition. 

The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. Our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary position for our technology will depend on our success in obtaining effective claims and enforcing those claims once granted. We do not know whether any of our patent applications or those patent applications that we license will result in the issuance of any patents. Our issued patents and those that may issue in the future, or those licensed to us, may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented or found to be invalid or unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related products or the length of term of patent protection that we may have for our products. Neither we nor our licensors can be certain that we were the first to invent the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or patent applications. In addition, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies or duplicate any technology developed by us, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with any meaningful competitive advantages against these competitors. Furthermore, because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, before any of our products can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of the patent.

Trade Secrets

We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements and assignment of inventions agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also 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 these individuals, organizations and systems, such agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors or others.

Scientific Advisory Board

We seek advice from our Scientific Advisory Board on scientific and medical matters generally. We call for Scientific Advisory Board meetings on an as-needed basis. The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our Scientific Advisory Board member.

Clinical Advisory Board

Our Clinical Advisory Board, which consists of six members, an oncologist, dermatologist, and three hepatologists, who play an active role in consulting with us with respect to clinical drug development. We call for Clinical Advisory Board meetings on an as-needed basis. The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our Clinical Advisory Board members.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly evolving technology, intense competition and a highly risky, costly and lengthy research and development process. Adequate protection of intellectual property, successful product development, adequate funding and retention of skilled, experienced and professional personnel are among the many factors critical to success in the pharmaceutical industry.

Our technology platform is based on the finding that the A3AR is highly expressed in pathological cells, such as various tumor cell types and inflammatory cells. We believe that targeting the A3AR with synthetic and highly selective A3AR agonists, such as Piclidenoson and Namodenoson, and allosteric modulators, such as CF602, induces anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory effects. Currently, our drug candidates, Piclidenoson, Namodenoson, and CF602 are being developed to treat autoimmune inflammatory indications, oncology, and liver diseases as well as erectile dysfunction, including but not limited to psoriasis, HCC, and NASH. Preclinical studies have also indicated that our drug candidates have the potential to treat additional inflammatory diseases, such as Lowe Syndrome, Crohn’s disease, oncological diseases and viral diseases, such as the JC virus, and obesity.

Despite the competition, however, we believe that our drug candidates have unique characteristics and advantages over certain drugs currently available on the market and under development to treat these indications. We believe that our pipeline of drug candidates has exhibited a potential for therapeutic success with respect to the treatment of autoimmune-inflammatory, oncological and liver diseases. We believe that targeting the A3AR with synthetic and highly selective A3AR agonists, such as Piclidenoson and Namodenoson, and allosteric modulators, such as CF602, induces anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory effects.

We believe the characteristics of Piclidenoson, as exhibited in our clinical studies to date, including its good safety profile, clinical activity, simple and less frequent delivery through oral administration and its low cost of production, position it well against the competition in the autoimmune-inflammatory markets, including the psoriasis markets, where treatments, when available, often include injectable drugs, many of which can be highly toxic, expensive and not always effective. For example, while TNF inhibitor therapies transformed the treatment for many patients, a substantial percentage of patients (40% to 60%) do not respond to either a DMARD or biologic therapies (Simsek, 2010).

Pre-clinical pharmacology studies in different experimental animal models revealed that Piclidenoson acts as a DMARD, which, when coupled with its good safety profile, makes it competitive in the psoriasis market. Our recent findings suggest that Piclidenoson might offer a superior efficacy and tolerability profile, allowing patients to stay on drug longer and potentially leading to an improvement in response rate. Like Piclidenoson, Namodenoson has a good safety profile, is orally administered and has a low cost of production, which we believe positions it well in the HCC market, where only a handful of drugs have been approved by the FDA. 

In addition, our human clinical data suggests that A3AR may be a biological marker in that high A3AR expression prior to treatment has been predictive of good patient response to our drug treatment. In fact, as a result of our research we have developed a simple blood assay to test for A3AR expression as a predictive biological marker. We hold a patent with respect to the intellectual property related to such assay and are currently analyzing A3AR expression levels in our Phase III psoriasis trial.

On the other hand, other drugs on the market, new drugs under development (including drugs that are in more advanced stages of development in comparison to our drug pipeline) and additional drugs that were originally intended for other purposes, but were found effective for purposes targeted by us, may all be competitive to the current drug candidates in our pipeline. In fact, some of these drugs are well established and accepted among patients and physicians in their respective markets, are orally bioavailable, can be efficiently produced and marketed, and are relatively safe. Moreover, other companies of various sizes engage in activities similar to ours. Most, if not all, of our competitors have substantially greater financial and other resources available to them. Competitors include companies with marketed products and/or an advanced research and development pipeline. The major competitors in the psoriasis therapeutic field include Amgen, J&J, Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers, UCB, and more. Competitors in the HCC field include companies such as Bayer, Exelixis, Merck, Roche, Eisai, Astrazenca, Beigene, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers. Competitors in the NASH field include companies such as Madrigal, Gilead, Genfit, Galmed, Madrigal, Akero, 89Bio, Viking, and Terns. Competitors in the erectile dysfunction field include Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Bayer, and Petros Pharmaceuticals.

Moreover, several companies have reported the commencement of research projects related to the A3AR. Such companies include CV Therapeutics Inc. (which was acquired by Gilead), King Pharmaceuticals R&D Inv. (which was acquired by Pfizer), Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S and Inotek Pharmaceuticals. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no approved drug currently on the market which is similar to our A3AR agonists, nor are we aware of any allosteric modulator in the A3AR product pipeline similar to our allosteric modulator with respect to chemical profile and mechanism of action.

Piclidenoson for the Treatment of Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a skin condition that affects 2% to 3% of the general population according to the National Psoriasis Foundation. The disease is manifested by scaly plaques on the skin and in the severe form has a major effect on the physical and emotional well-being of the patients. Topical agents are typically used for mild disease, phototherapy for moderate disease, and systemic agents for severe disease. For moderate to severe cases, systemic biologic drugs, delivered via intravenous injection, or IV, have dominated the market. According to the National Psoriasis Foundation, common side effects of biologics include respiratory infections, flu-like symptoms, and injection site reactions while rare side effects include serious nervous system disorders, such as multiple sclerosis, seizures, or inflammation of the nerves of the eyes, blood disorders, and certain types of cancer. We believe a significant need remains for novel oral and safe drugs for patients who do not respond to existing therapies or for whom these therapies are unsuitable.

The psoriasis therapeutic market is dominated by biological drugs that are primarily administered via IV and have potential side effects. In January 2015, the FDA approved Cosentyx (secukinumab) by Novartis. In March 2016, the FDA approved Taltz (ixekizumab) by Eli Lilly. In April 2019, the FDA approved Skyrizi (risankizumab) by AbbVie. An oral small molecule inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4, Otezla (Amgen), has gained sizable market share as a result in part due to its convenience of oral dose and comparable efficacy to the biologic drugs. Recently, a new oral inhibitor of TYK2 called SOTYKTU (Bristol) received U.S. FDA approval in September 2022. The psoriasis drug market is forecast to grow to $32 billion by 2026, according to estimate by Evaluate.

The current common treatments for psoriasis include topical and systemic drugs, steroids, immunosuppressive drugs such as Cyclosporine A by Novartis, MTX and biological drugs. Biological drugs, such as Enbrel (etanercept) by Amgen and Pfizer, Remicade (infliximab) by Centocor, Humira (adalimumab) by Abbvie, Stelara (ustekinumab) by Janssen, Otezla (aprelimast) byAmgen, Cosentyx (secukinumab) by Novartis and Taltz (ixekizumab) by Eli Lilly have significant side effects, are expensive and patients are often not responsive. For example, some of these drugs have received an FDA “black box” warning for increased risk of cancer in children and adolescents and risk of infection with Legionella and Listeria bacteria.

Namodenoson for the Treatment of HCC

According to the American Cancer Society, HCC is the fifth most common form of cancer death in the U.S., the most common form of liver cancer in adults and the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, particularly in Asia. According to the American Cancer Society, more than 800,000 people are diagnosed with liver cancer each year throughout the world and more than 700,000 persons die from liver cancer each year. Despite several new approvals in the HCC market, including immunotherapy agents, this remains a significant unmet medical need where five year survival rates remain less than 20%. According to iHealthcareAnalyst, the HCC drug market is expected to reach $6.3 billion by 2029.

Several therapies are in advanced clinical development for HCC. Some drugs under development act as a single agent and some act in combination with Nexavar or approved checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and/or nivolumab. Moreover, some are first line treatments while others are second line treatments. In addition, many existing approaches are used in the treatment of unresectable liver cancer, including alcohol injection, radiofrequency ablation, chemoembolization, cryoablation and radiation therapy.

Namodenoson for the Treatment of NASH (MASH)

Rates of NAFLD and NASH are increasing in the United States in concert with increasing rates of obesity and diabetes. In fact, NASH is now the third leading cause of liver transplant in the United States. It is estimated that 17-33% of Americans have fatty liver, with approximately one-third going on to develop NASH. NASH is believed to affect 2-5% of adult Americans. In March 2024, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals announced FDA approval of Rezdiffra (resmetirom) for the treatment of NASH with moderate to advanced liver fibrosis. By 2028, Vantage Market Research estimates the addressable pharmaceutical market for NASH will reach $21.9 billion in size.

Namodenoson for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is increasing in most industrialized countries. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2024 there will be 66,440 people in the U.S. diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. It also estimates 51,750 patients with pancreatic cancer will die in 2024. Pancreatic cancer accounts for about 3% of all cancers in the U.S. and about 8.5% of all cancer deaths. We face intense competition in the field of treating pancreatic cancer. There are dozens of startups, smaller biotech companies, big pharma, and several academic institutions and cancer centers all trying to improve the outcome for pancreatic cancer patients. There are several drugs already available and in the pipelines of pharmaceutical companies worldwide, not the least of which is the combination of the drugs of Abraxane® and gemcitabine. This is the primary FDA-approved combination of drugs for treating advanced pancreatic cancer. Recently, the FDA approved Onivyde® (Ipsen) in combination with 5FU/LV for the treatment of first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer. Onivyde® was previously approved in the second-line setting.

CF602 for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction

According to the Massachusetts Male Aging Study in 1994, 52% of the respondents between the ages of 40 and 70 years old reported some degree of erectile dysfunction.

The most popular class of drug to treat erectile dysfunction is the phosphodiesterase type 5, or PDE5, inhibitors. These drugs block the degradative action of cyclic guanosine monophosphate, or GMP, specific PDE5 on cyclic GMP in the smooth muscle cells lining the blood vessels supplying the corpus cavernosum of the penis. An erection is caused by increased blood flow into the penis resulting from the relaxation of penile arteries and corpus cavernosal smooth muscle. This response is mediated by the release of nitric oxide from nerve terminals and endothelial cells, which stimulates the synthesis of cyclic GMP in smooth muscle cells. The inhibition of PDE5 enhances erectile function by increasing the concentration of cyclic GMP in the corpus cavernosum and pulmonary arteries.

Unfortunately, the systemic side effects of PDE5 inhibitors include a decrease in sitting blood pressure. This has resulted in warnings and precautions and contraindications of use in patients already taking antihypertensive agents like nitrates or alpha-blockers. A study published in the American Journal of Medicine (Selvin E., et al., 2007) found that persons with a history of heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes had a higher probability of impotence. A second study published in the same journal (Shah NP., et al, 2015) notes that vascular erectile dysfunction is a powerful marker of increased cardiovascular risk. We believe a significant market opportunity exists targeting erectile dysfunction patients contraindicated for use of the market leading products, Viagra and Cialis.

Market Research Future estimates the value of the erectile dysfunction therapeutic market to reach approximately $6.1 billion by 2030.

Insurance

We maintain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance with coverage of $5.0 million per claim and $5.0 million in the aggregate.

We also maintain worldwide product and clinical trial liability insurance with coverage of approximately $5 million with respect to the Piclidenoson and Namodenoson drugs used in clinical trials. We also procure additional insurance for each specific clinical trial which covers a certain number of trial participants and which varies based on the particular clinical trial. Certain of such policies are based on the Declaration of Helsinki, which is a set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation developed for the medical community by the World Medical Association, and certain protocols of the Israeli Ministry of Health.

We procure cargo marine coverage when we ship substances for our clinical studies. Such insurance is custom-fit to the special requirements of the applicable shipment, such as temperature and/or climate sensitivity. If required, we ensure the substances to the extent they are stored in central depots and at clinical sites.

We believe that our insurance policies are adequate and customary for a business of our kind. However, because of the nature of our business, we cannot assure you that we will be able to maintain insurance on a commercially reasonable basis or at all, or that any future claims will not exceed our insurance coverage.

Environmental Matters

We are subject to various environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing air emissions, water and wastewater discharges, noise emissions, the use, management and disposal of hazardous, radioactive and biological materials and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. We believe that our business, operations and facilities are being operated in compliance in all material respects with applicable environmental and health and safety laws and regulations. Our laboratory personnel in Israel have ongoing communication with the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection in order to verify compliance with relevant instructions and regulations. In addition, all of our laboratory personnel participate in instruction on the proper handling of chemicals, including hazardous substances before commencing employment, and during the course of their employment with us. In addition, all information with respect to any chemical substance that we use is filed and stored as a Material Safety Data Sheet, as required by applicable environmental regulations. Based on information currently available to us, we do not expect environmental costs and contingencies to have a material adverse effect on us. The operation of our testing facilities, however, entails risks in these areas. Significant expenditures could be required in the future if these facilities are required to comply with new or more stringent environmental or health and safety laws, regulations or requirements.

Government Regulation and Funding

We operate in a highly controlled regulatory environment. Stringent regulations establish requirements relating to analytical, toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of pharmaceuticals. Regulations also cover research, development, manufacturing and reporting procedures, both pre- and post-approval. In many markets, especially in Europe, marketing and pricing strategies are subject to national legislation or administrative practices that include requirements to demonstrate not only the quality, safety and efficacy of a new product, but also its cost-effectiveness relating to other treatment options. Failure to comply with regulations can result in stringent sanctions, including product recalls, withdrawal of approvals, seizure of products and criminal prosecution.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective. Historically, the results from preclinical studies and early clinical trials often have not accurately predicted results of later clinical trials. In addition, a number of pharmaceutical products have shown promising results in clinical trials but subsequently failed to establish sufficient safety and efficacy results to obtain necessary regulatory approvals. We have incurred, and will continue to incur substantial expense for and devote a significant amount of time to, preclinical studies and clinical trials. Many factors can delay the commencement and rate of completion of clinical trials, including the inability to recruit patients at the expected rate, the inability to follow patients adequately after treatment, the failure to manufacture sufficient quantities of materials used for clinical trials, and the emergence of unforeseen safety issues and governmental and regulatory delays. If a product candidate fails to demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical trials, this failure may delay development of other product candidates and hinder our ability to conduct related preclinical studies and clinical trials. Additionally, as a result of these failures, we may also be unable to obtain additional financing.

Governmental authorities in all major markets require that a new pharmaceutical product be approved or exempted from approval before it is marketed and have established high standards for technical appraisal which can result in an expensive and lengthy approval process. The time to obtain approval varies by country and some products are never approved. The lengthy process of conducting clinical trials, seeking approval and subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, if approval is obtained, are very costly and require the expenditure of substantial resources. These regulatory requirements impact our operations and differ from one country to another, so that securing the applicable regulatory approvals of one country does not imply the approval of another country. The approval procedures involve high costs and are manpower intensive, usually extend over many years and require highly skilled and professional resources. 

A summary of the United States, European Union and Israeli regulatory processes follow below.

United States

In the United States, the Public Health Service Act (IPHS) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, the safety and effectiveness standards for our products and the raw materials and components used in the production of, testing, manufacture, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion of our products on a product-by-product basis.

The failure to comply with the applicable requirements at any time during the product development process, including preclinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may subject an applicant to delays in the conduct of clinical trials, regulatory review and approval, and/or administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the FDA’s refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical testing, refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, warning letters, adverse publicity, customer notification, product recalls, product seizures, refusal to grant export or import approval, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, consent decrees, injunctions, fines, and civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA or the U.S. Department of Justice, or other governmental entities.

The steps usually required to be taken before a new drug may be marketed in the U.S. generally include:

Preclinical tests include in vitro and in vivo evaluation of the product candidate, its chemistry, formulation and stability, and animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Certain preclinical tests must be conducted in compliance with good laboratory practice, or GLP, regulations. Violations of these regulations can, in some cases, lead to invalidation of the studies, requiring them to be replicated. After laboratory analysis and preclinical testing, a sponsor files an IND application including the results of the preclinical testing, manufacturing information and analytical data, with FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from FDA to administer an investigational new drug or biological product to humans to begin human testing. An IND becomes effective 30 days after FDA receives it, unless the FDA notifies the sponsor that the clinical trial is subject to a clinical hold. FDA also may impose a clinical hold at any time during a clinical trial. A sponsor may not proceed with a clinical trial that is subject to a clinical hold until the clinical hold has been lifted. 

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients with the disease to be treated under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator in accordance with CGP requirements. Clinical studies are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, what types of patients may enter the study, schedules of tests and procedures, drugs, dosages, and length of study, as well as the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical study and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND process.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a clinical trial outside the U.S. is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA so long as the clinical trial is conducted consistent with the spirit of GCP and in compliance with an international guideline for the ethical conduct of clinical research known as the Declaration of Helsinki and/or the laws and regulations of the country or countries in which the clinical trial is performed, whichever provides the greater protection to the participants in the clinical trial. 

An IRB, either centrally or individually, must also review each clinical trial at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. The IRB will consider, among other things, clinical trial design, patient informed consent, ethical factors, the safety of human subjects, the possible liability of the institution, and, where appropriate, the protection of privacy of the human subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with the FDA regulations. The FDA, IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor, or the principal investigator may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a finding that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP rules and the requirements for informed consent. Additionally, some clinical studies are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group recommends whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study. The clinical study sponsor may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

Typically, clinical trials are conducted in three sequential phases which are subject to numerous laws and regulatory requirements, including good clinical practice requirements, or GCP, which include adequate monitoring, reporting, record keeping and informed consent. In Phase I, small clinical trials are conducted, typically in healthy human volunteers, to determine the safety and proper dose ranges of product candidates. In Phase II, clinical trials are generally conducted in patients with the targeted disease or condition to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimate dosage. Multiple Phase II clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase III clinical trials. In Phase III, clinical trials are conducted in an expanded population of patients with the targeted disease or condition to demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase III trials are designed to provide sufficient data for the statistically valid evidence of safety and efficacy to support approval, and if approved, the basis for product labeling. Post-approval studies, sometimes referred to as Phase IV trials, may be conducted, voluntarily or as a condition of approval, after initial product approval to obtain additional information about the drugs risks and benefits in patients with the targeted disease or condition. The time and expense required for us to perform this clinical testing can vary and is substantial. We cannot be certain that we will successfully complete Phase I, Phase II or Phase III testing of our product candidates within any specific time period, if at all. Furthermore, the FDA, the Institutional Review Board responsible for approving and monitoring the clinical trials at a given site, the Data Safety Monitoring Board, where one is used, or we may suspend the clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that subjects or patients are exposed to unacceptable health risk.

If the clinical data from these clinical trials (Phases I, II and III) are deemed to support the safety and effectiveness of the candidate product for its intended use, then we may proceed to seek to file with the FDA an NDA seeking approval to market a new drug for one or more specified intended uses. We have not completed our clinical trials for any candidate product for any intended use and therefore, we cannot ascertain whether the clinical data will support and justify filing an NDA. Nevertheless, if and when we are able to ascertain that the clinical data supports and justifies filing an NDA, we intend to make such appropriate filings.

The purpose of the NDA is to provide the FDA with sufficient information so that it can assess whether it ought to approve the candidate product for marketing in the U.S. for specific intended uses. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the submission of an NDA requires the payment of substantial user fees, which the FDA adjusts on an annual basis, unless a waiver is granted. Moreover, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product as a non-orphan indication for use.

The NDA normally contains, among other things, sections describing the chemistry, manufacturing, and controls, non-clinical pharmacology and toxicology, human pharmacokinetics and bioavailability, microbiology, the results of the clinical trials, and the proposed labeling which contains, among other things, the intended uses of the candidate product. FDA reviews the information submitted under the NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is compliant with cGMP requirements to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Before accepting an NDA for filing, FDA conducts a preliminary review of the NDA, within 60 days of submission, to determine whether it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Generally, under PDUFA guidelines, FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of acceptance of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority applications. The review process may often be significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests, or the applicant otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements.

Manufacturers cannot take any action to market any new drug or biologic product in the United States until an appropriate marketing application has been approved by the FDA. The FDA has substantial discretion over the approval process and may disagree with a manufacturer’s interpretation of the data submitted. The process may be significantly extended by requests for additional information or clarification regarding information already provided. As part of this review, the FDA may refer the application to an appropriate advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel comprised of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether an application should be approved and under what conditions. FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee; however, it takes into consideration the advisory committee’s recommendations when making decisions., typically a panel of clinicians. As part of the approval process, FDA determines whether the manufacturer’s facilities and manufacturing processes are in compliance with cGMP requirements and sufficient to ensure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Prior to approving an NDA, FDA also may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements.

Following the completion of its evaluation of an NDA, FDA will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter, or CRL. An approval letter authorizes commercialization of the drug for specified indications. A CRL informs the manufacturer that the review cycle for an application is complete and that the application is not ready for approval in its present form. A CRL typically identifies specific deficiencies in the NDA that may require additional clinical data or other significant requirements related to clinical trials or manufacturing. If FDA issues a CRL, the manufacturer must resubmit the NDA with all deficiencies addressed or withdraw the NDA. Even if all requested data and information are submitted, FDA ultimately may not approve the NDA.

Satisfaction of these and other regulatory requirements typically takes several years, and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product. Government regulation may delay or prevent marketing of potential products for a considerable period of time and impose costly procedures on our activities. We cannot be certain that the FDA or other regulatory agencies will approve any of our products on a timely basis, if at all. Success in preclinical or early stage clinical trials does not assure success in later-stage clinical trials. Even if a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific indications or uses and these limitations may adversely affect the commercial viability of the product. Delays in obtaining, or failures to obtain regulatory approvals, would have a material adverse effect on our business.

If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product. Additionally, the FDA may call for further clinical trials (i.e., Phase IV trials) and require additional data on safety and effectiveness. FDA also may impose other conditions on approval including the requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, designed to ensure the safe use of the drug. A REMS could include, among other things, medication guides, physician communication plans, restricted distribution methods, and patient registries. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict our ability to successfully commercialize products.

We are also required to gain separate approval for the use of an approved product as a treatment for indications other than those initially approved. In addition, side effects or adverse events that are reported during clinical trials can delay, impede or prevent marketing approval. Similarly, adverse events that are reported after marketing approval can result in additional limitations being placed on the product’s use and, potentially, withdrawal of the product from the market. Any adverse event, either before or after marketing approval, can result in product liability claims against us.

As an alternate path for FDA approval of new indications or new formulations of previously-approved products, a company may file a Section 505(b)(2) NDA, instead of a “stand-alone” or “full” NDA. Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, was enacted as part of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, otherwise known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Section 505(b)(2) permits the submission of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Some examples of products that may be allowed to follow a 505(b)(2) path to approval are drugs that have a new dosage form, strength, route of administration, formulation or indication. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit the applicant to rely upon certain published nonclinical or clinical studies conducted for an approved product or the FDA’s conclusions from prior review of such studies. The FDA may require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support any changes from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product for all or some of the labeled indications for which the reference product has been approved, as well as for any new indication supported by the NDA. While references to nonclinical and clinical data not generated by the applicant or for which the applicant does not have a right of reference are allowed, all development, process, stability, qualification and validation data related to the manufacturing and quality of the new product must be included in an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2).

To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on the FDA’s conclusions regarding studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book publication. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The Section 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the reference product has expired. Thus, the Section 505(b)(2) applicant may invest a significant amount of time and expense in the development of its products only to be subject to significant delay and patent litigation before its products may be commercialized.

In addition to regulating and auditing human clinical trials, the FDA regulates and inspects equipment, facilities, laboratories and processes used in the manufacturing and testing of such products prior to providing approval to market a product. If, after receiving FDA approval, we make a material change in manufacturing equipment, location or process, additional regulatory review and approval may be required. We also must adhere to cGMP regulations and product-specific regulations enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program. The FDA also conducts regular, periodic visits to re-inspect our equipment, facilities, laboratories and processes following the initial approval. If, as a result of these inspections, the FDA determines that our equipment, facilities, laboratories or processes do not comply with applicable FDA regulations and conditions of product approval, the FDA may seek civil, criminal or administrative sanctions and/or remedies against us, including the suspension of our manufacturing operations.

We have currently received no approvals to market our products from the FDA or other foreign regulators.

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, or in the event of an emergency. These programs are fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review designation.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for fast track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a fast track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the fast track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process. 

In 2012, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA. This law established a new regulatory scheme allowing for expedited review of products designated as “breakthrough therapies.” A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

The FDA may also designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services may additionally authorize unapproved drugs and biologics to be marketed in the event an actual or potential emergency has been designated by the U.S. government. After an emergency has been designated, the FDA may issue an Emergency Use Authorization, or EUA, for the use of a specific product based on criteria established by the FDCA. An EUA is product specific and is subject to specific conditions and restrictions. Once the emergency underlying the EUA ends, then the EUA terminates.

Once regulatory approval for marketing of a product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, including any post-approval requirements that the FDA may have imposed as a condition of approval. The sponsor will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors 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 ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon drug manufacturers. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.

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

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

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs and biologics may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

Orphan Drug Designation

Pursuant to the Orphan Drug Act, FDA may grant special status, or orphan designation, to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a defined as a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or there is no reasonable expectation that the sales of the product will offset the cost of developing and making the drug available in the United States. A request for orphan drug designation must be filed before the NDA is filed. Following the grant of orphan designation, FDA will publicly disclose the identity of the therapeutic drug candidate and its potential orphan use. Orphan designation does not shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. The fact that the FDA has designated a drug as an orphan drug for a particular intended use does not mean that the drug has been approved for marketing. Only after an NDA has been approved by the FDA is marketing appropriate.

If a drug candidate with orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has orphan designation, the drug is entitled to a seven-year period of market exclusivity subject to certain exceptions (e.g., clinical superiority of a subsequent product). This means that FDA may not approve another drug application authorizing another manufacturer to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years. This does not preclude competitors from receiving approval of the same product that has orphan exclusivity for a different indication or a different product for the same indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. The orphan designation of a drug also provides the sponsor with certain financial incentives including tax credit, waiver of PDUFA fees, and access to certain grant funding for orphan products.

In February 2012, the FDA granted orphan drug status for the active moiety, or the part of the drug that is responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance, of Namodenoson for the treatment of HCC. Subsequently, in October 2015, the EMA granted Namodenoson orphan drug designation for the treatment of HCC.

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

For products distributed in the United States, we will also be subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. Applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our future business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other health care laws and regulations. A finding of liability under these laws can have significant adverse financial implications for us and can result in payment of large penalties and possible exclusion from federal healthcare programs. We will consult counsel concerning the potential application of these and other laws to our business and our sales, marketing and other activities and will make good faith efforts to comply with them. However, given their broad reach and the increasing attention given by law enforcement authorities, we cannot assure you that some of our activities will not be challenged or deemed to violate some of these laws.

Reimbursement

Sales of our product candidates in the United States may depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the product candidates may be covered by third-party payers, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed health care organizations. These third-party payers are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. Additionally, the containment of health care costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. If these third-party payers do not consider our product candidates to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our product candidates after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our product candidates on a profitable basis. 

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

Pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. The conduct of such studies could be expensive and result in delays in our commercializing efforts. The EU provides options for its member states to restrict the range of drug products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU member states may approve a specific price for a drug product or may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the drug product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become 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 competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products.

The marketability of any products 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 drug pricing. Coverage policies, third-party reimbursement rates and drug pricing regulation 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.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of significant legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. The ACA was enacted in the United States in March 2010 and contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products, including, for example, increased rebates for drugs subject to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, effective April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2027, unless additional Congressional action is taken; however, pursuant to the CARES Act, and subsequent legislation, these reductions were suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations. 

Moreover, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products. There have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. The FDA released a final rule on September 24, 2020, effective November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or 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 rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which includes several provisions to lower prescription drug costs for people with Medicare, including price negotiation requirements for drugs covered under Medicare, rebate requirements when drug prices rise faster than inflation, and a cap on out-of-pocket spending for Medicare Part D enrollees. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Although a number of these, and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

CMS issued a final rule, effective on July 9, 2019, that requires direct-to-consumer advertisements of prescription drugs and biological products, for which payment is available through or under Medicare or Medicaid, to include in the advertisement the Wholesale Acquisition Cost, or list price, of that drug or biological product if it is equal to or greater than $35 for a monthly supply or usual course of treatment. Prescription drugs and biological products that are in violation of these requirements will be included on a public list. In addition, in December 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its Health Products Compliance Guidance that is intended to ensure health-related product claims, including drugs and biologics, are truthful, not misleading and supported by science. The FTC also updated its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising that raises the growth of social media in marketing.

Any adopted health reform measure could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. 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. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures, as well as legal changes by foreign governments, will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

European Union

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

Regulation and Marketing Authorization in the European Union

The European Medicines Agency, or EMA, is the scientific agency of the European Union, or EU, that coordinates the evaluation and monitoring of new and approved medicinal products such as drugs and biologics. It is responsible for the scientific evaluation of applications for EU marketing authorizations, as well as the development of technical guidance and the provision of scientific advice to sponsors.

The process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union follows essentially the same lines as in the United States and, likewise, generally involves satisfactorily completing each of the following:

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animal studies, in order to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with the relevant E.U. and/or Member States’ regulations and requirements. The results of the preclinical tests, together with relevant manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of the CTA.

Clinical Trial Approval

Clinical trials in the EU are regulated under Regulation (EU) 536/2014 (CTR), as amended. As opposed to the previous Directive 2001/20/EC (CTD), which as an EU directive was not directly applicable in the member states, the CTR has immediate effect for the whole EU and did not have to be transposed into national law. While national laws implementing the CTD varied to a great extent, the CTR provides for a significant further harmonization of the law governing clinical trials in the EU. After significant delay, the CTR became applicable on January 31, 2022. The CTR now harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), which includes a centralized EU portal and database for clinical trials. From January 31, 2023 onwards, clinical trial sponsors need to apply to start a clinical trial via CTIS. From January 31, 2025, any trials previously approved under the CTD that continue to run after such date, will need to comply with CTR and their sponsors must have recorded the required information on such trials in CTIS. The CTR provides inter alia: 

The authorization of a clinical trial (Phase I-III) in an EU member state requires the submission of a CTA via the EU Portal. The application will be reviewed by the competent authorities of the member states where the trial is supposed to take place. The application and approval process is conducted by the member states under the cooperation system set forth in the CTR. Particularities under member states’ national law still apply to some extent. In general, the CTA should include, among other documents, the study protocol, results of the nonclinical studies and manufacturing information and analytical results. Also, the sponsor has to suggest one of the concerned member states as reporting member state. The CTR aims at speeding up the validation and review of clinical trial applications and therefore provides strict deadlines.

Marketing Authorization

Authorization to market a product in the member states of the European Union proceeds under one of four procedures: a centralized authorization procedure, a mutual recognition procedure, a decentralized procedure or a national procedure.

Centralized Authorization Procedure

The centralized procedure enables applicants to obtain a marketing authorization that is valid in all E.U. member states based on a single application. Certain medicinal products, including products developed by means of biotechnological processes, must undergo the centralized authorization procedure for marketing authorization which, if granted by the European Commission, is automatically valid in all 28 E.U. member states. The EMA and the European Commission administer this centralized authorization procedure pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, this procedure is inter alia mandatory for: