Anavex Life Sciences (12X1) Risk Analysis

The success of our research and development efforts will be greatly dependent upon our ability to demonstrate potential drug compound efficacy in non-clinical studies, as well as in clinical trials. Non-clinical studies involve testing potential drug compounds in appropriate non-human disease models to demonstrate efficacy and safety. Regulatory agencies evaluate these data carefully before they will approve clinical testing in humans. If certain non-clinical data reveals potential safety issues or the results are inconsistent with an expectation of the potential drug compound's efficacy in humans, the regulatory agencies may require additional more rigorous testing before allowing human clinical trials. This additional testing will increase program expenses and extend timelines. We may decide to suspend further testing on our potential drug compounds if, in the judgment of our management and advisors, the non-clinical test results do not support further development. Moreover, success in non-clinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the results of later clinical trials will replicate the results of prior clinical trials and non-clinical testing. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our potential drug compounds are safe for humans and effective for indicated uses. This failure would cause us to abandon a drug candidate and may delay development of other potential drug compounds. Any delay in, or termination of, our non-clinical testing or clinical trials will delay the filing of an IND and NDA with the FDA or the equivalent applications with pharmaceutical regulatory authorities outside the United States and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our potential drug compounds and generate product revenues. In addition, we expect that our early clinical trials will involve small patient populations. Because of the small sample size, the results of these early clinical trials may not be indicative of future results. Also, the IND process may be extremely costly and may substantially delay the development of our potential drug compounds. Moreover, positive results of non-clinical tests will not necessarily indicate positive results in subsequent clinical trials. Following successful non-clinical testing, potential drug compounds will need to be tested in a clinical development program to provide data on safety and efficacy prior to becoming eligible for product approval and licensure by regulatory agencies. From the first human trial through to regulatory approval can take many years and 10-12 years is not unusual for certain compounds. If any of our future clinical development potential drug compounds become the subject of problems, our ability to sustain our development programs will become critically compromised. For example, efficacy or safety concerns may arise, whether or not justified, that could lead to the suspension or termination of our clinical programs. Examples of problems that could arise include, among others: -   efficacy or safety concerns with the potential drug compounds, even if not justified;-   manufacturing difficulties or concerns;-   regulatory proceedings subjecting the potential drug compounds to potential recall;-   publicity affecting doctor prescription or patient use of the potential drug compounds;-   pressure from competitive products; or -   introduction of more effective treatments. Each clinical phase is designed to test attributes of the drug and problems that might result in the termination of the entire clinical plan can be revealed at any time throughout the overall clinical program. The failure to demonstrate efficacy in our clinical trials would have a material adverse effect on our future business prospects, financial condition and operating results.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition or for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug for a disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA, to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. We have received orphan drug designation for several of our compounds, but we may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity in the United States for those compounds. We may not be the first to obtain marketing approval of any compound for which we have obtained orphan drug designation for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek FDA marketing approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication. Additionally, any compound with orphan drug designation may lose such designation if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, others may obtain orphan drug exclusivity for products addressing the same diseases or conditions as products we are developing, thus limiting our ability to compete in the markets addressing such diseases or conditions for a significant period of time. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the product candidate any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process or entitles the product candidate to priority review.

For some of our compounds, including ANAVEX2-73, we hope to benefit from the FDA's Fast Track and priority review programs. In February 2020, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for the ANAVEX2-73 clinical development program for the treatment of Rett syndrome. Programs with Fast Track designation may benefit from early and frequent communications with the FDA, potential priority review and the ability to submit a rolling application for regulatory review. Fast Track designation applies to both the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. If any of our compounds receive Fast Track designation but do not continue to meet the criteria for Fast Track designation, or if our clinical trials are delayed, suspended or terminated, or put on clinical hold due to unexpected adverse events or issues with clinical supply, we will not receive the benefits associated with the Fast Track program. Furthermore, Fast Track designation does not change the standards for approval. The receipt of Fast Track designation for a compound may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process compared to products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if any product candidate qualifies for Fast Track designation, the FDA may later decide that the product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Fast Track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA's priority review procedures. Under FDA policies, a compound is eligible for priority review, or review within a six-month time frame from the time a complete NDA is accepted for filing, if the compound provides a significant improvement compared to marketed drugs in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease. The FDA determines whether a drug qualifies for Priority Review after an NDA for such drug is submitted to the FDA. Therefore, until NDAs are submitted for our compounds, we cannot be assured that they will be granted Priority Review. Additionally, even if Priority Review is granted for one of our compounds, the FDA does not always meet its six-month Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date for Priority Review and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. We may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation for one or more of our current or future compounds. Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is largely within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that a compound meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to candidate products considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more compounds qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification and revoke the designation. Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation for our compounds may not actually lead to a faster review process, and a delay in the review process or in the approval of our compounds will delay revenue from their potential sales and will increase the capital necessary to fund these compound development programs.

The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States by the FDA may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for regulatory approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the United States population and United States medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to good clinical practice regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Many foreign regulatory bodies have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, EMA or any other foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Assuming that we are successful in developing our potential drug compounds and receiving regulatory clearances to market our products, our ability to successfully penetrate the market and generate sales of those products may be limited by a number of factors, including the following: -   If our competitors receive regulatory approvals for and begin marketing similar products in the United States, the European Union, Japan and other territories before we do, greater awareness of their products as compared to ours will cause our competitive position to suffer;-   Information from our competitors or the academic community indicating that current products or new products are more effective or offer compelling other benefits than our future products could impede our market penetration or decrease our future market share; and -   The pricing and reimbursement environment for our future products, as well as pricing and reimbursement decisions by our competitors and by payers, may have an effect on our revenues. If this happens, our business will be adversely affected.