Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc. (LXEO) Risk Analysis

Our future success depends on the successful development of a novel therapeutic approach. To date, very few products that utilize gene transfer have been approved in the United States or Europe. There have been a limited number of clinical trials using AAVrh10. Although gene therapies have been studied in human clinical trials for over 30 years, only a limited number of AAV-based gene therapy products have been approved by the FDA. We cannot be certain that our AAVrh10-based gene therapy product candidates will successfully complete clinical trials or that any future product candidates utilizing this or other vector constructs will successfully complete preclinical studies or clinical trials. We may not be successful in developing product candidates that avoid triggering toxicities or other side effects in preclinical studies or clinical trials. Our intravenous and intrathecal routes of administration may cause unforeseen side effects or present other challenges. Any such results could impact our ability to develop a product candidate, including our ability to enroll patients in our clinical trials. As a result of these factors, it is more difficult for us to predict the time and cost of product candidate development, and we cannot predict whether the application of our approach to gene therapy, or any similar or competitive programs, will result in the identification, development, and regulatory approval of any product candidate, or that other gene therapy programs will not be considered better or more favorable. There can be no assurance that any development problems we experience in the future related to our current gene therapy product candidates or any of our research programs will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs, or that such development problems can be solved. We may also experience delays and challenges in achieving sustainable, reproducible, and scalable production. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our preclinical studies or clinical trials or commercializing any product candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will generate the same results or otherwise provide adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of a product candidate. Preclinical tests and Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials are primarily designed to test safety, to study pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and to understand the side effects of product candidates at various doses and schedules. Success in preclinical or animal studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later larger-scale efficacy and safety trials will be successful, nor does it predict final results. For example, we may be unable to identify suitable animal disease models for our product candidates, which could delay or frustrate our ability to proceed into clinical trials or obtain marketing approval. In addition, the preclinical studies conducted by Stelios (an entity that we acquired in 2021) and The Regents of UCSD for our product candidates LX2021 and LX2022 employed an AAV9-based formulation and studies using this vector may not be predictive of future testing we intend to conduct using an AAVrh10-based formulation or other potential capsid serotypes. Our product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials. Furthermore, our currently ongoing and most future clinical trials involve or will involve a small patient population. Because of the small sample sizes studied in our trials thus far, the results of these trials may not be indicative of results of future clinical trials. Additionally, some of our ongoing and planned clinical trials utilize, or may utilize, an "open-label" trial design. An "open-label" clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a "patient bias" where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an "investigator bias" where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of our product candidate development. Any such delays could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

From time to time, we have and may continue to publish or present interim top-line or preliminary results from our clinical trials. Interim results from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or top-line results also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects and may cause the trading price of our common stock to fluctuate significantly.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe, effective and of sufficient purity for use in each target disease, and failures can occur at any stage of testing. Preclinical studies and clinical trials often fail to demonstrate safety or efficacy of the product candidate studied for the target disease. While we have developed our AAVrh10-mediated gene therapy product candidates to leverage the low seropositivity of AAVrh10, any gene therapy product based on viral vectors carries the risks of immunogenicity, elevated liver enzymes and insertional oncogenesis, which is the process whereby the insertion of a functional gene near a gene that is important in cell growth or division results in uncontrolled cell division, which could potentially enhance the risk of malignant transformation. In one of our preclinical studies of LX2006, we observed four cases of hepatocellular carcinoma, or HCC, in wild-type mice at 10 months post-treatment. Although data reported by the FDA Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee in September 2021 suggests that HCC observed in mice after AAV treatment is unlikely to translate to risks for humans, any instances of HCC in our clinical trials could result in delays or the abandonment of our trials. Health authorities also ask that sponsors closely monitor the risk of elevated liver enzymes and abnormal liver ultrasound on a routine basis in patients participating in gene therapy clinical trials. Possible adverse side effects that could occur with treatment with gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction early after administration, which, while not necessarily adverse to the patient's health, could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment. For example, in previous third-party clinical trials involving AAV capsids for gene therapy, some subjects experienced the development of a T-cell antibody response, whereby after the vector is within the target cell types, the cellular immune response system triggers the removal of transduced cell types by activated T-cells. If any of our product candidates demonstrate a similar effect, we may decide or be required to perform additional preclinical studies or to halt or delay further clinical development of our product candidates. In addition to side effects caused by the product candidate, the administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. If adverse events occur, either as a result of the product candidate or administration process, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated. If we cannot demonstrate that any adverse events were not caused by the drug or administration process or related procedures, the FDA, EMA or foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our product candidates for any or all targeted diseases. Even if we are able to demonstrate that serious adverse events are not product-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to not initiate, delay, suspend or terminate any future clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. Furthermore, negative results in our development of LX2006 or LX2020 could be interpreted as a failure to achieve proof of concept for our technology and result in the abandonment of other development programs. In addition, gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease treatment and additional adverse side effects could develop. There also is the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent biologic activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material. If our product candidates are associated with side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses in which the side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. The FDA or an IRB may also require that we suspend, discontinue, or limit our clinical trials based on safety information, or that we conduct additional animal or human studies regarding the safety and efficacy of our product candidates which we have not planned or anticipated. Such findings could further result in regulatory authorities failing to provide marketing authorization for our product candidates or limiting the scope of the approved indication, if approved. Many product candidates that initially showed promise in early-stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the product candidate. Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by such products or the administration procedure, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: - regulatory authorities may withdraw approvals of such product;- regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the labels;- we may be required to create a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients or other requirements subject to a REMS;- we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients;- we may not be able to obtain or maintain third-party payor coverage and adequate reimbursement; and - our reputation and physician or patient acceptance of our products may suffer. There can be no assurance that we will resolve any issues related to any product-related adverse events to the satisfaction of the FDA or foreign regulatory agency in a timely manner or at all. Moreover, any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States, may designate drugs or biologics intended to treat relatively small patient populations as orphan drug products. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug or biologic as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population of 200,000 or more in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, Orphan Drug designation entitles a party to potential financial incentives such as tax advantages and user fee waivers. Opportunities for grant funding toward clinical trial costs may also be available for clinical trials of drugs or biologics for rare diseases, regardless of whether the drugs or biologics are designated for the orphan use. In addition, if a drug or biologic with an Orphan Drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug and disease for that time period, except in limited circumstances. If our competitors are able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity prior to us, for products that constitute the "same drug" and treat the same diseases as our product candidates, we may not be able to have competing products approved by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time. Similarly, in the European Union, the European Commission, upon the recommendation of the EMA's Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, grants Orphan Drug designation to promote the development of drugs that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions and either the prevalence of the condition is not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the European Union, or, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug. In each case, there must be no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition that has been authorized, or, if such a method exists, the product in question must be of significant benefit to those affected by such condition. In the European Union, Orphan Drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers. We have obtained from the FDA Orphan Drug designation for LX2006 for the treatment of FA and for LX2020 for the treatment of PKP2-ACM. LX2006 and LX2020 have also received Orphan Medicinal Product designation from the European Commission. We may seek orphan designation for some or all of our product candidates in orphan indications in which there is a medically plausible basis for the use of these product candidates. However, we may be unsuccessful in obtaining Orphan Drug designation and may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with such designations. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for any of our product candidates, that exclusivity may not effectively protect those product candidates from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition, and orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving the same or a different drug in another indication. Even after an orphan drug is granted orphan exclusivity and approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a later application for the same drug for the same condition before the expiration of the seven-year exclusivity period if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer in a substantial portion of the target populations, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. On August 3, 2017, Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA. FDARA, among other things, codified the FDA's preexisting regulatory interpretation, to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. The statute supplants prior precedent holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that the FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Moreover, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Congress clarified that the interpretation of orphan drug exclusivity codified in FDARA would apply in cases where the FDA issued an orphan designation before the enactment of FDARA but where product approval came after the enactment of FDARA. In addition, a designated Orphan Drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the disease for which it received orphan designation. In Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra, 14 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2021), the court disagreed with the FDA's longstanding position that orphan drug exclusivity only applies to the approved use or indication within an eligible disease. However, in January 2023, the FDA published a notice in the Federal Register to clarify that while the agency complies with the court's order in Catalyst, the FDA intends to continue to apply its longstanding interpretation of the regulations to matters outside of the scope of the Catalyst order – that is, the agency will continue tying the scope of orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved, which permits other sponsors to obtain approval of a drug for new uses or indications within the same orphan designated disease or condition that have not yet been approved. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, signed into law in February 2026, codified this longstanding FDA interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act. However, the overturn of the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo may invite various stakeholders to bring lawsuits against the FDA to challenge longstanding decisions and policies, including regulatory exclusivities, which could lead to uncertainties in the industry. Further, changes in the leadership of the FDA and other federal agencies under the current administration may lead to new policies and changes in the regulations and operations of the FDA, which may impact our clinical development plans. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA, Congress, or future judicial challenges may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted. Moreover, orphan drug-exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to manufacture sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Orphan Drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

We may seek Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy or RMAT designation from the FDA for some or all of our product candidates, but we may be unable to obtain such designations or to maintain the benefits associated with such designations. The FDA's Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and RMAT designation programs are intended to expedite the development of certain qualifying product candidates intended for the treatment of serious diseases and conditions. If a product candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life- threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the product's potential to address an unmet medical need for this condition, the sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation. A product candidate may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. For product candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Drugs and biologics designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for accelerated approval. A product candidate may receive RMAT designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address an unmet medical need for such condition. RMAT designation allows companies developing regenerative medicine therapies to work more closely and frequently with the FDA, and RMAT-designated product candidates may be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval. FDA has confirmed that gene therapies, including genetically modified cells, that lead to a sustained effect on cells or tissues may meet the definition of a regenerative medicine therapy. For product candidates that have received an RMAT designation, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. We have received Fast Track designation for LX2006 for the treatment of FA cardiomyopathy, and for LX2020 for the treatment of PKP2-ACM. We have also received Breakthrough Therapy designation for LX2006 for the treatment of FA cardiomyopathy, as well as RMAT designation for LX2006 for the treatment of FA cardiomyopathy and for LX2020 for the treatment of PKP2-ACM. LX2006 has also been selected by the FDA to participate in its CDRP program, which is intended to facilitate expedited CMC development of investigational therapies with expedited clinical development timeframes via an increased level of communication with the FDA on CMC development. While we may seek Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and/or RMAT designation, or participation in the CDRP program, for some or all of our product candidates, there is no guarantee that we will be successful in obtaining any such designation. Even if we do obtain such designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. A Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, or RMAT designation, or participation in the CDRP program, does not ensure that the product candidate will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular time frame. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, or RMAT designation, or remove a product candidate from the CDRP program, if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and/or RMAT designation, or participation in the CDRP program, alone, does not guarantee qualification for the FDA's priority review procedures.

All of our product candidates are in preclinical or clinical development, and the risk of failure is high. The preclinical studies, clinical trials and manufacturing of our product candidates are, and the manufacturing and marketing of our products, if approved, will be, subject to extensive and rigorous review and regulation by numerous government authorities in the United States and in other countries where we may test and market our product candidates. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target disease. In particular, because our product candidates are subject to regulation as biologics, we will need to demonstrate that they are sufficiently safe and of sufficient purity and potency for use in their target diseases. Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk-versus-benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use. Clinical testing is expensive, can take many years to complete and is subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be initiated on schedule, conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. To date, we are sponsoring clinical trials of LX2006 and LX2020, including the pivotal trial of LX2006 initiated in June 2026 for potential accelerated approval. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Even if our ongoing and future clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates for their targeted diseases or support continued clinical development of such product candidates. Our future clinical trial results may not be successful. In addition, even if such trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. This is particularly true for clinical trials in rare diseases, where the small patient populations make it difficult or impossible to conduct two traditional, adequate and well-controlled trials, and therefore the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities are often required to exercise flexibility in approving therapies for such diseases. Moreover, results acceptable to support approval in one jurisdiction may be deemed inadequate by another regulatory authority to support regulatory approval in that other jurisdiction. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. We may experience delays in initiating and conducting clinical trials of our lead product candidates and we do not know whether our clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, recruit and enroll patients on time or be completed on schedule, or at all. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include: - inability to generate sufficient preclinical, toxicology, or other in vivo or in vitro data to support the initiation of clinical trials;- delays in sufficiently developing, characterizing or controlling a manufacturing process suitable for advanced clinical trials;- delays in sourcing or qualifying ancillaries required for administration of our clinical drug product (such as vials, stoppers, or tubing);- delays in developing suitable assays for screening patients for eligibility for trials with respect to certain product candidates;- delays in reaching agreement with the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities as to the design or implementation of our clinical trials;- failure to obtain regulatory approval to commence a clinical trial;- failure to reach an agreement on acceptable terms with clinical trial sites or prospective CROs, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different clinical trial sites;- inability to obtain IRB approval for each clinical trial site;- inability to recruit suitable patients to participate in a clinical trial in a timely manner;- failure to have patients complete a clinical trial or return for post-treatment follow-up;- deviations by clinical trial sites, CROs or other third parties from trial protocol;- failure to perform our planned clinical trials in accordance with the FDA's cGCP requirements, or applicable regulatory guidelines in other countries;- inability to address patient-safety concerns that arise during the course of a trial, including occurrence of adverse events associated with the product candidate that are viewed to outweigh its potential benefits;- failure to initiate a sufficient number of clinical trial sites; or - delays in manufacturing sufficient quantities of a product candidate for use in clinical trials. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates or significantly increase the cost of such trials, including: - we may experience changes in regulatory requirements or guidance, or receive feedback from regulatory authorities, that require us to modify the design of our clinical trials;- clinical trials of our product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or halt development programs;- the number of patients required for clinical trials of our product candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate, or participants may drop out of these clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate;- our third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all;- we, our investigators or regulators may suspend or terminate clinical trials of our product candidates for various reasons, including non-compliance with regulatory requirements, a finding that our product candidates have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;- the cost of clinical trials of our product candidates may be greater than we anticipate, and we may not have funds to cover the costs;- the supply or quality of our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate;- regulators may revise the requirements for approving our product candidates, or such requirements may not be as we anticipate; and - any future collaborators that conduct clinical trials may face any of the above issues and may conduct clinical trials in ways they view as advantageous to them but that are suboptimal for us. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully initiate or complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may: - incur unplanned costs;- be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates or not obtain marketing approval at all;- obtain marketing approval in some countries and not in others;- obtain marketing approval for diseases or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired;- obtain marketing approval with labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings, including boxed warnings REMS;- be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements; or - have the product removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval. We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. All of our product candidates will require extensive clinical testing before we are prepared to submit a BLA, or marketing authorization application, or MAA, for regulatory approval. We cannot predict with any certainty if or when we might complete the clinical development for our product candidates and submit a BLA or MAA for regulatory approval of any of our product candidates or whether any such BLA or MAA will be approved. We may also seek feedback from the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities on our clinical development program, and the FDA, EMA or such regulatory authorities may not provide such feedback on a timely basis, or such feedback may not be favorable, which could further delay our development programs. We cannot predict with any certainty whether or when we might complete a given clinical trial. If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical trials, or if we terminate a clinical trial prior to completion, the commercial prospects of our product candidates could be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues from our product candidates may be delayed or lost. In addition, any delays in our clinical trials could increase our costs, slow down the 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 results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Because we have limited financial and management resources, we must focus on development programs and product candidates that we identify for specific diseases. As such, currently we are primarily focused on the development of our current pipeline of product candidates. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future development programs and product candidates for specific diseases may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.