Stoke Therapeutics (STOK) Risk Analysis

As part of our business strategy for STK-001, we received Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of Dravet syndrome in the United States in 2019 and also in the EU in 2022. As part of our business strategy for STK-002, we received Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of autosomal dominant optic atrophy (ADOA) in the United States in 2022. We may seek such designations for our product candidates in other countries as well. However, Orphan Drug Designation does not guarantee future orphan drug marketing exclusivity, and there is no guarantee that we will be successful in obtaining such designation for our future product candidates. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs intended to treat relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. In the United States, Orphan Drug Designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for tax credits for qualified clinical research costs and exemption from prescription drug user fees. Similarly, in the EU, the European Commission grants Orphan Drug Designation after receiving the opinion of the EMA's Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products on an Orphan Drug Designation application. In the EU, Orphan Drug Designation is intended to promote the development of drug that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU and for which no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment has been authorized (or the product would be a significant benefit to those affected). In the EU, Orphan Drug Designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers. Generally, if a drug with an Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes EMA or the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug and indication for that time period, except in limited circumstances. If a competitor is able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity prior to us for a product that constitutes the same active moiety and treats the same indications as our product candidates, we may not be able to obtain approval of our drug by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time unless we are able to show that our drug is clinically superior to the approved drug. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the EU. The EU exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for Orphan Drug Designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can also subsequently approve a later application for the same drug for the same condition 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. In addition, a designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. 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. The orphan drug exclusivity contained in the Orphan Drug Act has been the subject of recent scrutiny from the press, from some members of Congress and from some in the medical community. Furthermore, the FDA's interpretations of the Orphan Drug Act have not been successfully challenged in court and future court decisions could continue that trend. There can be no assurances that the exclusivity granted to orphan drugs approved by the FDA will not be modified in the future, or as to how any such changes might affect our products, if approved.

We may seek a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for STK-001, STK-002 or one or more of our future product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drugs 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 designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time of the submission of the NDA. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is at the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates 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 drug may not result in a faster development process, review, or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and it would not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or it may decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Although other ASOs have received regulatory approval, our method of seeking to upregulate protein expression by targeting the underlying genetic causes of haploinsufficiencies presents a new approach to disease treatment, which means there is uncertainty associated with the safety profile of STK-001, STK-002 or our future product candidates and drugs in the antisense oligonucleotide class. In addition to side effects caused by our product candidates, the intrathecal or intravitreal administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. If any such adverse events occur, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated. If we are unable to demonstrate that any adverse events were caused by the administration process or related procedures, the FDA, the European Commission, the EMA, the U.K. MHRA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Even if we can demonstrate that all future 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 adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. Finally, SPINRAZA, which is produced by Biogen Inc., is an ASO therapy utilizing intrathecal delivery, and if SPINRAZA is found to cause undesirable side effects or to be unsafe due to a potential class effect, it may adversely affect demand for STK-001 and our other future product candidates. Other ASOs in clinical development utilizing intrathecal delivery could also generate data that could adversely affect the clinical, regulatory or commercial perception of STK-001 and our other future product candidates. Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the FDA could require us to adopt a REMS to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks, which may include, for example, a Medication Guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients and a communication plan to health care practitioners, or other elements to assure safe use of the product. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidate, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: - regulatory authorities may suspend or withdraw approvals of such product candidate;- regulatory authorities may require additional warnings in the labeling;- we may be required to change the way a product candidate is administered or conduct additional clinical trials;- we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; and - our reputation may suffer. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

Prior to commercialization, STK-001, STK-002, and our other future product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to an NDA in the United States and pursuant to similar marketing applications by the EMA and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive and takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate. We have not received approval to market STK-001, STK-002 or any of our other future product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have no experience in submitting and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals, and, in the event regulatory authorities indicate that we may submit such applications, we may be unable to do so as quickly and efficiently as desired. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate's safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept or file any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Approval of STK-001, STK-002 and our other future product candidates may be delayed or refused for many reasons, including: - the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;- we may be unable to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that our product candidates are safe and effective for any of their proposed indications;- the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance or clinical meaningfulness required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval;- we may be unable to demonstrate that our product candidates' clinical and other benefits outweigh their safety risks;- the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical programs or clinical trials;- the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of an NDA or other comparable submission in foreign jurisdictions or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere;- the facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract or procure certain service or raw materials may not be adequate to support approval of our product candidates;- the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval; and - potential delays in enrollment, site visits, evaluations, or dosing of patients participating in the clinical trial as hospitals face staffing shortages, whether due to labor relations or otherwise, or patients decide to not enroll in the study as a result of or such staffing shortages. Even if our product candidates meet their safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials, a potential temporary federal government shutdown and the review process. Regulatory authorities also may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings or a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy ("REMS"). These regulatory authorities may require precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use or they may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. While currently we are not experiencing any significant delays or disruptions to our clinical trials as a result of hospital staffing shortages or global macroeconomic conditions, we take into consideration such shortages and conditions may directly or indirectly impact our clinical trial enrollment, dosing, and regulatory approval timelines.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, including STK-001 and STK-002, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Clinical trials may be placed on a full or partial clinical hold by the FDA, foreign regulatory authorities, or us for various reasons, including but not limited to: deficiencies in the conduct of the clinical trials, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or clinical protocols; deficiencies in the clinical trial operations or trial sites; deficiencies in the trial designs necessary to demonstrate efficacy; fatalities or other adverse effects arising during a clinical trial due to medical problems that may or may not be related to clinical trial treatments; the product candidates may not appear to be more effective than current therapies; the quality or stability of the product candidates may fall below acceptable standards; or the data from animal studies are not sufficient to support the anticipated exposure (dose, route of administration, and duration) for the proposed clinical trial. For example, in March 2020, we announced that the FDA had placed a partial clinical hold on doses of STK-001 above 20mg in the MONARCH study based on observations of adverse hind limb paresis in non-human primates, pending additional preclinical testing. The partial clinical hold remains in place in the MONARCH study for single and multiple doses above 70mg, and in the SWALLOWTAIL open-label extension study for chronic doses above 45mg. Although we have now announced end of study data from the MONARCH study, if the partial clinical hold is not lifted, our ability to successfully conclude other studies related to STK-001, and our business, results of operations and financial condition, may be adversely affected. In addition, we, the FDA, foreign regulatory authorities, or an IRB or similar foreign review board or committee, may delay initiation of, suspend or limit dose escalation of clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including if we or they believe the healthy volunteer subjects or patients participating in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks. Among other reasons, adverse side effects of a product candidate or a related product in preclinical trials or on healthy volunteer subjects or patients in a clinical trial could result in such a decision. For example, in November 2022, we announced our decision to limit chronic dosing in the open-label extension studies to 30mg in SWALLOWTAIL in the U.S. and 45mg in LONGWING in the U.K. Our decision at that time was based on interactions with regulatory agencies and a review of interim chronic toxicology data from a study in NHPs in which the total drug administered to NHPs over a 1-year period was substantially higher than what we would anticipate giving to participants in clinical trials.

STK-001 is currently being evaluated in human clinical trials, and we may experience unexpected or negative results in the future. We will be required to demonstrate through adequate and well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective, with a favorable benefit-risk profile, for use in their target indications before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. The positive results we have observed for our product candidates in preclinical animal models may not be predictive of our future clinical trials in humans, as mouse models carry inherent limitations relevant to all preclinical studies. In particular, the Dravet syndrome mouse model is more severe than the human disease and provides a shorter post-symptomatic observation period. Trial designs and results from early-phase trials are not necessarily predictive of future clinical trial designs or results, and initial positive results we may observe may not be confirmed in later-phase clinical trials. For example, although we recently reported end of study data from our Phase 1/2a open-label studies of STK-001 demonstrating a reduction in median convulsive seizure frequency compared to baseline, these results were based on pooling data from the Phase 1/2a open-label studies of STK-001 in the United States (MONARCH) and in the United Kingdom (ADMIRAL) and additional trials may not confirm these results. Our product candidates may also fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in later stages of clinical development even if they successfully advance through initial clinical trials, and preliminary interim data readouts of ongoing trials may show results that change when such trials are completed. We may not be able to demonstrate a disease-modifying effect of STK-001 in our clinical trials in Dravet syndrome patients, even if we are able to demonstrate efficacy on seizure reduction, and we may be similarly unable to demonstrate the efficacy of STK-002 in our ADOA program or other future programs. In addition, our clinical trials to date have necessarily involved relatively small numbers of participants. Therefore, conclusions we draw based upon trial results to date may not be repeatable across larger cohorts of participants or patients with different characteristics. Moreover, even if our clinical trials demonstrate acceptable safety and efficacy of STK-001, STK-002 or our future product candidates, the labeling we obtain through negotiations with the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may not include data on secondary endpoints and may not provide us with a competitive advantage over other products approved for the same or similar indications. Many companies in the biotechnology industry have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development and there is a high failure rate for product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. In addition, different methodologies, assumptions and applications we utilize to assess particular safety or efficacy parameters may yield different statistical results. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, these data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. Preclinical and clinical data can be interpreted in different ways. Accordingly, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities could interpret these data in different ways from us or our partners, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. If our study data do not consistently or sufficiently demonstrate the safety or efficacy of any of our product candidates, including STK-001 for Dravet syndrome or STK-002 for ADOA, then the regulatory approvals for such product candidates could be significantly delayed as we work to meet approval requirements, or, if we are not able to meet these requirements, such approvals could be withheld or withdrawn. Regulatory delays or rejections may be encountered as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development. We cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks.