SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019
Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the transition period from to
Commission file number: 0-27756
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
121 Seaport Boulevard, Boston Massachusetts 02210
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock $0.0001 par value
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and "emerging growth company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☐
Accelerated filer ☐ Emerging growth company ☐
Non-accelerated filer ☐
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☒
The aggregate market value of the Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based upon the last sale price of the Common Stock reported on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC on June 28, 2019, was $28,243,087,610.(1)
$0.0001 par value
Outstanding as of January 29, 2020
(1) Excludes 8,615,902 shares of common stock held by directors, executive officers and their respective affiliates at June 28, 2019. Exclusion of shares held by any person should not be construed to indicate that such person possesses the power, directly or indirectly, to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of the registrant, or that such person is controlled by or under common control with the registrant.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement to be used in connection with its 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders currently anticipated to be held on May 13, 2020, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Table of Contents
Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this report to “Alexion,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” or “us” refer to Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its subsidiaries.
Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements. Words such as “anticipates,” “may,” “forecasts,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “potentially,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict; therefore, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or forecasted in any such statements. Such forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry and business, management's beliefs, and certain assumptions made by our management, and may include, but are not limited to, statements regarding:
the potential benefits and commercial potential of ULTOMIRIS®, SOLIRIS®, STRENSIQ® and KANUMA® for approved indications and any expanded uses;
sales of our products in various markets worldwide, pricing for our products, level of insurance coverage and reimbursement for our products, timing regarding development and regulatory approvals for our products or for additional indications or in additional territories;
plans for clinical trials (and proof of concept trials and exploratory clinical studies), status of our ongoing clinical trials for our product candidates, commencement dates for new clinical trials, clinical trial results and evaluation of our clinical trial results by regulatory agencies;
potential benefits offered by product candidates, including improved dosing intervals and potential to improve treatment in a number of IgG-mediated and neurological diseases;
the medical and commercial potential of additional indications for our products;
the expected timing for the completion and/or regulatory approval of our facilities and facilities of our third-party manufacturers;
future expansion of our commercial organization and transition to third-parties in certain jurisdictions to perform sales, marketing and distribution functions;
future governmental and regulatory decisions regarding pricing (and discounts) and the adoption, implementation and interpretation of healthcare laws and regulations (and the impact on our business);
plans and prospects for future regulatory approval of products and product candidates;
competitors, potential competitors and future competitive products (including biosimilars);
plans to grow our product pipeline (and diversify our business, including through acquisitions) and anticipated benefits to the Company;
future objective to expand business and sales;
future plans to retain earnings and not pay dividends;
expected decisions to appeal certain litigation and intellectual property decisions;
expectations to realize the carrying value of product inventory;
impact of accounting standards;
future costs, operating expenses (including research and development, sales, general and administrative and restructuring expenses) and capital requirements, capital investment, sufficiency of cash to fund operations for at least the next 12 months, ability to make payment on our credit facility and make contingent payment obligations, the sufficiency of our existing capital resources and projected cash needs, price approval and funding processes in various countries;
the sources of expected increases in cash flow from operations, if any;
anticipated impact of interest rate changes on financial statements;
anticipated future milestone, contingent and royalty payments and lease payments (and, in each case, expected impact on liquidity);
timing and anticipated amounts of future tax payments and benefits (including the potential recognition of unrecognized tax benefits), as well as timing of conclusion of tax audits;
collection of accounts receivable and impact of any delay in the future in collecting accounts receivable on financial condition and operations, as well as the ability of counterparties to our derivatives to perform their obligations;
the safety and efficacy of our products and our product candidates;
the adequacy of our pharmacovigilance and drug safety reporting processes;
the uncertainties involved in the drug development process and manufacturing;
performance and reliance on third party service providers;
our future research and development activities, plans for acquired programs, our ability to develop and commercialize products with our collaborators and anticipated regulatory approval of acquisitions;
periods of patent, regulatory and market exclusivity for our products;
the scope of our intellectual property and the outcome of any challenges or opposition to our intellectual property; and
estimates of the capacity of manufacturing and other service facilities to support our business, operations, products and product candidates.
Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, increased competition, actions by regulatory agencies, product candidates not receiving regulatory approvals, the possibility that expected tax benefits will not be realized, assessment of impact of recent accounting pronouncements, potential declines in sovereign credit ratings or sovereign defaults in countries where we sell our products, delay of collection or reduction in reimbursement due to adverse economic conditions or changes in government and private insurer regulations and approaches to reimbursement, uncertainties surrounding legal proceedings, company investigations and government investigations and assessments, including our Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations, the securities class action litigation filed in December 2016, the investigation of our Brazilian operations by Brazilian authorities, the tax assessment by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service, risks related to the short and long-term effects of other government healthcare measures, intellectual property lawsuits and the institution of Inter Partes Reviews, and the effect of shifting foreign exchange rates, as well as those risks and uncertainties discussed later in this report under the section entitled “Risk Factors.” Unless required by law, we undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether because of new information, future events or otherwise. However, readers should carefully review the risk factors set forth in this and other reports or documents we file from time to time with the SEC.
Note Regarding Trademarks
We have proprietary rights to a number of registered and unregistered trademarks worldwide that we believe are important to our business, including but not limited to: ALEXION, the Alexion logo, ULTOMIRIS, SOLIRIS, STRENSIQ and KANUMA. We have, in certain cases, omitted the ®, © and ™ designations for these and other trademarks used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Nevertheless, all rights to such trademarks are reserved. These and other trademarks referenced in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners.
Item 1. BUSINESS.
(dollars and shares in millions)
Alexion is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on serving patients and families affected by rare diseases through the discovery, development and commercialization of life-changing therapies.
As the global leader in complement biology and inhibition for more than 20 years, Alexion has developed and commercializes two approved complement inhibitors to treat patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), as well as the first and only approved complement inhibitor to treat anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) in patients who are anti-aquaporin-4 (AQP4) antibody positive. Alexion also has two highly innovative enzyme replacement therapies and the first and only approved therapies for patients with life-threatening and ultra-rare metabolic disorders, hypophosphatasia (HPP) and lysosomal acid lipase deficiency (LAL-D).
In addition to our marketed therapies, we have a diverse pipeline resulting from internal innovation and business development. Alexion focuses its research efforts on novel molecules and targets in the complement cascade and its development efforts on the core therapeutic areas of hematology, nephrology, neurology, metabolic disorders and cardiology. We were incorporated in 1992 under the laws of the State of Delaware.
Products and Development Programs
We focus our product development programs on life-transforming therapeutics for rare diseases for which current treatments are either non-existent or inadequate. We have developed or are developing innovative products for, among others, the following indications:
Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria (PNH)
PNH is a chronic, progressive, debilitating and life-threatening ultra-rare blood disorder characterized by intravascular hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells) that is mediated by an uncontrolled activation of the complement system, a part of the immune system. Chronic hemolysis in patients with PNH may be associated with life-threatening thromboses, recurrent pain, kidney disease, disabling fatigue, impaired quality of life, severe anemia, pulmonary hypertension, shortness of breath and intermittent episodes of dark-colored urine (hemoglobinuria).
Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (aHUS)
aHUS is a severe and life-threatening, ultra-rare genetic disease characterized by chronic uncontrolled complement activation and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), the formation of blood clots in small blood vessels throughout the body, causing a reduction in platelet count (thrombocytopenia) and life-threatening damage to the kidney, brain, heart and other vital organs.
Generalized Myasthenia Gravis (gMG)
Myasthenia Gravis (MG) is a debilitating, complement-mediated neuromuscular disease in which patients suffer profound muscle weakness throughout the body, resulting in slurred speech, impaired swallowing and choking, double vision, upper and lower extremity weakness, disabling fatigue, shortness of breath due to respiratory muscle weakness and episodes of respiratory failure.
HPP is an ultra-rare genetic and progressive metabolic disease in which patients experience devastating effects on multiple systems of the body, leading to debilitating or life-threatening complications. HPP is characterized by defective bone mineralization that can lead to deformity of bones and other skeletal abnormalities, as well as systemic complications such as profound muscle weakness, seizures, pain, and respiratory failure leading to premature death in infants.
Lysosomal Acid Lipase Deficiency (LAL Deficiency or LAL-D)
LAL-D is a serious, life-threatening ultra-rare disease associated with premature mortality and significant morbidity. LAL-D is a chronic disease in which genetic mutations result in decreased activity of the LAL enzyme that leads to marked accumulation of lipids in vital organs, blood vessels, and other tissues, resulting in progressive and systemic organ damage including hepatic fibrosis, cirrhosis, liver failure, accelerated atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, and other devastating consequences.
Relapsing Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder (NMOSD)
Relapsing NMOSD is a severe and ultra-rare autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that primarily affects the optic nerves and the spinal cord. Each relapse of the disorder results in a stepwise accumulation of disability, including blindness and paralysis, and sometimes premature death. Complement activation due to anti-AQP4 antibodies is one of the primary underlying causes of the destruction of vital cells in the central nervous system in patients with NMOSD.
Wilson disease is a rare disorder, characterized by excess copper stored in various body tissues, that can lead to severe liver disease, including cirrhosis and acute liver failure, as well as debilitating neurological morbidities such as impaired movement, gait, speech, swallowing, and psychiatric disorders.
Warm Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia (WAIHA)
WAIHA is a rare autoimmune disorder caused by pathogenic Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies that react with and cause the premature destruction of red blood cells at normal body temperature. The disease is often characterized by profound, and potentially life-threatening anemia and other acute complications, including severe and life-threatening hemolysis, severe weakness, enlarged spleen and/or liver, rapid heart rate (tachycardia), chest pain, heart failure and fainting (syncope).
Our marketed products include the following:
Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria (PNH)
Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (aHUS)
Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria (PNH)
Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (aHUS)
Generalized Myasthenia Gravis (gMG)
Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder (NMOSD)
Lysosomal Acid Lipase Deficiency (LAL-D)
ULTOMIRIS is an innovative, long-acting C5 inhibitor discovered and developed by Alexion that works by inhibiting the C5 protein in the terminal complement cascade. In clinical studies, ULTOMIRIS demonstrated rapid, complete, and sustained reduction of free C5 levels.
In December 2018, ULTOMIRIS was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a new treatment option for adult patients with PNH in the U.S.
ULTOMIRIS was approved as a new treatment option for adult patients with PNH by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan in June 2019. ULTOMIRIS was approved by the European Commission (EC) in July 2019 as a treatment for adult patients with PNH with hemolysis with clinical symptoms indicative of high disease activity, and also for adult patients who are clinically stable after having been treated with SOLIRIS for at least the past six months.
In August 2019, the European Medicines Agency accepted a Type 2 variation application for the use of ULTOMIRIS as a potential treatment for adult and pediatric patients with aHUS.
In September 2019, Alexion submitted an application to the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) for use of ULTOMIRIS as a potential treatment for patients with aHUS.
In October 2019, the FDA approved the use of ULTOMIRIS as a treatment for adult and pediatric (one month of age or older) patients with aHUS to inhibit complement-mediated TMA.
SOLIRIS is an innovative C5 inhibitor discovered and developed by Alexion that works by inhibiting the C5 protein in the terminal complement cascade. SOLIRIS is a humanized monoclonal antibody that effectively blocks terminal complement activity at the doses currently prescribed.
SOLIRIS is approved for the treatment of PNH and aHUS in pediatric and adult patients in the U.S., Europe, Japan and in several other countries. We are sponsoring multinational registries to gather information regarding the natural history of patients with PNH and aHUS and the longer-term outcomes during SOLIRIS treatment.
In 2017, the FDA and EC regulatory authority approved SOLIRIS for the treatment of gMG in adults who are anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibody-positive. Additionally, in 2017 the MHLW in Japan approved SOLIRIS as a treatment for patients with gMG who are AChR antibody-positive and whose symptoms are difficult to control with high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin therapy or plasmapheresis (PLEX).
In June 2019, SOLIRIS became the first FDA-approved treatment option for adult patients with NMOSD who are AQP4 auto antibody positive. In August 2019, the EC approved SOLIRIS as the first treatment in Europe for NMOSD in adults who are AQP4 antibody-positive with a relapsing course of the disease. In November 2019, the Japanese MHLW approved SOLIRIS as a treatment for the prevention of relapse in patients with AQP4 antibody-positive NMOSD, including Neuromyelitis Optica.
STRENSIQ (asfotase alfa)
STRENSIQ, a targeted enzyme replacement therapy, is the first and only approved therapy for patients with HPP and is designed to directly address underlying causes of HPP by aiming to restore the genetically defective metabolic process, thereby preventing or reversing the severe and potentially life-threatening complications in patients with HPP. STRENSIQ is approved in the U.S. for patients with perinatal-, infantile- and juvenile-onset HPP, Europe for the treatment of patients with pediatric-onset HPP, and Japan for the treatment of patients with HPP. We are sponsoring a multinational registry to gather information regarding the natural history of patients with HPP and the longer-term outcomes during STRENSIQ treatment.
KANUMA (sebelipase alfa)
KANUMA, a recombinant form of the human LAL enzyme, is the only enzyme-replacement therapy that is approved for the treatment for patients with LAL-D. KANUMA is approved in the U.S. for the treatment of patients with LAL-D, Europe for long-term enzyme replacement therapy in patients with LAL-D, and Japan for the treatment of patients with LAL-D. We are sponsoring a multinational registry to gather information regarding the natural history of patients with LAL-D and the longer-term outcomes during KANUMA treatment.
Clinical Development Programs
Our ongoing clinical development programs include the following:
ALXN1810 (ALXN1210 with rHuPH20)
Next Generation Subcutaneous Complement Inhibitor
Next Generation Subcutaneous Complement Inhibitor
In addition to our ongoing development programs, we hold a minority interest and option to acquire Caelum Biosciences (Caelum), a biotechnology company that is developing CAEL-101 for light chain (AL) amyloidosis. CAEL-101 is a first-in-class monoclonal antibody (mAb) designed to improve organ function by reducing or eliminating amyloid deposits in the tissues and organs of patients with AL amyloidosis. A Phase 1a/1b study for CAEL-101 has been completed. Following discussions with the FDA, expanded Phase II/III trials for CAEL-101 are expected to begin in the second quarter 2020.
In January 2020, Alexion acquired Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Achillion). The acquisition adds two oral Factor D inhibitors, danicopan (ACCH-4771) and ACH-5228, to treat rare diseases associated with the complement alternative pathway to Alexion’s clinical-stage pipeline. Phase III development is being initiated for danicopan as an add-on therapy for PNH patients with extravascular hemolysis (EVH). Danicopan is also in Phase II development for C3 glomerulopathy (C3G) and ACH-5228 is in Phase II development for PNH.
ULTOMIRIS is an innovative, long-acting C5 inhibitor discovered and developed by Alexion that works by inhibiting the C5 protein in the terminal complement cascade. In clinical studies, ALXN1210 demonstrated rapid, complete, and sustained reduction of free C5 levels.
In January 2019, we announced that the Phase III, global, single arm, multicenter study evaluating the safety and efficacy of ALXN1210 administered by IV infusion every 8 weeks to adult patients with aHUS who had never been treated with a complement inhibitor (inhibitor-naïve patients) met its primary objective. In the study's initial 26 week treatment period, 53.6 percent of patients demonstrated complete TMA response. A second Phase III, single arm, multicenter study to evaluate the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmaco-dynamics (PD) of ALXN1210 administered by IV infusion every 8 weeks in inhibitor-naïve pediatric patients (including adolescents) with aHUS is ongoing.
In August 2019, the European Medicines Agency accepted a Type 2 variation application for the use of ULTOMIRIS as a potential treatment for adult and pediatric patients with aHUS. In September 2019, Alexion submitted an application to the Japanese PMDA for use of ULTOMIRIS as a potential treatment for patients with aHUS. In October 2019, the FDA approved ULTOMIRIS for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients (one month of age or older) with aHUS in order to inhibit complement-mediated TMA. In November and December 2019, the Extension Application to register the ULTOMIRIS 100 mg formulation (which is a higher concentration formulation of ULTOMIRIS than the formulation currently commercialized) was submitted to the EMA and to the FDA, respectively.
In March 2019, Alexion initiated a Phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALXN1210 in adult patients for the treatment of gMG. Additionally, in December 2019, Alexion initiated a Phase III, placebo-controlled, open-label, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALXN1210 in adult patients with NMOSD.
In addition to aHUS, NMOSD and gMG, Alexion plans to initiate: (i) a Phase III study for ALXN1210 in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS); (ii) an exploratory clinical study for ALXN1210 in Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS); (iii) Phase III studies of ALXN1210 in adult and pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant-associated thrombotic microangiopathy (HSCT-TMA); and (iv) a Phase III study with ALXN1210 in complement-mediated TMA.
Subcutaneous (SC) Delivery
In March 2019, Alexion initiated a single, PK-based Phase III study of ALXN1210 delivered subcutaneously once per week to PNH patients to support regulatory approval submissions in both PNH and aHUS.
ALXN1810 Subcutaneous (SC) Delivery
ALXN1810 combines ALXN1210 with recombinant human hyaluronidase enzyme (rHuPH20) licensed from Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. to potentially further extend the dosing interval for ALXN1210 SC from once per week to once every two weeks or more. Alexion completed a SC healthy volunteer study with ALXN1810 in December 2018. A proof-of-concept trial in patients with various renal diseases (renal basket study) is expected to be initiated in 2020.
ALXN1720 Subcutaneous (SC) Delivery
ALXN1720 is a novel humanized bi-specific minibody antibody that binds selectively and with high affinity to C5. ALXN1720 is designed for SC administration as a concentrated formulation for the treatment of disease states involving dysregulated terminal complement activity. In September 2019, Alexion initiated a Phase I healthy volunteer study of ALXN1720 to assess safety and tolerability.
ALXN1840 (WTX101), an innovative product candidate that addresses the underlying cause of Wilson disease, is a first-in-class oral copper-binding agent with a unique mechanism of action and ability to access and bind copper from serum and promote its removal from the liver.
Alexion is in the process of completing enrollment in a Phase III study of ALXN 1840 for the treatment of Wilson disease. In addition, ALXN1840 has received Fast Track designation in the U.S.
ALXN1830 (SYNT001) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is designed to inhibit the interaction of the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) with IgG and IgG immune complexes and has the potential to improve treatment in a number of rare IgG-mediated diseases. Alexion plans to re-initiate a Phase II trial in WAIHA during the first quarter of 2020. In addition, Alexion initiated a Phase I study of a SC formulation of ALXN1830 in healthy volunteers in December 2019. A Phase II trial in gMG with the SC formulation is expected to initiate later in 2020 pending, among other things, the successful completion of the Phase I healthy volunteer study.
In March 2019, we entered into an agreement with Affibody AB (Affibody), through which Alexion obtained an exclusive worldwide license, as well as development and commercial rights, to ABY-039, a bivalent antibody-
mimetic that targets the FcRn. Following receipt of applicable antitrust approval, the transaction closed in April 2019. Pursuant to the agreement, Alexion is leading the clinical development and commercial activities for ABY-039 in rare IgG-mediated autoimmune diseases. A Phase I study of single ascending doses and multiple ascending doses is ongoing.
In September 2019, we entered into an agreement with Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. (Eidos), through which Alexion obtained an exclusive license to develop and commercialize AG10 in Japan for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR). AG10 is an orally administered small molecule in development designed to target the root cause of ATTR by stabilizing transthyretin (TTR) in the blood. Eidos is currently evaluating AG10 in a Phase III study in the United States and Europe for ATTR cardiomyopathy and plans to begin a Phase III study in ATTR polyneuropathy in the first quarter of 2020. Alexion plans to expand the AG10 program into Japan through the initiation of a clinical trial for which data would serve as the basis for seeking regulatory approval to commercialize AG10 in Japan.
We utilize both internal manufacturing facilities and third-party contract manufacturers to supply clinical and commercial quantities of our products and product candidates. Our internal manufacturing capability includes our Ireland facilities, a fill/finish facility in Athlone and a packaging facility in Dublin, as well as a production facility in Georgia. Third party contract manufacturers, including Lonza Group AG and its affiliates (Lonza), provide bulk drug substance as well as other manufacturing services like purification, product filling, finishing, packaging, and labeling.
We have various agreements with Lonza through 2030, with remaining total non-cancellable commitments of approximately $1,099.9. If we terminate certain supply agreements with Lonza without cause, we will be required to pay for product scheduled for manufacture under our arrangements. Under an existing arrangement, we pay Lonza a royalty on sales of SOLIRIS that was manufactured at the Alexion Rhode Island Manufacturing Facility (ARIMF) prior to the sale of the facility in 2018. We also pay Lonza a royalty on the sales of ULTOMIRIS and a payment with respect to sales of SOLIRIS manufactured at Lonza facilities. Lonza is in the process of qualifying a new manufacturing facility in New Hampshire that would manufacture STRENSIQ (and commitments entered into under this arrangement are included in the non-cancellable commitments amount noted in the first sentence of this paragraph).
In addition, we have non-cancellable commitments of approximately $60.6 through 2020 with other third-party manufacturers.
In April 2014, we purchased a fill/finish facility in Athlone, Ireland, which has been refurbished to become our first company-owned fill/finish facility. We have also completed construction of a new biologics manufacturing facility at this site and we are currently pursuing regulatory approval.
In May 2015, we announced plans to construct a new biologics manufacturing facility on our existing property in Dublin, Ireland. Construction of this facility has been completed and we are currently pursuing regulatory approval.
Sales and Marketing
We have established a commercial organization to support current and future sales of our products in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific countries, and other territories. Given our focus in rare diseases, we have a relatively small sales force; however, we believe that the size of our sales force is appropriate to effectively market our products due to the incidence and prevalence of rare diseases. If we receive regulatory approval in new territories or for new products or indications, we may expand our own commercial organizations in such territories and market and sell our products through our own sales force in these territories. However, we evaluate each jurisdiction on a country-by-country basis, and, in certain territories, we promote our products in collaboration with marketing partners or rely on relationships with one or more companies with established distribution systems and direct sales forces in certain countries. In addition, in an effort to align the structure of our commercial organization with our re-focused corporate strategy and to realize operational efficiencies, in selected geographies within our international commercial organization, we have transitioned from a direct sales model to an indirect sales model that relies to a greater extent or entirely on third-parties to promote, distribute and sell our products.
Our customers are primarily comprised of distributors, pharmacies, hospitals, hospital buying groups, and other healthcare providers. In some cases, we also sell our products to governments and government agencies.
Our net product sales to four customers, AmerisourceBergen Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc. and PANTHERx Rare Pharmacy, each accounted for more than 10.0% of our total revenues for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 and on a combined basis, accounted for approximately 56.4% and 50.3%, respectively. Our net product sales to three customers, AmerisourceBergen Corporation, McKesson Corporation and Cardinal Health, Inc., each accounted for more than 10.0% of our total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2017
and on a combined basis, accounted for approximately 37.0%.
Because of factors such as the pricing of our products, the limited number of patients, the short period from product sale to patient use and the lack of contractual return rights, customers often carry limited inventory. We monitor inventory within our sales channels to determine whether deferrals are appropriate based on factors such as inventory levels compared to demand, contractual terms, financial strength of distributors and our ability to estimate returns.
Please also see Management’s Discussion and Analysis – Net Product Sales, and Note 19, Segment Information of the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, for financial information by geographic areas.
Intellectual Property Rights and Market Exclusivity
We rely on intellectual property rights to protect our investment in discovering, developing and marketing our marketed products, product candidates and investigational compounds. Accordingly, we own or license rights to many patents in the U.S. and foreign countries that cover our marketed products, product candidates and investigational compounds. We also file and prosecute many patent applications covering new technologies and inventions that we believe are or may become meaningful to our business. In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets, know-how, trademarks, other forms of intellectual property and regulatory exclusivity. Our intellectual property rights have, we believe, material value and we undertake reasonable measures to protect those rights.
Patent rights and regulatory protections are key factors that determine the period of market exclusivity for our products. It is during the period of market exclusivity that our products have their greatest commercial value.
Patents provide a right to exclude others from practicing an invention for a defined period of time. In our business, patents may cover the active ingredients, uses, formulations, doses, administrations, delivery mechanisms, manufacturing processes and other aspects of a product. The period of patent protection for any given product may depend on the expiration date of various patents and may differ from country to country according to the type of patents, the scope of coverage and the remedies for infringement available in a country. Because a significant portion of a biopharmaceutical product’s patent protection can elapse during the course of developing and obtaining regulatory approval of the product, certain countries provide compensatory mechanisms to extend patent terms for the biopharmaceutical products.
Regulatory protections are another source of exclusive rights that contribute toward market exclusivity for our
products. Many developed countries provide such non-patent incentives to develop medicines. For example, countries provide data protection for a period of time after the approval of a new drug, during which regulatory agencies may not rely on the innovator’s data to approve a biosimilar or generic copy. Some countries provide additional incentives to develop medicines for rare diseases, or orphan drugs, and medicines for pediatric patients. Regulatory protections can work in conjunction with patents to strengthen market exclusivity, and in countries where patent protection has expired or does not exist, regulatory protections can be the basis a product’s market exclusivity period. Different forms of regulatory protection are described in the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K titled Government Regulation.
Intellectual property rights in our industry are often disputed. For information regarding legal actions that pertain to ULTOMIRIS and SOLIRIS intellectual property rights, see Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies to the notes to the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
With respect to SOLIRIS, we own an issued U.S. patent that covers the eculizumab composition of matter that will expire in 2021, taking into account patent term extension. We also own other issued U.S. patents that cover the composition, use and formulation of eculizumab, that expire in 2027. SOLIRIS also benefits from orphan drug exclusivity for treating gMG until 2024 and for treating NMOSD until 2026 (orphan drug exclusivity for SOLIRIS for treating PNH and aHUS in the U.S. previously expired). In Europe, we have supplementary protection certificates that extend rights associated with a composition of matter patent until May 2020 in certain countries. SOLIRIS is also protected in Europe by orphan drug exclusivity through late 2023 for aHUS, until 2027 for gMG and until 2029 for NMOSD (orphan drug exclusivity for SOLIRIS for treating PNH in Europe previously expired). In Japan, we own an issued patent that covers the eculizumab composition of matter and will expire in 2027. SOLIRIS is also protected in Japan by orphan drug exclusivity until 2020 for PNH, until 2023 for aHUS, until 2027 for gMG and until 2029 for NMOSD. In addition to the foregoing patent and regulatory protections, we own other patents and pending patent applications that are directed to various aspects of eculizumab and which may provide additional protection for SOLIRIS in the U.S., Europe, Japan and other countries.
On January 21, 2019, the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office determined, following multi-party opposition proceedings, to revoke our European patent No. 2359834, which relates to the formulation of SOLIRIS. This decision is currently under appeal.
With respect to ULTOMIRIS, we own issued U.S., European and Japanese patents that cover the composition of matter, use and formulation of ravulizumab that will expire in 2035. ULTOMIRIS is also protected in the U.S. by regulatory data exclusivity until 2030 and by orphan drug exclusivity for treating PNH through 2025. ULTOMIRIS is also protected in Japan by orphan drug exclusivity for treating PNH until 2029. In addition to the foregoing patent and regulatory protections, we own other patents and pending patent applications that are directed to various aspects of ULTOMIRIS and which may provide additional protection for ULTOMIRIS in the U.S., Europe, Japan and other countries.
With respect to STRENSIQ, we own an issued U.S. patent that covers the asfotase alfa composition of matter that will expire in 2029, including patent term restoration. STRENSIQ is also protected in the U.S. by orphan drug exclusivity until 2022 and by regulatory data exclusivity until 2027. In Europe, we own two issued patents that cover the asfotase alfa composition of matter and these will expire in 2025 and 2028. Additionally, we have received supplementary protection certificates that extend the patent protection until 2030 in many European countries. STRENSIQ is also protected in Europe by orphan drug exclusivity and regulatory data exclusivity until 2025. In Japan, STRENSIQ is protected by an issued patent that covers the asfotase alfa composition of matter until 2028 and by orphan drug exclusivity until 2025. In addition to the foregoing patent and regulatory protections, we own other patents and pending patent applications that are directed to various aspects of STRENSIQ and which may provide additional protection for STRENSIQ in the U.S., Europe, Japan and other countries.
With respect to KANUMA, we own issued patents in the U.S., Europe and other countries that cover methods of using the product to treat LAL-D that will expire in 2031. We maintained the European patent in an opposition proceeding that was favorably resolved in 2017. An exclusively licensed composition of matter patent that has been extended to 2026 via supplementary protection certificates further protects KANUMA in certain European countries. In the U.S., KANUMA also is protected by orphan drug exclusivity until 2022 and by regulatory data exclusivity until 2027. In Europe, it is protected by orphan drug exclusivity and regulatory data exclusivity until 2025. In Japan, KANUMA is protected by orphan drug exclusivity until 2026.
We also own U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications that protect our investigational compounds and product candidates. At present, we do not know whether any such investigational compound or product candidate will be approved for human use and sale.
Asset Acquisition and In-License Agreements
From time to time, we enter into arrangements with third parties, including asset purchase agreements, licensing arrangements, and option agreements in order to advance and obtain technologies and services related to our business. These strategic alliances are intended to strengthen and advance our R&D capabilities and diversify our product pipeline to support the growth of our marketed product base. The arrangements, which generally provide Alexion with rights to specialized technology and intellectual property for the development of potential product candidates, often require us to pay an initial fee and certain agreements call for future payments upon the attainment of agreed upon development, regulatory and/or commercial milestones. These agreements may also require minimum royalty payments based on sales of products developed from the applicable technologies, if any.
Importance of Intellectual Property Exclusivities and Rights
The pharmaceutical industry places considerable importance on obtaining and enforcing patent (including licensed patents), trade secret and other intellectual property protection for new therapies, technologies, products, services and processes. Our success therefore depends, in part, on our ability to obtain and enforce our patents (including licensed patents) and other intellectual property rights necessary to protect our current and future products, to obtain and preserve our trade secrets and other confidential intellectual property and to avoid or neutralize intellectual property threats from third parties. The existence of patents does not guarantee our right to practice the patented technology or commercialize the patented product. Litigation, oppositions, inter partes reviews or other proceedings are, have been and may in the future be necessary in some instances to determine the validity and scope of certain of our patents, regulatory exclusivities or other proprietary rights, and in other instances to determine the validity, scope or non-infringement of certain patent rights claimed by third parties to be pertinent to the manufacture, use or sale of our products. We may also face challenges to our patents, regulatory exclusivities and other proprietary rights covering our products by manufacturers of biosimilars. For additional information, see Item 1A, Risk Factors - Risks Related to Intellectual Property elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (including a recent European Patent Office ruling to revoke a
previously issued patent relating to the formulation of SOLIRIS).
Drug Development and Approval in the United States
The preclinical studies and clinical testing, manufacture, labeling, storage, record keeping, advertising, promotion, pharmacovigilance reporting, export, and marketing, among other things, of our products and product candidates, including ULTOMIRIS, SOLIRIS, STRENSIQ and KANUMA, are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the U.S., the EU, Japan and other territories. In the U.S., pharmaceutical products are regulated by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and other laws, including, in the case of biologics, the Public Health Service Act. Our four approved products are regulated by the FDA as biologics. Biologics require the submission of a Biologics License Application (BLA) and approval by the FDA prior to being marketed in the U.S. In the case of KANUMA, which is derived from egg whites from select hens, we also submitted a New Animal Drug Application (NADA) for approval by the FDA. Manufacturers of biologics and drugs derived from animal origin may also be subject to state regulation. We also have product candidates, including the Factor D assets from the Achillion acquisition and ALXN1840 that are small molecule compounds and, if we complete trials and request approval to market these products, these small molecules require the submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the FDA. Failure to comply with FDA and state requirements, both before and after product approval, may subject us and/or our partners, distributors, contract manufacturers, and suppliers to administrative or judicial sanctions, including FDA refusal to approve applications, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, fines and/or criminal prosecution.
The process for obtaining regulatory approval to market a biologic or small molecule is expensive, often takes many years, and can vary substantially based on the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates involved. The steps required before a biologic may be approved for marketing of an indication in the U.S. generally include:
(1) preclinical laboratory tests and animal tests;
(2) submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug (IND) application for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may commence;
(3) adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for its intended use;
(4) submission to the FDA of a BLA, supplemental BLA, NDA or supplemental NDA;
(5) FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing sites identified in the BLA or NDA; and
(6) FDA review and approval of the BLA, supplemental BLA, NDA or supplemental NDA.
Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as toxicological and pharmacological animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product candidate. Preclinical safety tests intended for submission to FDA must be conducted in compliance with FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) regulations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application which must become effective before human clinical trials may be commenced. The IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, before that time, raises concerns about the drug candidate or the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND. The IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can proceed. We cannot assure you that submission of an IND will result in FDA authorization to commence clinical trials or that once commenced, other concerns will not arise that will prevent the trials from moving forward. FDA may stop the clinical trials by placing them on “clinical hold” because of concerns about the safety of the product being tested, or for other reasons.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or to patients, under the supervision of qualified principal investigators. The conduct of clinical trials is subject to extensive regulation, including compliance with the FDA’s bioresearch monitoring regulations and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) requirements, which establish standards for conducting, recording data from, and reporting the results of clinical trials, and are intended to assure that the data and reported results are credible and accurate, and that the rights, safety, and well-being of study participants are protected. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with protocols that detail the objectives of the study, the criteria for determining subject eligibility, the dosing plan, patient monitoring requirements, timely reporting of adverse events, and other elements necessary to ensure patient safety, and any efficacy criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to FDA as part of the IND; further, each clinical study at each clinical site must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, prior to the recruitment of subjects. The institutional review board’s role is to protect the rights and welfare
of human subjects involved in clinical studies by evaluating, among other things, the potential risks and benefits to subjects, processes for obtaining informed consent, monitoring of data to ensure subject safety, and provisions to protect the subjects’ privacy. Foreign studies conducted under an IND application must meet the same requirements that apply to studies being conducted in the U.S. Data from a foreign study not conducted under an IND may be submitted in support of a BLA if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP and FDA is able to validate the data.
Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap and different trials may be initiated with the same drug candidate within the same phase of development in similar or differing patient populations. Phase I studies may be conducted in a limited number of patients, but are usually conducted in healthy volunteer subjects. The drug is usually tested for safety and, as appropriate, for absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion, pharmaco-dynamics and pharmaco-kinetics. Phase II usually involves studies in a larger, but still limited patient population to evaluate preliminarily the efficacy of the drug candidate for specific, targeted indications; to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage; and to identify possible short-term adverse effects and safety risks.
Phase III trials are undertaken to gather additional information to evaluate the product’s overall risk-benefit profile, and to provide a basis for physician labeling. Phase III trials evaluate clinical efficacy of a specific endpoint(s) and test further for safety within an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites. Phase I, Phase II or Phase III testing might not be completed successfully within any specific time period, if at all, with respect to any of our product candidates. Results from one trial are not necessarily predictive of results from later trials. Furthermore, the FDA, sponsor or institutional review board may suspend clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.
We must register each controlled clinical trial, other than Phase I trials, on a website administered by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (http://clinicaltrials.gov). Registration must occur no later than 21 days after the first patient is enrolled, and the submission must include descriptive information (e.g., a summary in lay terms of the study design, type and desired outcome), recruitment information (e.g., target number of participants and whether healthy volunteers are accepted), location and contact information, and other administrative data (e.g., FDA identification numbers). Within one year of a trial’s completion, information about the trial including characteristics of the patient sample, primary and secondary outcomes, trial results written in lay and technical terms, and the full trial protocol must be submitted to the NIH. The
results information is posted to the website unless the drug has not yet been approved, in which case the NIH posts the information shortly after approval. A BLA, BLA supplement, and certain other submissions to the FDA require certification of compliance with these clinical trials database requirements.
The results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including information on the manufacture and composition of the product and proposed labeling for the product, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA or NDA requesting approval to market the product candidate for a proposed indication. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended, the fees payable to the FDA for reviewing a BLA or NDA, as well as annual fees for commercial manufacturing establishments and for approved products, can be substantial. The review fee alone can exceed $2.0 subject to certain limited deferrals, waivers and reductions that may be available. Each BLA and NDA submitted to the FDA for approval is typically reviewed for administrative completeness and reviewability within sixty days following submission of the application. If the FDA finds the submission sufficiently complete, the FDA will “file” the application, thus triggering a full review of the application. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA or NDA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission. FDA performance goals provide for action on an application within 12 months of submission. The FDA, however, may not approve a drug within these established goals and its review goals are subject to change from time to time because the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. As part of its review, the FDA may refer the BLA or NDA to an advisory committee composed of outside experts for evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. Although the FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, the agency usually has followed such recommendations.
Further, the outcome of the review, even if generally favorable, may not be an actual approval but instead a “complete response letter” communicating the FDA’s decision not to approve the application, outlining the deficiencies in the application, and identifying what information and/or data (including additional pre-clinical or clinical data) is required before the application can be approved. Even if such additional information and data are submitted, the FDA may decide that the application still does not meet the standards for approval. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we do.
Before approving a BLA or NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured and will not approve the product unless the facilities comply with the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) requirements. The FDA
may deny approval of an application if applicable statutory or regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or may require additional testing or information. FDA approval of any BLA or NDA may include many delays and requests for additional information or never be granted. If a product is approved, the approval will impose limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed, may require that warning statements be included in the product labeling, and may require that additional studies be conducted following approval as a condition of the approval. The FDA also may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing or dispensing in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. A REMS may include various elements, ranging from a medication guide to limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug, depending on what the FDA considers necessary for the safe use of the drug. To market a product for other indicated uses, or to make certain manufacturing or other changes, requires FDA review and approval of a BLA supplement or new BLA (or NDA or NDA supplement in the case of a small molecule compound) and the payment of applicable review fees. Further post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of a product may be required. In addition, new government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development.
In 2010, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) was enacted, creating a statutory pathway for licensure, or approval, of biological products that are biosimilar to, and possibly interchangeable with, reference biological products licensed under the Public Health Service Act. The objectives of the BPCIA are conceptually similar to those of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the “Hatch-Waxman Act”, which established abbreviated pathways for the approval of small molecule drug products. Under the BPCIA, innovator manufacturers of original reference biological products are granted 12 years of exclusive use before biosimilar versions of such products can be licensed for marketing in the U.S. This means that the FDA may not approve an application for a biosimilar version of a reference biological product until 12 years after the date of approval of the reference biological product (with a potential six-month extension of exclusivity if certain pediatric studies are conducted and the results reported to FDA), although a biosimilar application may be submitted four years after the date of licensure of the reference biological product. Additionally, the BPCIA establishes procedures by which the biosimilar applicant must provide information about its application and product to the reference product sponsor, and by which information about potentially relevant patents is shared and litigation over patents may proceed in advance of approval. The BPCIA also provides a period
of exclusivity for the first biosimilar to be determined by the FDA to be interchangeable with the reference product.
The FDA has released numerous guidance documents interpreting the BPCIA in recent years. These guidance documents, among other things, elaborate on the definition of a biosimilar as a biological product that is highly similar to an already approved biological product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components, and for which there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the approved biological product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency. The FDA has also released final guidance documents on the assignment of clearly distinguishable nonproprietary product names for both biologic and biosimilar products, labeling for biosimilar products, considerations in demonstrating interchangeability with a reference product, including a biologic, and questions and answers on issues involving biosimilar development.
The FDA approved the first biosimilar product under the BPCIA in 2015 and, as of December 2019, twenty six (26) biosimilar products have been approved in total. The agency continues to refine the procedures and standards it will apply in implementing this approval pathway. In July 2018, the FDA issued a Biosimilars Action Plan, asserting its intent to take steps to facilitate biosimilars competition. We anticipate that the contours of the BPCIA will continue to be defined as the statute is implemented over a period of years. This likely will be accomplished by a variety of means, including FDA issuance of guidance documents, proposed regulations, and decisions in the course of considering specific applications. Also, in 2019, the CREATES Act was signed, which requires that product manufacturers timely sell comparator trial supply at a commercially reasonable price (no more than the manufacturers wholesale acquisition cost) to biosimilar developers. The approval of a biologic product biosimilar to one of our products, including SOLIRIS, could have a material impact on our business because it may be significantly less costly to bring to market, may be priced significantly lower than our products, and result in a reduction in the pricing and reimbursement of our products.
Both before and after the FDA approves a product, the manufacturer and the holder or holders of the BLA or NDA, and in the case of KANUMA, the NADA, for the product are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight. If ongoing regulatory requirements are not satisfied or if safety problems occur after the product reaches the market, the FDA may at any time withdraw its approval or take actions that would suspend marketing. For example, quality control and manufacturing procedures must conform, on an ongoing basis, to cGMP requirements, and the FDA periodically subjects manufacturing facilities to unannounced inspections to assess compliance with cGMP. Failure to comply with applicable cGMP requirements and other
conditions of product approval may lead the FDA to take regulatory action, including fines, recalls, civil penalties, injunctions, suspension of manufacturing operations, operating restrictions, withdrawal of FDA approval, seizure or recall of products, and criminal prosecution. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to spend time, money, and effort to maintain cGMP compliance.
The FDA and other federal regulatory agencies also closely regulate the promotion of drugs and biologics through, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and effectiveness that are consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe drugs and biologics for uses not approved by the FDA and therefore not described in the product’s labeling - because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding such uses. Broadly speaking, a manufacturer may not promote a drug or biologic for an unapproved use, but may engage in non-promotional, balanced communication regarding such uses under certain conditions. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements and restrictions in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity and enforcement action by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as state authorities. Noncompliance could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug or biologic products.
Orphan Drug Designation in the U.S., the EU and Other Foreign Jurisdictions
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs and biological products intended to treat a “rare disease or condition,” which generally is a disease or condition that affects fewer than two hundred thousand individuals in the U.S. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA, supplemental BLA, NDA or supplemental NDA. If the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are publicly disclosed by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. If a product which has an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for that drug or biologic for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled
to an orphan exclusivity period, in which the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as where the sponsor of a different version of the product is able to demonstrate that its product is clinically superior to the approved orphan drug product. This exclusivity does not prevent a competitor from obtaining approval to market a different product that treats the same disease or condition or the same product to treat a different disease or condition. The FDA can revoke a product’s orphan drug exclusivity under certain circumstances, including when the holder of the approved orphan drug application is unable to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet patient needs. A sponsor of a product application that has received an orphan drug designation is also granted U.S. federal tax incentives for clinical research undertaken to support the application. In addition, the FDA will typically coordinate with the sponsor on research study design for an orphan drug and may exercise its discretion to grant marketing approval on the basis of more limited product safety and efficacy data than would ordinarily be required.
In the EU, medicinal products: (a) that are used to treat or prevent life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions that affect no more than five in ten thousand people in the EU when the application is made; or (b) that are used to treat or prevent life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions and that, for economic reasons, would be unlikely to be developed without incentives; and (c) where no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition concerned exists, or, if such a method exists, the medicinal product would be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, may be granted an orphan designation. The application for orphan designation must be submitted to the EMA and approved before an application is made for marketing authorization for the product. Once authorized, orphan medicinal products are entitled to up to ten years of market exclusivity (which may be extended for an additional two years if pediatric data have been produced in accordance with an agreed pediatric investigational plan). During this ten year period, with a limited number of exceptions, neither the competent authorities of the EU Member States, the EMA, or the EC are permitted to accept applications or grant marketing authorization for other similar medicinal products with the same therapeutic indication. However, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the ten year period with the consent of the marketing authorization holder for the original orphan medicinal product or if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities. Marketing authorization may also be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication if this latter product is safer, more efficacious
or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. The period of market exclusivity may, in addition, be reduced to six years if it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the criteria for orphan designation are no longer met or if the orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.
ULTOMIRIS has received orphan drug designation for the treatment of patients with PNH in the U.S. and Japan, and for the subcutaneous treatment of patients with aHUS in the U.S. SOLIRIS has received orphan drug designation for (a) the treatment of PNH in the U.S. and in several other territories; (b) aHUS in the U.S., the EU and in several other territories; (c) the prevention of delayed graft function in renal transplant patients in the U.S.; (d) the treatment of patients with gMG in the U.S., Japan and the EU; and (e) for the treatment of NMOSD in the U.S., EU and Japan. In 2008, STRENSIQ received orphan drug designation for the treatment of patients with HPP in the U.S. and the EU, and in Japan in November 2014. Furthermore, in 2010, KANUMA received orphan drug designation for the treatment of LAL-D in the U.S. and the EU. As noted above, orphan drug designation provides certain regulatory and filing fee advantages, including market exclusivity, except in limited circumstances, for several years after approval.
Breakthrough Designation in the U.S.
Congress has created the Breakthrough Therapy designation program under which the FDA may grant Breakthrough Therapy status to a drug intended for the treatment of a serious condition when preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement on a clinically significant endpoint over existing therapies. The Breakthrough Therapy designation, which may be requested by a sponsor when filing or amending an IND, is intended to facilitate and expedite the development and FDA review of a product candidate. Specifically, the Breakthrough Therapy designation may entitle the sponsor to more frequent meetings with FDA during drug development, intensive guidance on clinical trial design, and expedited FDA review by a cross-disciplinary team comprised of senior managers. The designation does not guarantee a faster development or review time as compared to other drugs however, nor does it assure that the drug will obtain ultimate marketing approval by the FDA. Once granted, the FDA may withdraw this designation at any time if subsequent data no longer support the breakthrough therapy designation. We have received Breakthrough Therapy designations for STRENSIQ for HPP in perinatal-, infant-, and juvenile-onset patients; and for KANUMA in the treatment of LAL-D presenting in infants. It is difficult for us to predict the impact that these designations will have on the development and FDA review of our products.
21st Century Cures Act (the Cures Act)
In December 2016, Congress passed the Cures Act which included a number of provisions designed to speed development of innovative therapies, provide funding authorization to the NIH, and provide funding for certain oncology-directed research. Because the FDA is still working to implement many aspects of the Cures Act, its potential effect on our business remains unclear with the exception of a provision requiring that we post our policies on the availability of expanded access programs for individuals. In addition, the Cures Act includes provisions requiring the FDA to assess and publish guidance on the use of novel clinical trial designs, the use of real world evidence in applications, the availability of summary level review for supplemental applications for certain indications, and the qualification of drug development tools. Because these provisions allow the FDA to spend several years developing these policies, the effect on us could be delayed. At this time, we cannot anticipate what effect these future policies may have on our business.
The Cures Act also authorized $1,800.0 in funding for the “Cancer Moonshot” initiative (the Initiative) over a seven-year period to be run by the National Cancer Institute under the NIH. The Initiative’s strategic goals encourage inter-agency cooperation and fund research and innovation to catalyze new scientific breakthroughs, bring new therapies to patients, and strengthen prevention and diagnosis. The Initiative aims to stimulate drug development through the creation of a public-private partnership with 20 to 30 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to expedite cancer researchers’ access to investigational agents and approved drugs. This partnership is designed to permit researchers to obtain drugs and other technologies from a preapproved “formulary” list without having to negotiate with each company for individual research projects. We will continue to monitor these developments but cannot currently assess how the Initiative may impact our business.
Right to Try Act
The Right to Try Act was signed into law May 30, 2018. The law provides an access pathway for eligible patients (as defined under the law) who have been diagnosed with life-threatening diseases or conditions and have tried all approved treatment options and are unable to participate in a clinical trial to obtain certain investigational or unapproved treatments, each as defined under the law.
As a clinical trial sponsor, when requested, Alexion is required to provide eligible patients or their providers with information about whether our products are considered an eligible investigational drug under Right to Try and if we would provide products under the Right to Try Act.
Foreign Regulation of Drug Development and Approval
In addition to regulations in the U.S., we are subject to a variety of foreign regulatory requirements including those governing drug development, pre-clinical trials, human clinical trials, marketing approval, manufacturing, pharmacovigilance and post-marketing regulation for drugs. The foreign regulatory approval process includes all of the risks associated with FDA approval set forth above, as well as additional country-specific regulations. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Approval by one regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. The approval process varies from country to country, can involve additional testing beyond that required by FDA, and may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing, promotion, and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.
Under the EU regulatory system, we may submit applications for marketing authorizations either under a centralized, decentralized, or mutual recognition marketing authorization procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization for a medicinal product by the EC on the basis of a positive opinion by the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (ChMP) and is mandatory for certain categories of medicinal products, such as orphan medicinal products. A centralized marketing authorization is valid for all EU Member States and the European Economic Area (EEA) states. The decentralized procedure and the mutual recognition procedure apply between EU Member States. The decentralized marketing authorization procedure involves the submission of an application for marketing authorization to the competent authority of all EU member states in which the product is to be marketed. One national competent authority, selected by the applicant, assesses the application for marketing authorization. The competent authorities of the other EU Member States are subsequently required to grant marketing authorization for their territory on the basis of this assessment, except where grounds of potential serious risk to public health require this authorization to be refused. The mutual recognition procedure provides for mutual recognition of marketing authorizations delivered by the national competent authorities of EU Member States by the competent authorities of other EU Member States. The holder of a national marketing authorization may submit an application to the competent authority of an EU Member State requesting that this authority recognize the marketing authorization delivered by the competent authority of another EU Member State for the same medicinal product. The EC may agree upon
recommendation of the EMA to grant for medicines designated as orphan medicines a (i) conditional marketing authorization in the interest of public health under certain conditions; namely that unmet medical needs will be fulfilled, the benefit-risk balance of the product is positive, the benefit to public health of the medicinal product’s immediate availability on the market outweighs the risks due to need for further data and it is likely that the applicant will be able to provide comprehensive data; or (ii) marketing authorization under “exceptional circumstances” when the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use and subject to specific procedures being introduced. This may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare, in the present state of scientific knowledge, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles.
Similar to the U.S., both marketing authorization holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA and the competent authorities of the individual EU Member States both before and after grant of the manufacturing and marketing authorizations. This includes control of compliance by the companies within the EU legal framework (i.e., GCP, GLP, cGMP and pharmacovigilance rules, which govern quality control of the manufacturing process and require documentation policies and procedures). We and our third party manufacturers are required under regulations to ensure that all of our processes, methods, and equipment are compliant with GCP, GLP, cGMP and pharmacovigilance rules. The EMA and national competent authorities have in the past, and expect that they will continue to, arrange inspections to ensure that we adhere to these principles and regulations. Any adverse findings from such inspections, depending on their severity, may result in significant delays in obtaining a marketing authorization, may impose penalties or may result in other action by regulatory authorities.
Failure by us or by any of our third party partners, including suppliers, manufacturers, marketers and distributors to comply with EU laws and the related national laws of individual EU Member States governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, marketing authorization of medicinal products, pre-approval promotion of products, reporting of adverse health events, both before and after grant of marketing authorization, and marketing/promotion of such products following grant of authorization may result in administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays in or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant marketing authorization, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, or variation of the marketing authorization, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing, or clinical trials, operating
restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines, and criminal penalties.
In April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014, which will replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. To ensure that the rules for clinical trials are identical throughout the EU, the new EU clinical trials legislation was passed as a regulation that is directly applicable in all EU Member States without the need for implementation into the Member States’ national laws. All clinical trials performed in the EU are required to be conducted in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC until the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 becomes applicable. According to the current plans of the EMA, the new Clinical Trials Regulation will become applicable in late 2021 or early 2022. The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC will, however, still apply three years from the date of entry into application of the Clinical Trials Regulation to (i) clinical trials applications submitted before the entry into application and (ii) clinical trials applications submitted within one year after the entry into application if the sponsor opts for old regulatory framework.
The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point, the EU portal; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application, as well as simplified reporting procedures that will spare sponsors from submitting broadly identical information separately to various bodies and different member states; and harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts.
The EU has had an established regulatory pathway for biosimilars since 2005 and has approved several biosimilar products. In addition, in February 2017 the EMA launched a pilot project with the aim of providing scientific advice to companies for the development of new biosimilar products.
The approval of a biosimilar of one of our products marketed in the EU could have a material impact on our business. The biosimilar may be less costly to bring to market, may be priced significantly lower than our products, and result in a reduction in the pricing and reimbursement of our products.
Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement
Sales of pharmaceutical products depend in significant part on the extent of coverage and reimbursement from third party payers, including government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S, as well as private health insurers. Third party payers are sensitive to the cost of drugs and are increasingly seeking to implement cost containment measures to control, restrict access to, or influence the purchase of drugs, biologics, and other health care products and services. For example, governments may regulate reimbursement, pricing, and coverage of products in order to control costs or to affect utilization levels of certain products. In addition, private health insurance plans may restrict coverage of some products, such as by using drug formularies under which only select drugs or uses of select drugs are covered, through the implementation of variable patient co-payment obligations that make non-preferred drugs more expensive for patients, and by employing utilization management controls, such as requirements for prior authorization or prior failure on another type of treatment before the insurer will cover and reimburse a particular therapy. Payers may especially impose these obstacles to coverage for higher-priced drugs such as those we sell. Consequently, all of our products may be subject to payer-driven restrictions, rendering patients responsible for a higher percentage of the total cost of drugs in the outpatient setting. This can lower the demand for our products if the increased patient cost-sharing obligations are more than patients can afford.
Medicare is a U.S. federal government insurance program that covers individuals aged 65 years or older, as well as individuals of any age with certain disabilities, individuals with end-stage renal disease and ALS. Our products are primarily reimbursed by Medicare under Medicare Part B, which generally covers physician services and outpatient care, including some outpatient prescription drugs under limited conditions, and Medicare Part D, which provides an outpatient prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.
Generally speaking, Medicare Part B provides limited coverage of certain outpatient drugs and biologics that are reasonable and necessary for diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury. Under Part B, reimbursement for most drugs is based on a fixed percentage above the applicable product’s average sales price (ASP). Manufacturers calculate ASP based on a statutory formula and must report ASP information to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency within HHS that administers Medicare and the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, on a quarterly basis. Under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, Medicare pays physicians and suppliers ASP plus 6.0% for most Part B-covered drugs and biologics. Medicare payment for separately payable Part B drugs reimbursed through the hospital outpatient prospective payment system is
generally under the discretion of CMS, meaning it can be changed without legislative action from Congress. The current reimbursement rate for most separately payable Part B drugs used in the hospital outpatient setting is ASP plus 6.0%. One exception, however, is that, effective January 1, 2018, Medicare pays 340B hospital covered entities at ASP minus 22.5% (or 77.5% of ASP) for separately payable Part-B covered drugs and biologics that were purchased under the 340B Program in an outpatient clinic setting, as discussed further below. In addition, the sequester that is currently in place through 2029 reduces the portion of the payment paid by Medicare by 2.0%, which results in a net payment rate equivalent to ASP plus 4.3%. The sequester affects other Medicare payments, and the overall 2.0% sequester rate is discussed in more detail below. In both settings (i.e., physician office and hospital outpatient), the amount of reimbursement is updated quarterly based on the manufacturer’s submission of new ASP information.
Medicare Part D is an outpatient prescription drug benefit available to all Medicare beneficiaries. It is a benefit that is implemented through private insurance plans under contractual arrangements between the plans and the federal government. Similar to pharmaceutical coverage through private health insurance, Part D plans develop formularies, impose utilization controls (such as prior authorization, step therapy, and quantity limits), and negotiate discounts from drug manufacturers. Because of this, the list of prescription drugs covered by Part D plans varies by plan. However, with limited exceptions, individual plans are required by statute to cover certain therapeutic categories and classes of drugs or biologics and to have at least two drugs in each unique therapeutic category or class.
Our products can also be provided under Medicare Parts A and C (Medicare Advantage, as discussed below). Medicare Part A generally covers inpatient hospital benefits. Hospitals typically receive a single payment for an inpatient stay depending on the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) to which the inpatient stay is assigned. The MS-DRG for a hospital inpatient stay varies based on the patient’s condition. Hospitals generally do not receive separate payment for drugs and biologics administered to patients during an inpatient hospital stay. As a result, hospitals may not have a financial incentive to utilize our products for inpatients where lower cost alternative therapies are available. Finally, Medicare beneficiaries can receive their Part A, B, and D benefits through a Medicare Advantage organization plan that is administered by a private insurance company pursuant to Medicare Part C. Similar to private health insurance plans, Medicare Advantage organization plans negotiate discounts with health care providers and implement utilization controls, including, most notably, step therapy for Part B drugs, which became effective January 1, 2019. This means
that Medicare Advantage plans can now require beneficiaries to use a more cost-effective drug therapy first and only progress to a more costly therapy if and when determined necessary after medical review. This method of utilization management might lower the demand for therapies subject to step therapy, and will likely be applied to very expensive therapies.
The Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended, requires Medicare payments for all items and services, including drugs and biologics, to be reduced by up to 2.0% under sequestration (i.e., automatic spending reductions, calculated each year by the Office of Management and Budget). Subsequent legislation extended the 2.0% reduction, on average, to 2029. This 2.0% reduction in Medicare payments affects all Parts of the Medicare program and could impact sales of our products. Additional sequestration orders under the statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 could also be triggered, potentially resulting in up to a 4% reduction in Medicare payments. These potential future reductions to Medicare Part B reimbursement to physicians could potentially negatively impact our business as well.
Pursuant to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1396r-8(a)(1)), we are required to participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program in order for federal payment to be available for our products under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Medicaid is a government health insurance program for eligible low-income adults, children, families, pregnant women, and people with certain disabilities. It is jointly funded by the federal and state governments, and it is administered by individual states within parameters established by the federal government. As a result, coverage and reimbursement requirements for drugs and biologics vary by state. For example, drugs and biologics may be covered under the medical or pharmacy benefit, and state Medicaid programs may impose different utilization management controls, such as prior authorization, step therapy, or quantity limits on drugs and biologics, subject to federal limitations for such controls. But all states must generally provide coverage and reimbursement for a manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs, as that term is defined by applicable law, if a manufacturer participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.
Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, we are required to, among other things, pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for quantities of our products utilized on an outpatient basis (with some exceptions) that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program. Medicaid Drug Rebate Program Rebates are calculated using a statutory formula, state-reported utilization data, and pricing data that are calculated and reported by us on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of innovator products, the best price for each drug. As further
described below under “U.S. Healthcare Reform and Other U.S. and International Healthcare Laws,” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the PPACA), made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program that could negatively impact our results of operations. Additionally, the Right Rebate Act became effective April 2019, which primarily imposes new penalties on drug manufacturers that knowingly misclassify a covered outpatient drug under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.
In addition to participating in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, federal law requires manufacturers like us to participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B drug pricing program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily-defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities only include health care organizations that have certain federal designations or receive funding from specific federal programs, including Federally Qualified Health Centers, Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program grantees, and certain types of hospitals and specialized clinics, as well as certain hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. PPACA expanded the 340B program to include additional types of covered entities: certain children’s hospitals, certain free-standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers and sole community hospitals, each as defined by PPACA. However, “orphan drugs” i.e., those designated under section 526 of the FDCA, such as each of our products that have received market authorization are exempted from the ceiling price requirements for these newly-eligible entities when used for the rare disease or condition for which they received an orphan designation. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the average manufacturer price and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, and in general, products subject to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. Any changes to the definition of Medicaid average manufacturer price and the Medicaid rebate amount also could affect our 340B ceiling price calculation for our products and could negatively impact our results of operations. In addition, after multiple delays, the final rule implementing civil monetary penalties against manufacturers for instances of overcharging 340B covered entities became effective on January 1, 2019. Accordingly, we could be subject to such penalties if the government finds that we knowingly and intentionally overcharged a 340B covered entity.
Federal law requires that for a company to be eligible to have its products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs as well as
to be purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, it also must participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) pricing program. To participate, we are required to enter into an FSS contract and other agreements with the VA for our products, which qualify as “covered drugs.” Under these agreements, we must make our products available to the “Big Four” federal agencies the VA, the Department of Defense (DoD), the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service), and the Coast Guard at pricing that is capped pursuant to a statutory federal ceiling price, or FCP, formula set forth in Section 603 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (VHCA). The FCP is based on a weighted average non-federal average manufacturer price (Non-FAMP), which manufacturers are required to report on a quarterly and annual basis to the VA. Pursuant to the VHCA, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to a penalty for each item of false information and could result in other potential liability as well, including liability under the False Claims Act (which is discussed in more detail below).
FSS contracts are federal procurement contracts that include standard government terms and conditions, separate pricing for each product, and extensive disclosure and certification requirements. All items on FSS contracts are subject to a standard FSS contract clause that requires FSS contract price reductions under certain circumstances where pricing is reduced to an agreed “tracking customer.” Further, in addition to the “Big Four” agencies, all other federal agencies and some non-federal entities are authorized to purchase off FSS contracts. FSS contractors are permitted to charge FSS purchasers other than the Big Four agencies “negotiated pricing” for covered drugs that is not capped by the FCP; instead, such pricing is negotiated based on a mandatory disclosure of the contractor’s commercial “most favored customer” pricing. We offer dual pricing on our FSS contract.
In addition, pursuant to regulations issued by the DoD to implement Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, each of our covered drugs is listed on an agreement with the Defense Health Agency (DHA) under which we have agreed to honor the “Big Four” pricing for our products when they are dispensed to TRICARE beneficiaries by TRICARE retail network pharmacies. More specifically, we have agreed to provide rebates (or refunds) on such utilization. Companies are required to enter into a DHA Agreement for “covered drug” products in order for the covered drug to be eligible for DoD formulary inclusion and available to TRICARE beneficiaries without preauthorization. The formula for determining the rebate is established in the regulations and our DHA agreement and is based on the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and the FCP (as described above, these price
points are required to be calculated by us under the VHCA).
As noted in the foregoing, pricing and rebate calculations vary among products and programs. The calculations can be very complex and are often subject to interpretation by us, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. We cannot assure you that our submissions will not be found by CMS or other governmental agencies to be incomplete or incorrect. Governmental agencies may also make changes in program interpretations, requirements or conditions of participation, some of which may have implications for amounts previously estimated or paid. For example, if we become aware that certain Medicaid Drug Rebate Program price reporting for a prior quarter was incorrect, or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we are obligated to resubmit the corrected data for a period not to exceed twelve quarters from the quarter in which the data originally were due, and CMS may consider restatements for earlier periods as well depending on the circumstance. Such restatements and recalculations increase our costs for complying with the laws and regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Any corrections to our Medicaid rebate calculations could result in an increase or decrease in our rebate liability for past quarters, depending on the nature of the correction. Price recalculations also may affect the ceiling price at which we are required to offer our products to certain covered entities under the 340B drug pricing program.
Any failure to comply with these price reporting and rebate payment obligations could negatively impact our financial results. Civil monetary penalties can be applied if we are found to have knowingly submitted any false price information to the government, if we are found to have made a misrepresentation in the reporting of our average sales price, or if we fail to submit the required price data on a timely basis. Such conduct also could be grounds for CMS to terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs, as well as provide a basis for other potential liability under other federal laws such as the False Claims Act.
Payers also are increasingly considering new metrics as the basis for reimbursement rates, such as ASP, average manufacturer price, and actual acquisition cost. The existing data for reimbursement based on these metrics is relatively limited, although certain states have begun to survey acquisition cost data for the purpose of setting Medicaid reimbursement rates. CMS surveys and publishes retail community pharmacy acquisition cost information in the form of National Average Drug Acquisition Cost files to provide state Medicaid agencies with a basis of comparison for their own reimbursement and pricing methodologies and rates. It may be difficult to project the impact of these evolving reimbursement
mechanics on the willingness of payers to cover our products.
Further, in the U.S., there is increased focus on drug pricing: the President, HHS officials (including CMS and the FDA) and lawmakers and regulators (at both the federal and state level) have expressed a clear interest in efforts to reduce prices for drugs and biologics, further increase transparency around prices and price increases, lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers, and decrease spending on drugs by government programs. In addition, members of Congress launched an investigation into the pricing practices of the prescription drug industry, held hearings in 2019 to investigate increases in drug prices, and continue to release draft legislation to address high drug prices and increase drug price transparency. Additionally, HHS announced its intent to propose an International Pricing Index (IPI) regulatory policy that would allow the Medicare program to acquire Part B drugs at a price closer to what other countries pay for these drugs. At this time, we are unable to predict whether a final rule for IPI will be implemented or the final provisions of such a rule if implemented. In coordination with the FDA, HHS also issued a public notice stating that it intends to issue a proposed rule that would allow for the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada.
The state of California passed legislation that requires drug manufacturers to notify the state within 60 days of instituting price increases and Maryland passed legislation to create a drug pricing review commission that will evaluate drug cost and recommend setting an upper limit or cap for therapies deemed too expensive. As 2020 is a Presidential election year for the U.S., we expect greater legislative and regulatory changes, continued Congressional scrutiny, and negative media attention with respect to drugs reimbursed by federal healthcare programs, like ours, which could have a negative impact on our operations.
In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. Moreover, the requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, in the EU, the sole legal instrument at the EU level governing the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products is Council Directive 89/105/EEC (the Price Transparency Directive). The aim of the Price Transparency Directive is to ensure that pricing and reimbursement mechanisms established in EU Member States are transparent and objective, do not hinder the free movement and trade of medicinal products in the EU and do not hinder, prevent or distort competition on the market. The Price Transparency Directive does not, however, provide any guidance concerning the specific criteria on the basis of which pricing and reimbursement decisions are to be made in individual EU Member States. Neither does it have any direct consequence for pricing or levels of reimbursement in individual EU
Member States. Pricing of prescription only medicinal products is a national prerogative. Therefore the relevant national authorities of the individual EU Member States are free to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices and/or reimbursement of medicinal products for human use. Some individual EU Member States adopt policies according to which a specific price or level of reimbursement is approved for the medicinal product. Other EU Member States adopt a system of reference pricing, basing the price or reimbursement level in their territory either, on the pricing and reimbursement levels in other countries, or on the pricing and reimbursement levels of medicinal products intended for the same therapeutic indication. Furthermore, some EU Member States impose direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market.
Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States. These countries include the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Sweden. The HTA process in the EU Member States is governed by the national laws of these countries. HTA is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact and the economic and societal impact of the use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. HTA generally focuses on the clinical efficacy and effectiveness, safety, cost, and cost-effectiveness of individual medicinal products as well as their potential implications for the national healthcare system. Those elements of medicinal products are compared with other treatment options available on the market.
The outcome of HTA may influence the pricing and reimbursement status for specific medicinal products within individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of a specific medicinal product vary between the EU Member States.
In 2011, Directive 2011/24/EU was adopted at the EU level. This Directive concerns the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. The Directive is intended to establish rules for facilitating access to safe and high-quality cross-border healthcare in the EU. Pursuant to Directive 2011/24/EU, a voluntary network of national authorities or bodies responsible for HTA in the individual EU Member States was established. The purpose of the network is to facilitate and support the exchange of scientific information concerning HTAs. This could lead to harmonization of the criteria taken into account in the conduct of HTA between EU Member States in pricing and reimbursement decisions and negatively impact price in at least some EU Member States.
On a continuous basis, we engage with appropriate authorities in individual countries on the operational, reimbursement, price approval and funding processes that are separately required in each country.
Fraud and Abuse
Pharmaceutical companies participating in federal healthcare programs like Medicare or Medicaid are subject to various U.S. federal and state laws pertaining to healthcare “fraud and abuse,” including without limitation, anti-kickback and false claims laws. Violations of U.S. federal and state fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, including fines, damages, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs (including Medicare and Medicaid). Applicable U.S. statutes, include, but are not limited to, the following:
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving, or paying any remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward purchasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase or order of any item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. Liability may be established without a person or entity having actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it. This statute has been interpreted to apply broadly to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and individuals such as prescribers, patients, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. In addition, PPACA amended the Social Security Act to provide that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act (which is discussed below). A conviction for violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute results in criminal fines and requires mandatory exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute that protect certain common, industry practices from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and arrangements may be subject to scrutiny or penalty if they do not fully satisfy all elements of an available exception or safe harbor. Several of the existing Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbors are currently the subject of possible reform, including proposals to create new safe harbors that would promote and protect value-based and
coordinated care arrangements. Any changes to the discount safe harbor may cause us to review our arrangements and pricing strategies with payers.
The federal civil False Claims Act (FCA) imposes civil penalties against individuals or entities for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment to the government that are false or fraudulent, or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to such a false or fraudulent claim, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. This statute also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery. FCA liability is potentially significant in the healthcare industry because the statute provides for treble damages and mandatory penalties of eleven thousand one hundred eighty-one to twenty-two thousand three hundred sixty-three dollars per false claim or statement for penalties assessed after January 29, 2018, with respect to violations occurring after November 2, 2015 (and penalties of five thousand five hundred to eleven thousand dollars with respect to violations occurring before that date). Government enforcement agencies and private whistleblowers have investigated pharmaceutical companies for or asserted liability under the FCA for a variety of alleged inappropriate promotional and marketing activities, including those involving the provision of free product or other items of value to customers, patient support programs, certain financial arrangements with healthcare providers, misstated government drug pricing information, and purported “off-label” promotion of products, among other things.
Under the federal criminal statute on false statements relating to health care matters, it is a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up a material fact, make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use any materially false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry in connection with the delivery of or payment for federally funded healthcare benefits, items, or services.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) criminal federal health care fraud statute, it is a crime to knowingly and willfully execute, or attempt to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud any health care benefit program or to obtain, by
means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit program, in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services.
The federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law authorizes the imposition of substantial civil monetary penalties against an entity, such as a pharmaceutical manufacturer, that engages in activities including, among others (1) knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a claim for services not provided as claimed or that is otherwise false or fraudulent in any way; (2) arranging for or contracting with an individual or entity that is excluded from participation in federal healthcare programs to provide items or services reimbursable by a federal healthcare program; (3) violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; or (4) failing to report and return a known overpayment.
The majority of states also have statutes similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and FCA that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state health care programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payer.
The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires “applicable manufacturers” of products, including biologics, for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, among others, to track and report annually to the federal government (for disclosure to the public) certain payments and other transfers of value they make to ”covered recipients.” The term covered recipients includes physicians, teaching hospitals, and, for reports submitted on or after January 1, 2022, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives. In addition, several U.S. states and localities have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports, and/or make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials, and other activities. Other state laws prohibit certain marketing-related activities including the provision of gifts, meals or other items to certain healthcare providers, and restrict the ability of manufacturers to offer co-pay support to patients for certain prescription drugs. Some states and cities require identification or licensing of state representatives. In addition, several recently passed state laws to require disclosures related to state agencies and/or commercial purchasers with respect to certain price increases that
exceed a certain level as identified in the relevant statutes. Many of these laws and regulations contain ambiguous requirements that government officials have not yet clarified. Given the lack of clarity in the laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent federal and state laws and regulations.
Sanctions under federal and state fraud and abuse laws may include significant criminal, civil, and administrative penalties, including damages, fines, imprisonment, and exclusion of a manufacturer’s products from reimbursement under government programs. Any of the foregoing would be expected to have a negative impact on our business which may be material.
Federal and state authorities are continuing to devote significant attention and resources to enforcement of fraud and abuse laws within the pharmaceutical industry, and private individuals have been active in alleging violations of the law and bringing suits on behalf of the government under the FCA. For example, federal enforcement agencies recently have investigated certain pharmaceutical companies’ product and patient assistance programs, including manufacturer reimbursement support services, relationships with specialty pharmacies, and grants to independent charitable foundations. If we, our vendors, or donation recipients are deemed to fail to comply with relevant laws, regulations or evolving government guidance in the operation of these programs, we could be subject to damages, fines, penalties or other criminal, civil or administrative sanctions or enforcement actions. We cannot ensure that our compliance controls, policies and procedures will be sufficient to protect against acts of our employees, business partners or vendors that may violate the laws or regulations of the jurisdictions in which we operate. In December 2016, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts relating generally to our support of 501(c)(3) organizations that provide financial assistance to Medicare patients, Alexion’s provision of free drug to Medicare patients and Alexion’s related compliance policies and training materials. In April 2019, we entered into a civil settlement agreement with the DOJ and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to resolve this matter. As part of the settlement agreement, Alexion paid $13.1 to the DOJ and OIG. Please see the discussion below in the “Risk Factors” section and Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional details regarding this investigation. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements continue to comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could be costly.
Outside the U.S., other countries have implemented similar laws and regulations relating to fraud and abuse
in the sale of pharmaceutical products and requirements for disclosure of financial interactions with healthcare providers and additional countries may consider or implement such laws. See Other Regulations below for additional information on such regulations outside the U.S.
U.S. Healthcare Reform and Other U.S. and International Healthcare Laws
PPACA was adopted in the U.S. in March 2010. This law substantially changes the way healthcare is financed in the U.S. by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the pharmaceutical industry. PPACA contains a number of provisions that have and are expected to impact our business and operations. Changes that may affect our business include those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement changes, rules regarding prescription drug benefits under the health insurance exchanges, expansion of the 340B program, expansion of state Medicaid programs, and fraud and abuse and enforcement.
PPACA contains several provisions that have or could potentially have an impact on our business. PPACA made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Effective March 23, 2010, rebate liability expanded from fee-for-service Medicaid utilization to include the utilization of Medicaid managed care organizations as well. With regard to the amount of the rebates owed, PPACA increased the minimum Medicaid rebate percentage from 15.1% to 23.1% of the average manufacturer price for most innovator products; changed the calculation of the rebate for certain innovator products that qualify as line extensions of existing drugs; and capped the total rebate amount for innovator drugs at 100.0% of the average manufacturer price. In addition, PPACA and subsequent legislation changed the definition of average manufacturer price. Finally, PPACA requires pharmaceutical manufacturers of branded prescription drugs to pay a branded prescription drug fee to the federal government. Each individual pharmaceutical manufacturer pays a prorated share of the aggregate branded prescription drug fee paid by all covered entities ($2,800 in 2019 and each ensuing year), based on, among other things, its applicable branded prescription drug sales to certain federal programs identified in the law. Sales of “orphan drugs” are excluded from this fee. “Orphan drugs” are specifically defined for purposes of the fee. For each indication approved by the FDA for the drug, such indication must have been designated as orphan by the FDA under section 526 of the FDCA, an orphan drug tax credit under section 45C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Internal Revenue Code) must have been claimed with respect to such indication, and such tax credit must not have been disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Finally, the FDA must not have approved the drug for any indication other than an
orphan indication for which a section 45C orphan drug tax credit was claimed (and not disallowed). In early 2016, CMS issued a final regulation to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program under PPACA, which became effective on April 1, 2016. The issuance of the final regulation, as well as any other regulations and coverage expansion by various governmental agencies relating to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, has increased and will continue to increase our costs and the complexity of compliance, has been and will continue to be time-consuming to implement, and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, particularly if CMS challenges the approach we take in our implementation of the final rule.
Additional provisions of PPACA may negatively affect manufacturer’s revenues in the future. For example, as part of PPACA’s provisions closing a coverage gap that currently exists in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program (commonly known as the “donut hole”), manufacturers of branded prescription drugs and biologics are required to provide a 50.0% discount on branded prescription drugs and biologics dispensed to beneficiaries within this donut hole. This discount was recently increased to 70.0%, beginning January 1, 2019, by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.
As noted above, PPACA also expanded the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing discount program by including additional types of covered entities. The 340B pricing program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily-defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. PPACA expanded the 340B program to include additional types of covered entities as described above. PPACA exempts “orphan drugs” designated under section 526 of the FDCA, such as our products, from the ceiling pricing requirements for these newly-eligible covered entities.
Moreover, certain legislative changes to and regulatory changes under PPACA have occurred under the Trump Administration. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in 2017 eliminated the shared responsibility payment for individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, commonly referred to as the “individual mandate,” which became effective in 2019. In December 2018, a federal district court in Texas ruled the individual mandate was unconstitutional and could not be severed from the PPACA. As a result, the court ruled the remaining provisions of the PPACA were also invalid, though the court declined to issue a preliminary injunction with respect to the PPACA. In December of 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but remanded the case back to the district court to reassess how much of the PPACA would be damaged without the individual mandate provision, and if the individual mandate could indeed be severed.
In January 2020, 21 state Attorney Generals urged the Supreme Court of the United States to decide whether or not the PPACA should be struck down as unconstitutional, claiming that the Fifth Circuit erroneously remanded the case to the Texas federal district court. The House of Representatives filed a similar petition and motion to expedite. This litigation remains ongoing, but places great uncertainty upon the longevity and nature of the PPACA moving forward. In addition, further legislative changes to and regulatory changes under PPACA remain possible. However, it remains unclear whether the court’s ruling will be upheld upon any appeal. We expect to continue to see legislative, regulatory, and litigation changes involving the PPACA that may impact the coverage and reimbursement of our products.
Privacy, Data Protection and Information Security
Numerous international, federal, and state laws, including state privacy laws (such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA), state and city security breach notification and information security laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws govern the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. In addition, most healthcare providers who prescribe and dispense our products and research institutions with whom we collaborate for our sponsored clinical trials are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), and its implementing regulations. Although we are not directly subject to HIPAA other than with respect to providing certain employee benefits, we could be potentially subject to penalties and sanctions, including criminal penalties if we, our affiliates, or our agents knowingly obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information (protected health information) maintained by a HIPAA covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. In addition, in December 2018, HHS issued cybersecurity guidance for all healthcare organizations that addresses organizations’ enterprise-level information security generally, including protected health information. Failure to comply with current and future laws and regulations could result in governmental enforcement actions (including the imposition of significant penalties), criminal and civil liability for our Company and our officers and directors, and/or adverse publicity that negatively affects our business. Further, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and implementing laws in the EU member states govern the collection and processing of EU residents’ personal data and, among other requirements, imposes certain consent and data access rights. Such laws may impact our ability to conduct clinical trials that involve EU personal data and engage in other activities that require the processing of EU personal data. The regulation introduces comprehensive data protection requirements in the EU and substantial fines for
breaches of the data protection rules. It increases our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new EU data protection rules.
Outside of the U.S. and the EU, there are numerous other jurisdictions that have their own privacy and information security laws, and new laws and regulations are being considered and/or enacted globally, which may affect our ability to collect, process, and store their residents’ personal data. For example, the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD), which goes into effect in 2020, may impact our collection and use of personal information related to this jurisdiction.
Moreover, we rely on our internal and third-party provided information technology systems and applications to support our operations and to maintain and process company information including personal information, confidential business information and proprietary information. If these information technology systems are subject to cybersecurity attacks, or are otherwise compromised, due to cyberattacks, human error or malfeasance, system errors or otherwise, it may adversely impact our business, disrupt our operations, or lead to the loss, theft, destruction, corruption or compromise of company information and personal information. Such information technology or security events could also lead to legal liability, regulatory investigations or actions, loss of business, negative media coverage, and reputational damage. While we maintain an information security program with technical controls to mitigate these risks and training to educate and prepare our employees, the healthcare sector continues to see a high frequency of cyberattacks and threat actors that continue to become more sophisticated and better resourced, and our systems and the information maintained within those systems remain potentially vulnerable to data security incidents. Moreover, losses from such events may not be completely covered by insurance coverage (or may not be covered at all by any of our insurance policies depending on the circumstances). Finally, as cyber threats continue to evolve and privacy and cybersecurity laws and regulations continue to develop, we may need to invest additional resources to implement new compliance measures, strengthen our information security posture, or respond to cyber threats and incidents.
We are also subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the U.K. Bribery Act (U.K. Bribery Act), and other anti-corruption laws and regulations pertaining to our financial relationships and interactions with foreign government officials. The FCPA prohibits U.S. companies and their employees, officers, and representatives from paying, offering to pay, promising, or authorizing the payment of anything of value to any
foreign government official, government staff member, political party, or political candidate to obtain or retain business or to otherwise seek favorable treatment. In many countries in which we operate or sell our products, the healthcare professionals with whom we interact may be deemed to be foreign government officials for purposes of the FCPA. The U.K. Bribery Act, which applies to any company incorporated or doing business in the UK, prohibits giving, offering, or promising bribes in the public and private sectors, bribing a foreign public official or private person, and failing to have adequate procedures to prevent bribery amongst employees and other agents. Penalties under the U.K. Bribery Act include potentially unlimited fines for companies and criminal sanctions for corporate officers under certain circumstances. Liability in relation to breaches of the U.K. Bribery Act is strict. This means that it is not necessary to demonstrate elements of a corrupt state of mind. However, a defense of having in place adequate procedures designed to prevent bribery is available.
Recent years have seen a substantial increase in anti-bribery law enforcement activity by U.S. regulators, with more frequent and aggressive investigations and enforcement proceedings by both the DOJ and the SEC, increased enforcement activity by non-U.S. regulators, and increases in criminal and civil proceedings brought against companies and individuals. In May 2015, we received a subpoena in connection with an investigation by the Enforcement Division of the SEC requesting information related to our grant-making activities and compliance with the FCPA in various countries. In addition, in October 2015, Alexion received a request from the DOJ for the voluntary production of documents and other information pertaining to Alexion’s compliance with the FCPA. For information concerning this investigation see Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and, with respect to the risks associated with the investigation, see our Risk Factors, including "Our business and operations may be materially adversely affected by government investigations."
The EU also imposes strict restrictions on the promotion and marketing of drug products in the EU, where a large portion of our non-U.S. business is conducted, and other territories. Increasing regulatory scrutiny of the promotional activities of pharmaceutical companies also has been observed in a number of EU Member States. Laws in the EU, including in the individual EU Member States, require promotional materials and advertising for drug products to comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), which is approved by the competent authorities. Promotion of a medicinal product which does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion. The off-label promotion of medicinal products is prohibited in the EU and in other territories. The promotion of medicinal products that are not subject
to a marketing authorization is also considered to constitute off-label promotion and is prohibited in the EU. Laws in the EU, including in the individual EU Member States, also prohibit the direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicinal products. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the EU and in other territories could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment.
Under the new Clinical Trial Regulation there is an obligation to publish clinical trial within a certain timeframe. A breach of this obligation would constitute non-compliance with an EU Regulation and may be met with penalties set by each Member State, including civil and criminal liability.
Japan and other countries in which we operate also have strict regulations and requirements regarding the promotion of pharmaceutical products. For example, in October 2018, the Japanese MHLW conducted an administrative inspection of Alexion’s Japanese operations. The MHLW inquiry primarily focused on our communication efforts regarding the proper use of SOLIRIS in Japan for aHUS, among other matters. We have cooperated with the inquiries and the investigation, and in March 2019, the MHLW indicated that it has completed its investigation.
Interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct in the individual EU Member States. The provision of any inducements to physicians to prescribe, recommend, endorse, order, purchase, supply, use or administer a medicinal product is prohibited. A number of EU Member States have introduced additional rules requiring pharmaceutical companies to publicly disclose their interactions with physicians and to obtain approval from employers, professional organizations and/or competent authorities before entering into agreements with physicians. These rules have been supplemented by provisions of related industry codes, including the EFPIA Disclosure Code on Disclosure of Transfers of Value from Pharmaceutical Companies to Healthcare Professionals and Healthcare Organizations and related codes developed at national level in individual EU Member States. Additional countries may consider or implement similar laws and regulations. Violations of these rules could lead to reputational risk, public reprimands, and/or the imposition of fines or imprisonment.
Our present and future business has been and will continue to be subject to various other laws and regulations. Laws, regulations and recommendations relating to safe working conditions, laboratory practices, the experimental use of animals, and the purchase, storage, movement, import and export and use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances, including radioactive compounds, used in
connection with our research work are or may be applicable to our activities. We cannot predict the impact of government regulation, which may result from future legislation or administrative action, on our business.
ULTOMIRIS and SOLIRIS are currently the only approved therapies for the treatment of PNH and aHUS (although several companies are currently evaluating other complement inhibitors for the treatment of PNH and aHUS in clinical trials). SOLIRIS is currently the only approved complement inhibitor therapy for the treatment of AChR antibody-positive gMG and the only approved therapy for patients with NMOSD who are AQP4 auto antibody-positive (although, similar to PNH and aHUS, there are companies evaluating other product candidates in gMG and NMOSD clinical trials). While the label for rituximab, a monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody that is delivered by intravenous infusions, does not carry indications for NMOSD, we are aware that rituximab is prescribed by physicians for the treatment of NMOSD in the U.S. and outside the U.S. Rituximab is currently co-marketed by Biogen and Genentech in the U.S., by Hoffmann-La Roche in Canada, the European Union (EU) and Chugai Pharmaceuticals Zenyaku Kogyo in Japan. Clinical trials have not been conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of SOLIRIS and rituximab in NMOSD. The cost of rituximab is less than that of SOLIRIS. We are also evaluating ULTOMIRIS and SOLIRIS in clinical studies for the treatment of other indications, and we believe there are competitors for the patient segments we target with respect to these products. STRENSIQ is currently the only product approved for the treatment of HPP and KANUMA is the only product approved for the treatment of LAL-D. Many pharmaceutical and biotech companies have publicly announced intention to establish or develop rare disease programs that may be competitive with ours. We also experience competition in drug development from universities and other research institutions, and pharmaceutical companies compete with us to attract universities and academic research institutions as drug development partners, including for licensing their proprietary technology.
Some of these entities may have:
•greater financial and other resources;
•larger research and development staffs;
•lower labor costs; and/or
more extensive marketing and manufacturing organizations.
Many of these companies and organizations have significant experience and resources in preclinical testing, human clinical trials, product process development and manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution and other regulatory approval and commercial procedures. They may also have a greater number of significant patents and greater legal resources to seek remedies for cases of alleged
infringement of their patents by us to block, delay or compromise our own drug development process.
We compete with large pharmaceutical companies that produce and market synthetic compounds and biologics and with specialized biotechnology firms in the U.S., Europe and in other countries and regions, as well as a growing number of large pharmaceutical companies that are developing biotechnology products. A number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies are developing new products for the treatment of the same diseases being targeted by us. Other companies have initiated clinical studies for the treatment of PNH, aHUS, gMG and NMOSD, and we are aware of companies that have initiated or are planning to initiate studies for diseases we are also targeting (in some cases, these companies have clinical trial programs that are more advanced than our clinical trial programs for these diseases). In addition, in 2019 a SOLIRIS biosimilar was introduced in Russia (which was sold by Genarium) and we experienced a significant decrease in sales of SOLIRIS following the introduction of Genarium’s biosimilar. We are aware that other companies are conducting clinical trials for biosimilars of SOLIRIS and we expect to compete with biosimilars in the future.
Several biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have programs to develop complement inhibitor therapies or have publicly announced their intentions to develop drugs which target the inflammatory effects of complement in the immune system or have had programs to develop complement inhibitor therapies. SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS are the only complement inhibitor therapies that have demonstrated to be safe and effective in multiple clinical indications approved by regulators in many jurisdictions around the world.
In June 2016 the U.K. electorate voted in a referendum to voluntarily depart from the E.U., known as Brexit. Following the formation of a majority Conservative government in December 2019, the U.K. approved the Withdrawal Agreement and left the European Union (“Brexit”) on January 31, 2020.
The potential impact on our results of operations and liquidity resulting from Brexit remains unclear. The actual effects of Brexit will depend upon many factors and significant uncertainty remains with respect to the terms of the ultimate resolution of the Brexit negotiations. The final terms of the withdrawal may impact certain of our commercial and general business operations in the U.K. and the E.U., including the approval and supply of our products. In addition, Brexit could lead to legal uncertainty and potentially divergent national laws and regulations, including with respect to pharmaceuticals and biologics (as well as tax and free trade agreements, intellectual property rights, supply chain logistics, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations and employment laws), as the U.K. determines which E.U. laws to replace or replicate.
Compliance with any resulting regulatory mandates may prove challenging and the macroeconomic impact on our sales and consolidated results of operations from these developments remains unknown. We do not, however, expect Brexit to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations as the U.K. does not account for a material component of our annual revenues.
We cannot predict the direction Brexit-related developments will take nor the impact of those developments on our European operations and the economies of the markets where we operate.
As of December 31, 2019, we had 3,082 full-time, world-wide employees, of which 1,259 were engaged in research, product development, manufacturing, and clinical development, 1,335 in sales and marketing, and 488 in administration, human resources, information technology and finance. Our U.S. employees are not represented by any collective bargaining unit, and we regard the relationships with all our employees as satisfactory.
Information about our Executive Officers
The executive officers of the Company and their respective ages and positions as of February 4, 2020 are as follows:
Position with Alexion
Ludwig Hantson, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
Aradhana Sarin, M.D.
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
Tanisha Carino, Ph.D.
Executive Vice President, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer
Ellen Chiniara, J.D.
Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
Indrani Franchini, J.D.
Executive Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer
Executive Vice President, Chief Commercial and Global Operations Officer
Executive Vice President, Chief Human Experience Officer
John Orloff, M.D.
Executive Vice President, Head of Research and Development
Ludwig N. Hantson, Ph.D., is Chief Executive Officer of Alexion. Dr. Hantson is an accomplished healthcare executive with more than 30 years of experience in the biopharmaceutical industry.
Prior to joining Alexion in March 2017, Dr. Hantson was President and Chief Executive Officer of Baxalta and also served on the company’s Board of Directors. He led Baxalta’s successful spin-off as a public company from Baxter in July 2015 where he was President of Baxter BioScience. Dr. Hantson joined Baxter in May 2010 and established the BioScience division as one of the most innovative specialty and rare disease companies by building a robust pipeline of 25 new product candidates and launching 13 new products.
Dr. Hantson held several leadership roles during his decade-long tenure at Novartis from 2001-2010, including CEO of Pharma North America, CEO of Europe, and President of Pharma Canada. Prior to Novartis, he spent 13 years with Johnson & Johnson in roles of increasing responsibility in marketing, and research and development. Mr. Hantson serves on the Board of Directors of Hologic Inc., which is a medical technology company.
Dr. Hantson received his Ph.D. in motor rehabilitation and physical therapy, master’s degree in physical education, and a certification in high secondary education, all from the University of Louvain in Belgium.
Aradhana Sarin, M.D., is Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of Alexion. In this role, she is responsible for overseeing global financial management, treasury, internal audit, corporate strategy, business development, investor relations, security activities, and business operations, including corporate planning, at Alexion.
Dr. Sarin joined Alexion in November 2017 to drive strategy and business development, and she served as Alexion’s Chief Business and Strategy Officer prior to becoming the Chief Financial Officer in October 2019. She brings to Alexion more than 20 years of professional experience at global financial institutions. Dr. Sarin has extensive knowledge of global healthcare systems, and has closed more than 100 transactions across M&A, equity and debt financing transactions. Prior to joining Alexion, Dr. Sarin was Managing Director of Healthcare Corporate & Investment Banking at Citi Global Banking (which she joined in 2010), focusing on clients in the life sciences and biopharmaceutical sectors. Before this, she served as Managing Director of Healthcare Investment Banking at UBS, and worked at JP Morgan in the M&A Advisory and Healthcare groups focusing on transaction execution. Before her banking career, Dr. Sarin trained as a medical doctor in India and spent two years practicing in both India and Africa. Dr. Sarin also serves on the Board of OraSure Technologies, Inc., a manufacturer of point-of-care diagnostic tests.
Dr. Sarin completed her medical training at the University of Delhi and received her MBA from Stanford Business School.
Tanisha Carino, Ph.D., is Executive Vice President, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer of Alexion. In this role, Dr. Carino is responsible for global government relations, policy and communications.
Prior to joining Alexion in November 2019, Dr. Carino served as Executive Director of FasterCures, a Center of the Milken Institute, a nonpartisan think tank whose mission is working with global government, philanthropic, and business leaders to accelerate treatments to patients from January 2018 to November 2019. Prior to leading FasterCures, from May 2015 to January 2018, Dr. Carino was an executive at GlaxoSmithKline where she led the United States policy function, and spent over a decade with Avalere Health, a strategic advisory services organization, where she worked with senior leaders of life sciences companies to maximize opportunities and mitigate challenges related to biomedical research and patient access. She also worked in the U.S. Medicare program to improve access for its beneficiaries and support the development of real-world evidence.
Dr. Carino is a Fulbright Fellow, earned her Ph.D. in health policy from Johns Hopkins University, and is associate faculty at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Ellen Chiniara is Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary of Alexion. In this role, she is responsible for overseeing all global legal matters for the Company.
Ms. Chiniara previously served as Executive Vice President, General Counsel of Alexion until September 2019. Prior to joining Alexion in January 2018, Ms. Chiniara was Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Alere Inc., a point-of-care diagnostics company, from October 2006 to October 2017 where she was responsible for all legal matters and, from June 2014 to October 2017 she had oversight of compliance and government affairs matters. She managed the legal aspects of the company’s numerous acquisitions and dispositions and was also the executive sponsor of Alere’s corporate social responsibility efforts.
Prior to joining Alere, Ms. Chiniara served as Associate General Counsel for Serono’s Neurology division from 2002 to 2006. Earlier in her career, Ms. Chiniara was a partner at the law firm Hale and Dorr LLP (now Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP).
Ms. Chiniara received her J.D. from Stanford University’s School of Law and her Bachelor's Degree from Bryn Mawr College. She also was a graduate fellow at Yale University in Slavic Languages.
Indrani Franchini, J.D., is Executive Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer of Alexion. Ms. Franchini is responsible for leading Alexion’s global compliance program and co-leads the Global Corporate Compliance Committee.
Ms. Franchini has extensive experience developing and building the infrastructure and company-wide standards for global compliance programs. Prior to joining Alexion in June 2017, Ms. Franchini served as Chief Compliance Officer at Hess Corporation (a leading independent energy company) from June 2012 to July 2017. She previously spent nearly ten years with Pfizer overseeing all compliance elements for the development, marketing, and promotion of its global business. Earlier in her career, Ms. Franchini served as an attorney with Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in the firm’s New York and Tokyo offices.
Ms. Franchini earned her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School and a Bachelor of Arts from Princeton University. In addition, she spent a year as a Fulbright Fellow at the Kyushu University Graduation School in Fukuoka, Japan.
Brian Goff is Executive Vice President, Chief Commercial and Global Operations Officer of Alexion. Mr. Goff leads the global commercial and operations teams, which includes responsibility for country operations in each of Alexion’s affiliates in North America, EMEA, Japan, Asia Pacific, and Latin America.
Mr. Goff is a proven global biopharmaceutical executive with a 25-year track record of consistently delivering sustainable growth through multiple business cycles. He has deep expertise in commercial operations across multiple therapeutic areas, as well as broad expertise managing global cross-functional teams, including R&D, Medical Affairs, Manufacturing and Quality with a number of industry-leading biopharmaceutical companies.
Prior to joining Alexion in June 2017, Mr. Goff was Chief Operating Officer and a Member of the Board of Directors of Neurovance Inc. from December 2016 until its acquisition by Otsuka Pharmaceuticals in March 2017. Prior to joining Neurovance, Mr. Goff served as Baxalta’s Executive Vice President & President — Hematology Division from January 2015 to July 2016. He previously served with Baxter Healthcare Corporation as Global Hemophilia Franchise Head from June 2012 to December 2014. Earlier in his career, Mr. Goff held positions of increasing responsibility in sales and marketing roles with Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and the pharmaceutical division of Johnson & Johnson.
Mr. Goff has an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and a Bachelor of Arts from Skidmore College.
Anne-Marie Law is Executive Vice President, Chief Human Experience Officer of Alexion. She is responsible for Human Resources, Patient Advocacy, and digital and information technology on a global basis, with the goal of continuing to build the organization capabilities to advance Alexion’s strategy.
Ms. Law brings more than 25 years of experience at global corporations to the organization. Prior to joining Alexion in June 2017, she served as Chief Human Resources Officer at Hyatt Hotels Corporation from October 2016 to May 2017, where she was responsible for building the strategy to support the company’s 100,000 employees worldwide, and designing talent systems to create world class leadership and customer connectivity capabilities. She previously served as Executive Vice President and Head of Human Resources for Baxalta Incorporated from April 2009 to December 2014, and held various senior human resources positions at McKesson Corporation, including the Specialty Health Division, VeriSign, and Xilinx, Inc.
Ms. Law is a graduate of Leicester University with a degree in Art History in the United Kingdom and the National College of Ireland, Dublin.
John Orloff, M.D., is Executive Vice President, Head of Research & Development of Alexion. Dr. Orloff is focused on strengthening Alexion’s clinical pipeline and research programs, enhancing research and development productivity, overseeing regulatory and medical affairs, and supporting business development. Dr. Orloff has 20 years of experience in the biopharmaceutical industry and deep expertise spanning various stages of clinical and non-clinical development, including developing medicines for rare diseases.
Prior to joining Alexion in June 2017, Dr. Orloff served as Executive Vice President, Head of Research & Development at Novelion from November 2016 to May 2017, where he currently sits on the Board of Directors. From July 2015 to July 2016, he served with Baxalta as Global Head of R&D and Chief Scientific Officer, where he advanced the company’s pipeline and oversaw regulatory approval of 10 unique products and two devices. He also held executive R&D roles with Baxter International from July 2014 to June 2015, Merck Serono from January 2014 to May 2014, Novartis from April 2003 to October 2013 and Merck Research Laboratories. Prior to joining the biopharmaceutical industry in 1997, Dr. Orloff was with the Yale School of Medicine for seven years.
Dr. Orloff received a Bachelor of Arts from Dartmouth College, and a M.D. from the University of Vermont College of Medicine. He completed his medical training at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Yale University School of Medicine.
Our internet website address is http://www.alexion.com. Through our website, we make available, free of charge, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, any amendments to those reports, proxy and registration statements, and all of our insider Section 16 reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. These SEC reports can be accessed through the “Investors” section of our website. The information found on our website (or that may
be accessed through links on our website) is not part of this or any other report we file with, or furnish to, the SEC. Paper copies of our SEC reports are available free of charge upon request in writing to Investor Relations, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 121 Seaport Boulevard, Boston Massachusetts 02210. In addition, any document we file may be viewed at the SEC’s internet address at http://www.sec.gov. (This website address is not intended to function as a hyperlink, and the information contained in the SEC’s website is not intended to be a part of this filing).
The company intends to use its website http://www.alexion.com as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with its disclosure obligations under SEC Regulation FD. Such disclosures will be included on the company’s website under the heading “Investors”. Accordingly, investors should monitor such portions of the company’s website, in addition to following the company’s press releases, SEC filings and public conference calls and webcasts.
Item 1A.Risk Factors.
(amounts in millions, except percentages)
You should carefully consider the following risk factors before you decide to invest in Alexion securities and our business, because the risks described below may have a material impact on our business, operating results, financial condition, and cash flows. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Risks Related to Revenue Concentration and Conversion
We depend on revenue from sales of our C5 complement inhibitors and, if we are unable to continue to increase revenues from sales of our C5 complement inhibitors, our business would be materially harmed and our future operating results may be adversely impacted.
Since 2007, our revenue has depended primarily on the sales of SOLIRIS, a C5 complement inhibitor with a 2 week dosing schedule. In December 2018, we obtained our first regulatory approval in the U.S. to sell ULTOMIRIS, a long-acting C5 complement inhibitor, with an 8 week dosing schedule. These C5 complement inhibitors accounted for 85.9% of our total revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Unless we are able to develop or acquire and commercialize new products beyond these C5 complement inhibitors, and/or materially increase sales of STRENSIQ and KANUMA (two additional currently approved products), we will remain dependent on sales of SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS as a source of our revenue. We expect our revenues for 2020 will continue to depend on our ability to sell our C5 complement inhibitors.
The commercial success of our C5 complement inhibitors and our ability to generate revenue depends on several factors, including: the safety and efficacy of our C5 complement inhibitors; coverage or reimbursement by government or third-party payers for our C5 complement inhibitors; pricing for our complement inhibitors; the analysis by doctors, payers and patients of the cost of our C5 complement inhibitors relative to the perceived benefits; manufacturing and uninterrupted supply; the introduction and success of competing products (including novel products and biosimilars to SOLIRIS); the size of patient populations and the number of patients diagnosed who may be treated with our C5 complement inhibitors; the impact of legal, administrative, regulatory or legislative developments that impact the use of C5 complement inhibitors; and our ability to develop, obtain regulatory
approval for and commercialize our C5 complement inhibitors for new indications. Any of these or other factors may cause revenues from sales of our C5 complement inhibitors to decrease, which would harm our business results.
While SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS are studied for indications beyond those currently approved by regulatory authorities, there is no guarantee that we can obtain regulatory approval or achieve any commercial sales of SOLIRIS or ULTOMIRIS for such other indications. Nor can we guarantee that, even if regulatory approval is obtained for such additional indications, physicians and patients will accept SOLIRIS or ULTOMIRIS as a treatment for such indications or that payers will pay for or reimburse the costs of these therapies.
If we are not able to maintain revenues from sales of SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS, or such revenues decrease, our operating results would be negatively impacted and our ability to fund research and development, commercialize or acquire new products would be harmed, which would limit our ability to diversify our revenue base and our stock price could be adversely affected. In addition, as a result of having our revenue concentrated in SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS, our future revenues and results of operations can be significantly harmed by, among other factors, the introduction of one or more biosimilar products or novel competitive products that treat the same indications, adverse developments in the commercialization and sale of these products or a change in reimbursement policies by payers for the C5 complement inhibitors.
We aim to facilitate the conversion of patients from SOLIRIS to ULTOMIRIS. If we are unable to achieve our conversion objectives, our business may be harmed. In addition, even if we are successful, due to the pricing of ULTOMIRIS, our revenues may decrease unless we are able to increase the number of patients using our C5 inhibitors.
ULTOMIRIS has been approved for patients with PNH in certain jurisdictions, including in the U.S., Europe and Japan, and was recently approved for patients with aHUS in the U.S.
One of our principal business objectives is to facilitate the conversion of PNH and aHUS patients from SOLIRIS to ULTOMIRIS. While clinical trials in PNH patients demonstrated that ULTOMIRIS is non-inferior to SOLIRIS at an 8 week dosing interval (compared to a 2 week dosing interval for SOLIRIS), existing PNH patients taking SOLIRIS and their physicians may decline to switch to ULTOMIRIS. If we are unable to facilitate conversion to ULTOMIRIS prior to the loss of intellectual property or regulatory exclusivities for SOLIRIS, our
future revenues could be adversely impacted if we were to face biosimilar competition for SOLIRIS.
We have established what we believe is a globally sustainable and durable pricing strategy for ULTOMIRIS that is intended to facilitate such patient conversions (for example, in the U.S. the cost of current labeled maintenance therapy for ULTOMIRIS for adult PNH patients of average weight, represents on an annual basis an approximate 10% decrease relative to the cost of SOLIRIS). However, in the first year of PNH conversion to ULTOMIRIS, due to the loading doses required, there is an approximate 10% premium to the cost of SOLIRIS. We have also priced ULTOMIRIS for patients with aHUS in the U.S. at a cost relative to the cost of SOLIRIS for patients with aHUS in the U.S. that is approximately 30% less on an annual basis for an average adult patient on maintenance therapy (unlike PNH, the cost in the first year of aHUS conversion to ULTOMIRIS is approximately 20% less than the cost of SOLIRIS). If we achieve our goal of facilitating the conversion of current PNH and aHUS patients from SOLIRIS (which accounted for approximately $3,946.4, or 79.1%, of our revenues in 2019) to ULTOMIRIS, due to these discounts we anticipate that U.S. revenue attributable to each patient that converts from SOLIRIS to ULTOMIRIS will decrease. In addition, as a result of the decreased cost for ULTOMIRIS relative to SOLIRIS on a per patient basis, in order to maintain or increase C5 complement inhibitor revenues in the future as we succeed in converting patients from SOLIRIS to ULTOMIRIS, we must increase the total number of patients utilizing SOLIRIS, including gMG and NMOSD patients, and ULTOMIRIS.
Finally, as a result of patient conversion from SOLIRIS to ULTOMIRIS, we expect variability in our revenues in future quarters due to the extended ULTOMIRIS dosing interval and infusion timing which may result in either one or two infusions in a quarter. Due to the decision to price ULTOMIRIS lower than SOLIRIS on an annual basis, we anticipate U.S. revenues will be unfavorably impacted by the lower annual cost per patient in maintenance years, with the impact more pronounced for aHUS due to the greater decrease in vials for aHUS ULTOMIRIS patients.
Risks Related to Pricing and Reimbursement
Sales of our products depend on reimbursement by payers and these payers are subject to pressures to contain costs.
Our commercial success depends on setting a price for our products that will enable us to obtain reimbursement at anticipated levels. Our products are significantly more expensive than traditional drug treatments and almost all patients require governmental payers and/or private third-party payers to pay all or a portion of the cost of our products. There is a significant trend in the health care industry by public and private payers to contain or reduce their costs, including by
taking the following steps, among others: decreasing the portion of costs payers will cover, ceasing to provide adequate payment for certain products or not covering certain products at all. If payers implement any of the foregoing with respect to our products, it would have an adverse impact on our revenue and results of operations.
Our ability to set the price for our products varies significantly from country to country, including in those countries where pricing, coverage, reimbursement or funding of prescription drugs are subject to governmental control. We may be unable to timely or successfully negotiate coverage, pricing and reimbursement on terms that are favorable to us (or at all), or such coverage, pricing and reimbursement may differ in separate regions in the same country. In some countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed, which could delay market entry (or, if pricing is not approved, we may be unable to sell at all in a country where we have received regulatory approval for a product). In addition, authorities in some countries impose additional obligations, such as health technology assessments (HTAs), which assess how well a prescription drug works in relation to its cost. Additionally, U.S. payers are increasingly considering new metrics, including HTAs, as the basis for reimbursement rates. If our products do not meet or surpass these metrics, these payers may not reimburse the use of our products or may reduce the rate of reimbursement for our products and as a result, revenue from such products may decrease. We have voluntarily elected to reduce prices or establish price caps with payers, which we believe provides value in the long term (but decreases revenue per patient).
In the United States, there have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of federal and state proposals to implement governmental controls on pharmaceutical pricing. Both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government have recently unveiled proposals to implement such controls, among these proposals are: to allow Medicare to negotiate certain drug prices (and such prices would apply to the private market as well) (this measure was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives in late-2019), to move to a reimbursement regime that would establish pharmaceutical pricing by reference to a target price derived from the international price index, and to permit importation of medicines from other countries that have lower prices. Certain states have also proposed measures that are designed to control the costs of pharmaceuticals that they reimburse. If the U.S. (through the federal or state governments), which accounted for approximately 25% of our revenue in 2019, were to move to a pricing system based on negotiated prices or to an international price index (or similar model) that were to apply to our products, we expect that our revenues for sales in the U.S. would be
lower, and potentially materially lower than if the current pricing program remained in place.
Other countries, including many European countries and Canada, have established pricing and reimbursement policies that contain costs by referencing the price of the same or similar products in other countries. In these instances, if coverage or the level of reimbursement is reduced, limited or eliminated in one or more countries, we may be unable to obtain or maintain anticipated pricing or reimbursement in other countries or in new markets. This may create the opportunity for third-party cross-border trade or influence our decision whether to sell a product, thus adversely affecting our geographic expansion plans and revenues. See Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements for information about our lawsuit against the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) to establish that Alexion did not excessively price SOLIRIS in Canada, which uses reference pricing.
Due to the cost of our therapies, any potential increase in the number of patients receiving our products (for example, we expect there may be increases in sales of SOLIRIS for patients with gMG and NMOSD as we launch for those indications), may cause third-party payers to modify, limit or eliminate coverage or reimbursement for our products because they may require an allocation of a greater percentage of the potential financial resources of any public or private payer for our products.
Further, health insurance programs may utilize coverage incentives and obstacles to discourage beneficiaries from using higher priced products such as ours, including:
establishing formularies under which only selected drugs are covered (which may exclude one or more of our products);
utilizing variable co-payments that make drugs that are not preferred by the payer more expensive for patients; and
utilizing management controls, such as requirements for prior authorization or failure first on another treatment.
In countries where patients have access to insurance, their insurance co-payment amounts or other benefit limits may represent a barrier to obtaining or continuing use of our products or adoption of new treatment options, such as ULTOMIRIS. The imposition or continuation of the use of these types of limits or barriers by insurers or the imposition of similar limitations or barriers in the future may have an adverse impact on our revenue and results of operations. In some cases, we have financially supported non-profit organizations that assist patients in accessing treatments. Such organizations assist patients whose insurance coverage imposes high co-payment amounts
or other expensive financial obligations. Such organizations’ ability to provide assistance to patients is dependent on funding from external sources, and we cannot guarantee that such funding will be provided at adequate levels, if at all. We have also provided our products without charge to patients who have no or limited insurance coverage for drugs through related charitable purposes. We are not able to predict the financial impact of the support we may provide for these and other charitable purposes; however, substantial support could have a material adverse effect on our profitability in the future.
As third-party payers attempt to contain health care costs, they are demanding price discounts or rebates and limiting both the types and variety of drugs that they may cover and the amounts that they will pay for drugs. As a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment to patients for our products or they may demand discounts or rebates from us, which may be material.
In 2019, four customers accounted for 56.4% of our total revenues. If any one or more of these customers were to to require significant discounts or rebates, or were to discontinue purchasing our products (due to cost or otherwise), our results of operations may be materially and adversely impacted.
Risks Related to Intellectual Property
If we cannot obtain new patents, maintain our existing patents and protect the confidentiality and proprietary nature of our trade secrets and other intellectual property, our business and competitive position may be harmed.
Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and regulatory protections for our products and investigational compounds, to preserve our trade secrets and other proprietary rights and to prevent third parties from infringing on our rights.
We have procured patent rights, through both ownership and license, that cover our products and investigational compounds, and will likely apply for additional patent protections in the future. However, our patent applications may not result in the issuance of patents in the U.S. or other countries. In addition, a patent may be issued in one country, but a counterpart patent may not be issued in another country. For example, the European Patent Office in September 2019 rejected a patent application relating to the composition of matter for SOLIRIS; related patents were granted in the U.S. and Japan.
Even if a patent is issued, that is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and therefore that patent may not afford adequate (or any) protection for our products. On the basis of such inconclusiveness, third parties may challenge our patents, have done so in the past and, in some cases, have been successful in such challenges. For example,
on January 21, 2019, the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office determined, following multi-party opposition proceedings, to revoke one of our European patents that relates to the formulation of SOLIRIS and, on August 30, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted inter partes review of three of our patents that relate to SOLIRIS.
If any of our patents are narrowed, invalidated, revoked or become unenforceable, competitors may develop and market products similar to ours that do not conflict with or infringe our patents rights, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. Even if we obtain and maintain patents, our business may be significantly harmed if the patents are not broad enough to protect our products from copycat products.
We may finance or collaborate in research and development projects conducted by third parties, including government organizations, hospitals, universities or other educational or research institutions, or other for-profit companies. Such third parties may be unwilling to grant us certain rights to technology or products developed through such projects. Disputes may also arise as to the rights to technology or products developed in collaboration with such third parties.
Significant legal questions exist concerning the extent and scope of patent protection for biopharmaceutical products and processes in the U.S. and elsewhere. Accordingly, there is no certainty that patent applications owned or licensed by us will issue as patents, or that our issued patents will afford meaningful protection against competitors. Once issued, patents are subject to challenge through both administrative and judicial proceedings in the U.S. and other countries. Such proceedings include re-examinations, inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews and interference proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office and other non-U.S. patent offices. Certain countries have laws that provide stronger bases for challenging third party patent rights than are available to challenge patents in other countries. Therefore, we may be able to defend our patents against a third-party claim in one country but counterpart patents may be invalidated in other countries and we may be able to invalidate a third-party patent in one country but not invalidate its counterpart patents in other countries. Litigation may be required to enforce, defend or obtain our patent and other intellectual property rights. Any administrative proceeding or litigation could require a significant commitment of our resources and, depending on outcome, could adversely affect the scope, validity or enforceability of certain of our patent or other proprietary rights.
Some of the sensitive technology, techniques and proprietary compounds used in our business are
protected as trade secrets. However, we may also rely on collaboration with, or discuss the potential for collaboration with, suppliers, outside scientists and other biopharmaceutical companies. Collaboration and discussion of potential collaboration present a strong risk of exposing our trade secrets. If our trade secrets were exposed, we may lose the protection and potential exclusive rights afforded by trade secret law, and such exposure may likely help our competitors and allow them to access technology without restriction and adversely affect our business prospects.
If we are found to be infringing third party patents, we may be forced to pay damages to the patent owner and/or obtain a license to continue the manufacture, sale or development of our products. If we cannot obtain a license, we may be prevented from the manufacture, sale or development of our products or product candidates, which may adversely affect our business.
Parts of our technology, techniques, proprietary compounds and potential product candidates, including those which are or may be in-licensed or developed in collaboration with third parties, may be found to infringe patents owned by or granted to others. We have, and may in the future, receive notices claiming our products infringe third party patents and third parties have and may in the future file civil lawsuits against us claiming infringement of their intellectual property rights. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. filed suits in the U.S. and Japan alleging that ULTOMIRIS infringes patents held by Chugai. See Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies to the footnotes to the consolidated financial statements. Additional third parties may claim that the manufacture, use or sale of our products or product candidates infringes patents owned or granted to such third parties. We are aware of patents owned by third parties that might be claimed by such third parties to be infringed by the development and commercialization of our products or investigational compounds. In respect to some of these patents, we have invalidated patents or obtained licenses, or expect to obtain licenses. However, with regard to other patents, we have determined in our judgment that:
our products and investigational compounds do not infringe the patents;
the patents are not valid or enforceable; and/or
we have identified and are testing various alternatives that should not infringe the patents and which should permit continued development and commercialization of our products and investigational compounds.
Any holder of these patents or other patents covering similar technology could sue us for damages, which may be material in amount, and seek to prevent us from manufacturing, selling or developing our products (and we may be, in certain cases, prevented from initiating product launches in certain jurisdictions or required to
withdraw the product from the market after it has been launched). Intellectual property disputes, such as those initiated by Chugai, can be costly and time consuming to defend and there is no guarantee that we would prevail in such lawsuit. If we cannot successfully defend against any infringement claims, we may seek to invalidate the patent or seek a license to the technology prior to or during legal actions in order to reduce the risks in connection with the product launches (or at a later time after product introduction) to reduce further costs and the risk of a court determination that our technology, techniques, proprietary compounds or potential product candidates infringe the third party’s patents. A required license may be costly or may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. A costly license, or inability to obtain a necessary license, could have a material adverse effect on our business.
In some instances, we believe we may prevail in a patent infringement action. There can, however, be no assurance that the court will agree with our position or that it will decide this or any other infringement case in our favor. Nor can we be certain that, if we do not prevail in litigation, that we may be able to obtain a license to any third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms (or at all); successfully develop non-infringing alternatives on a timely basis (or at all); or license alternative non-infringing technology, if any exists, on commercially reasonable terms (or at all). Any impediment to our ability to manufacture, use or sell approved forms of our products or our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.
It is possible that we could lose market exclusivity for a product earlier than expected, which may harm our competitive position.
In our industry, much of an innovative product’s commercial value is realized while it has market exclusivity.
Market exclusivity for our products depends in large part on patent rights and certain regulatory forms of protection. As noted above, patent protection can be uncertain as to the validity, scope and enforceability of many issued patents. Absent relevant patent protection for a product, once regulatory exclusivity periods expire, biosimilar or generic versions of the product can be approved and marketed. For example, in 2019, a SOLIRIS biosimilar was approved in Russia for the treatment of patients with PNH and aHUS.
The market exclusivity of our products may be impacted by competitive products that are either innovative, biosimilar or generic copies. In our industry, the risk of biosimilar or generic challenges has been increasing. U.S. law includes an approval pathway for biosimilar versions of innovative biological products. Under the pathway, the FDA may approve products that are similar to (but not generic copies of) innovative
biologics on the basis of less extensive data than is required for a full biologic license application (and there are similar pathways for generic copies of small molecule therapies). The law provides a mechanism to challenge the patents that protect an innovator’s products. Such litigation may begin as early as four years after the innovative biological product is first approved by the FDA. Pathways for biosimilar products also exist in many other markets, including Europe, Japan and Russia. Other companies are developing and advancing SOLIRIS biosimilar programs, including conducting clinical trials. Competition, including from biosimilars approved for marketing, would likely result in a decrease in volume of sales of our products, as well as a decrease in prices and lower margins for our products. In addition, approval of a biosimilar that is a substitute for one of our products may increase the risk of accelerated market penetration by that biosimilar. Further, if patients or healthcare providers do not believe that ULTOMIRIS provides a compelling profile for patient conversion from SOLIRIS, a SOLIRIS biosimilar may not only be expected to have a material and negative impact on our SOLIRIS revenues and margins (which accounted for a significant percentage of our revenue in 2019), it may also have a material impact on ULTOMIRIS revenue and margins and the ability of ULTOMIRIS to gain market acceptance.
Our other products are also at risk from biosimilars. Other than SOLIRIS for the treatment of gMG and SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS as a treatment for PNH and aHUS, each of our products is currently the only approved drug for the disease(s) the product treats. If a competitive product is approved for sale, including a biosimilar or generic product or novel therapy, our market share and our revenues could decline, particularly if the competitive product is perceived to be more effective or is less expensive than our product.
Risks Related to Our Products and Product Candidates
Our future commercial success depends on gaining regulatory approval for new products and obtaining approvals for existing products for new indications.
We invest significant amounts in acquiring new products and technologies and advancing our existing product candidates and technologies. Our success and revenue growth and diversification will depend in part on our identification, acquisition (including licenses from or collaborations with third parties), development and commercialization of new products and technologies, and approval of additional indications for our existing products and products under development. Product development is very expensive, takes significant time and involves a high degree of risk. Only a small number of research and development programs result in the commercialization of a product. In addition, our recent business development activities have focused on new technologies with which we have very limited experience, including antibody therapeutics targeting the neonatal
Fc receptor, which may make the development, approval and commercialization of such potential products challenging for us.
Our ability to maintain or grow and diversify revenues may be adversely affected if we are delayed or unable to successfully develop the products in our pipeline, if we are unable to gain approval for SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS for additional indications, for new routes of administration (subcutaneous delivery) and in new jurisdictions, obtain marketing approval for STRENSIQ and KANUMA in additional territories, obtain approval for additional delivery systems for our therapies (such as subcutaneous administration) or acquire or license products and technologies from third parties.
Even if we are successful in developing new products or addressing new indications, we cannot market any of those products unless and until we obtain all required regulatory approvals in each jurisdiction where we plan to sell these therapies. We must also maintain all such regulatory approvals for the period of time that we sell the product in each such jurisdiction. Our failure to obtain, or we have a delay in obtaining, approval or we fail to maintain approvals once obtained, will prevent us from selling products and generating revenues for those products in such jurisdiction where we do not hold such approvals.
Our products and product candidates target diseases with small patient populations and we may not be effective at identifying patients.
The therapies that we have developed and that are in our product pipeline and in preclinical development target diseases that have small patient populations that have not been definitively determined. Further, in many cases there are either no or limited diagnostic tools for the indications we treat or may treat in the future. The lack of diagnostic tools, coupled with the fact that there is frequently limited awareness among certain health care providers concerning the rare diseases we treat, often means that a proper diagnosis can, and frequently does, take years to identify (or an appropriate diagnosis may never be made for certain patients). As a result, we may not be able to grow our revenues (even as we introduce new products or as existing products are approved for additional indications). There can be no guarantee that any of our programs will be effective at identifying patients that will benefit from our therapies, and even if we can identify patients that our therapies can help, the number of patients that our therapies treat may turn out to be lower than we expect, they may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify, all of which may adversely affect our ability to grow and diversify revenue and adversely affect our results of operations and our business. In addition, even in instances where we do add patients, the number may be less than the number of patients that discontinue use of the applicable product in a given period resulting
in a net loss of patients and potentially decreased revenue.
We may not be able to gain or maintain market acceptance of our products among the medical community, patients or payers, which could prevent us from maintaining profitability or growth.
Our products may not gain or maintain market acceptance among physicians, patients, payers and others. Although we have received regulatory approval for certain of our products in certain territories (and may receive approvals for additional products or in additional jurisdictions), such approvals do not guarantee future revenue. Physicians’ willingness to prescribe, and patients’ willingness to accept, our products, depends on many factors, including:
prevalence and severity of adverse side effects in both clinical trials and commercial use;
the timing of the market introduction of competitive drugs and biosimilars;
perceived safety of our products;
demonstrated clinical safety and efficacy of our products compared to other drugs;
perceived benefits relative to cost and/or evaluations in HTAs;
pricing and availability of reimbursement from third-party payers, including governmental entities;
convenience and ease of administration;
effectiveness of our marketing strategy;
publicity concerning our products and our other product candidates (and those of competitive products); and
availability of alternative treatments.
The likelihood of physicians to prescribe SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS for patients with aHUS may also depend on how quickly SOLIRIS or ULTOMIRIS can be delivered to the hospital or clinic and our distribution methods may not be sufficient to satisfy this need. In addition, while SOLIRIS as a treatment for aHUS is recommended by some regulatory authorities to be used for the duration of a patient’s lifetime, we are aware that some healthcare providers prescribe SOLIRIS for aHUS for a shorter time period and, in some cases, may prescribe SOLIRIS for aHUS in emergency or acute situations only (and the same may occur in connection with the use of ULTOMIRIS for aHUS). Decisions such as this by aHUS patients and healthcare providers to use our products for a period that is less than the remaining lifetime of the patient or in only acute circumstances may cause our SOLIRIS or ULTOMIRIS revenues, and revenues for our other products, to fluctuate and past sales of our products may not be indicative of future sales for such products.
If our products fail to achieve or maintain market acceptance among the medical community or patients in a particular country, we may not be able to market and sell our products successfully in such country, which may limit our ability to generate revenue and could harm our overall business.
If our products harm patients, or are perceived to harm patients even when such harm is unrelated to our products, our regulatory approvals could be revoked or otherwise negatively impacted and we could be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims.
The testing, manufacturing, marketing and sale of biologics and small molecule therapies for use in humans may cause harm to patients, which exposes us to product liability risks and regulatory penalties.
Our products and our product candidates treat patients with rare diseases and, as a result, we generally are able to test our products in only a small number of patients. As more patients use our products, including more children and adolescents, new risks and side effects may be discovered, the rate of known risks or side effects may increase, and risks previously viewed as less significant could be determined to be significant.
Under pharmacovigilance guidelines, we are required to timely report any adverse events that any patient using our products experiences, as well as any clinical evaluations of outcomes in the post-marketing setting. This information is required to be reported to appropriate regulatory agencies in accordance with relevant regulations and, as a result, any potential adverse events will be promptly brought to the attention of regulators that may likely require prompt remedial action (and any failure to report these adverse events or report such events in a timely manner may result in penalties being imposed on Alexion by regulators). In the event any new risks or adverse effects are discovered as new patients are treated for approved indications, or as our products are studied in or used by patients for other indications, regulatory authorities may delay or revoke their approvals or require changes to labeling or reformulation of the products (or take other actions).
If previously unknown side effects are discovered or if there is an increase in negative publicity regarding known side effects of any of our products, it could significantly reduce demand for the product, harm our reputation, result product withdrawals, recalls, in delays or revocations of regulatory approvals or require us to take actions that could negatively affect sales and operating results, including conducting additional clinical trials and safety studies, making changes in labeling, reformulating our products or making changes and obtaining new approvals for our and our suppliers’ manufacturing facilities. Further, any investigation into the circumstances surrounding an adverse event may be costly and time consuming (even if it is ultimately
determined that the adverse event is not the result of the use of our product).
There are also risks associated with our products; for example, use of C5 Inhibitors, such as SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS, is associated with an increased risk for certain types of infection, including meningococcal infection. In certain cases, a physician may not have the opportunity to timely vaccinate a patient in the event of an acute emergency episode, such as in a patient presenting with aHUS, which could result in the patient using SOLIRIS or ULTOMIRIS experiencing a life-threatening meningococcal infection (and even in certain cases in which a vaccination can be delivered to the patient, it may not, eliminate all risk of meningococcal infection). Patients using our products and product candidates have died or suffered potentially life-threatening conditions either during or after ending their treatments, and these include patients who have died while participating in a clinical trial. In addition, many patients who use our products are already very ill and may suffer adverse events, including death, for reasons that may or may not be related to our products. We may be sued by patients who are harmed during the course of using our products, whether as a prescribed therapy, during a clinical trial, during an investigator-initiated study, or otherwise. Any such product liability lawsuit or injury claim, which could include class actions, could harm our reputation among patients, physicians, payers and others and require us to pay substantial amounts of money to injured patients, and even if successfully defended, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations due to the expense of defending any such claim. While we do have product liability insurance, it may not cover all potential types of liabilities or may not cover certain liabilities completely. Moreover, we may not be able to maintain our insurance on acceptable terms, or at all.
We anticipate that we will face increased competition from companies that will enter into the markets we currently serve and as our product pipeline expands into markets that are currently served by other companies.
We expect that the business environment in which we operate will become increasingly competitive. Currently, our products are the only approved therapies for certain indications they treat. For example, SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS are the only approved treatments for PNH and aHUS in the U.S. (and the only approved treatments for PNH Europe and Japan). In the future, we expect that SOLIRIS and ULTOMIRIS may compete with new, novel drugs and biosimilars currently in development. Several companies are developing therapies to treat PNH, aHUS, gMG and NMOSD and other pharmaceutical companies have publicly stated that they are developing and intend to commercialize a SOLIRIS biosimilar. We expect that the introduction of a competitive product may negatively impact our business, including our revenue and profitability. For example,
following the introduction of a SOLIRIS biosimilar in 2019 in Russia for the treatment of PNH and aHUS, we experienced a decrease in revenue from sales of SOLIRIS and expect that Russia will account for a minor portion, if any, of future SOLIRIS revenue as a result of this competitive product. STRENSIQ and KANUMA may also experience competition in the future. We are also aware of companies that have initiated or are planning to initiate studies for diseases that we are also targeting with our product pipeline. Our revenues could be negatively affected if patients or potential patients enroll in our clinical trials or clinical trials of other companies with respect to diseases that we also target with approved therapies.
Some of our competitors may have significantly greater financial, technical and marketing resources than us and may commercialize competitive products that are cheaper, more effective, safer, have less frequent dosing schedules, or are easier and quicker to administer than our products. Our current and future competitors may develop products that are more broadly accepted or may receive patent protection that dominates, blocks or adversely affects our product development or business. These competitive products, including any biosimilars approved under alternative regulatory pathways, may significantly reduce both the price that we receive for our marketed products and the volume of products that we sell, which may negatively impact our revenues and profitability. Given that a significant portion of our 2019 revenue was attributable to SOLIRIS, one or more competitive novel products or biosimilars could have a significant impact on our entire business.
In addition, we experience competition in drug development from universities and other research institutions, and pharmaceutical companies compete with us to attract universities and academic research institutions as drug development partners, including for licensing their proprietary technology. If our competitors successfully enter into such arrangements with academic institutions, we may be precluded from pursuing those unique opportunities and may not be able to find equivalent opportunities elsewhere.
If a company announces successful clinical trial results for a product that may be competitive with one of our products or product candidates, receives marketing approval of a competitive product, or gets to the market before we do with a competitive product, our business may be harmed or our stock price may decline.
Risks Related to Business Operations
We rely on a limited number of facilities to produce our products and manufacturing issues at our facilities or the facilities of our third party service providers could cause product shortages, stop or delay commercialization of our products, disrupt or delay our
clinical trials or regulatory approvals, and adversely affect our business.
The majority of our products and product candidates are biologics and the production of such biologic therapeutics that meet all product specification and regulatory requirements is particularly complex. Even slight deviations at any point in the production process may lead to production failures, product recalls and regulatory actions. For example, in 2013 and 2014 we undertook a voluntary recall of SOLIRIS due to the presence of visible particles in a limited number of vials. In addition, because the production process involves the use of materials that are derived from biological sources, the process can be affected by contaminants that could impact those biological micro-organisms. These manufacturing challenges are coupled with the fact that we have limited experience manufacturing commercial quantities of certain of our products (so we may have limited previous experience resolving any issues in connection with the manufacture of these products and any issues may take significant time to remediate or we may be unable to solve any manufacturing problems). In addition, with our acquisition of Achillion, we also have small molecules in a Phase II trial and and plan to initiate a Phase III trial and we expect that manufacture of these therapies and compliance with cGMP will pose similar challenges and we have limited experience manufacturing small molecules for clinical trials and no experience manufacturing for commercial sales.
If we and/or our third party suppliers fail to meet the highly technical requirements/specifications of manufacturing our biologic products and our strict quality and control specifications, we (or they) may be unable to manufacture or supply our products. We depend on our third party manufacturers to perform effectively on a timely basis and to comply with regulatory requirements and meet our product specifications. If they are unable to do so, our contractual rights to address any failures and right to recover damages are limited. Our failure or the failure of our third-party manufacturers to produce sufficient quantities of our products and product candidates could result in lost revenue, diminish our profitability, delay the development of our product candidates, delay regulatory approval, result in the rejection of our product candidates or result in supply shortages for our patients, which may lead to lawsuits, harm to our reputation or could accelerate introduction of competing products to the market. For example, we experienced unexpected chemistry, manufacturing and control (or CMC) issues with our ALXN 1830 program that resulted in a delay in the clinical trial timeline for that program. We may experience similar CMC issues in the future that may impact marketed products or other clinical trials.
If we underestimate demand for ULTOMIRIS, SOLIRIS or any of our products, or experience product interruptions at Alexion’s internal manufacturing
facilities or a facility of a third party provider, including as a result of risks and uncertainties described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we may not be able to increase our revenues and alternative therapies may gain greater market acceptance.
We also face external factors, many of which are beyond our control, that could cause production interruptions at our facilities or at the facilities of our third party providers, including natural disasters, labor disputes, acts of terrorism or war.
The risks to our business of any manufacturing stops or interruptions (whether the result of internal or external factors of the nature identified above) are amplified because we rely on a limited number of facilities to produce our products and product candidates. Further, we expect that we will continue to rely on a very limited number of manufacturing facilities in the future for all of our products, including our complement inhibitors. Although we have business continuity plans, including with respect to inventory, to reduce the potential for manufacturing disruptions or delays and reduce the severity of a disruptive event, there is no guarantee that these plans will be adequate, which could adversely affect our business and operations.
We and our third party providers are required to maintain compliance with cGMP and other stringent operation and manufacturing requirements and are subject to inspections by the FDA and comparable agencies in other jurisdictions to confirm such compliance. Governmental authorities will generally not permit products manufactured at a facility that is not registered by the applicable government agency to enter into the country and such products may be returned for failure to comply with such regulation, which may decrease or delay sales and result in the loss of inventory. Any delay, interruption or other issues that arise in the manufacture, fill-finish, packaging or storage of our products as a result of a failure of our facilities or the facilities or operations of third parties to pass any regulatory agency inspection or comply with ongoing operating regulations could significantly impair our ability to supply our products and product candidates. Significant noncompliance could also result in the imposition of monetary penalties or other civil or criminal sanctions and damage our reputation.
Our efforts to bring more of our manufacturing operations under our control present additional risks. We have made significant investments in biologics manufacturing facilities, warehousing, fill-finish and other facilities at our sites in Athlone and Dublin, Ireland and at dedicated sites owned by third parties. We have commenced manufacturing operations at certain of these sites prior to receiving regulatory approval and we have $60.5 of product produced at such sites in inventory as of December 31, 2019. Despite the significant investment we have made in these facilities and operations, we cannot guarantee that we will be able
to successfully and timely complete the appropriate validation processes or obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for these and other facilities, that we will be able to perform the intended manufacturing and supply chain services at these facilities for commercial or clinical use or that we will be able to use the product manufactured at these sites. Prior to such time, we may continue to rely on third parties for these services.
If our products are subject to any manufacturing issues, we may be unable to timely identify alternative manufacturers, and if we are able to timely identify alternative manufacturers, such alternative manufactures may not be able to satisfy our requirements. No guarantee can be made that regulators will approve additional third party providers in a timely manner or at all, or that any third party providers will be able to perform manufacturing or related services for sufficient product volumes for any country or territory. Further, due to the nature of the current market for third-party commercial manufacturing, many arrangements require substantial penalty payments by the customer for failure to use the manufacturing capacity for which it contracted. The payment of a substantial penalty could harm our financial condition and may restrict our ability to transition to internal manufacturing or manufacturing by other third parties. In addition, the terms and conditions to engage an additional third-party manufacturer may not be as favorable to us as our current arrangements and may likely reduce the profit on the sales of any products to which they relate.
Any adverse developments affecting our manufacturing operations or the operations of our third-party providers could result in a product shortage of clinical or commercial requirements, withdrawal of our product candidates or any approved products, shipment delays, lot failures or recalls. We may also have to write-off inventory and incur other charges and expenses for products that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives. Each of these could have an adverse material impact on our business individually or in the aggregate.
We rely on a limited number of providers for our raw materials and supply chain services, which could result in our being unable to continue to successfully commercialize our products and our product candidates (if approved) and to advance our clinical pipeline.
Certain of the raw materials required in the manufacture and the formulation of our products are derived from biological sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. Access to and supply of sufficient quantities of raw materials which meet the technical specifications for the production process is challenging, and often limited to single-source suppliers. Finding an alternative supplier could take a significant amount of time and
involve significant expense due to the nature of the products and the need to obtain regulatory approvals. The failure of these single-source suppliers to supply adequate quantities of raw materials for the production process in a timely manner may impact our ability to produce sufficient quantities of our products for clinical or commercial requirements. A material shortage, contamination, recall, or restriction on the use of certain biologically derived substances or any raw material used in the manufacture of our products could adversely impact or disrupt manufacturing and materially limit our ability to generate revenues.
In addition, KANUMA is a transgenic product and the facilities on which we rely to produce raw material for KANUMA are the only animal facilities in the world that produce the necessary egg whites from transgenic chickens. Natural disasters, disease, such as exotic Newcastle disease or avian influenza, or other catastrophic events could have a significant impact on the supply of unpurified KANUMA, or destroy our animal operations altogether. If our animal operations are disrupted, it may be extremely difficult to set up another animal facility to supply the unpurified KANUMA.
We also depend on a very limited number of third party providers for supply chain services with respect to our clinical and commercial product requirements, including product filling, finishing, packaging and labeling.
These third-party raw material providers and supply chain service providers operate as independent entities and we do not exercise control over any such third-party provider’s operations or their compliance with our internal or external specifications or the rules and regulations of regulatory agencies. Any contractual remedies we may have under agreements with these parties may not protect us from the harm suffered by our business or our patients if they fail to provide material or perform services that meet our specifications. Due to the highly specialized nature of the services performed by these third parties, particularly the supply of raw materials and other drug product, as well as the delivery and supply chain operations regarding our products, we do not believe that we could quickly find replacement suppliers or service providers and, even if we were able to identify additional third parties, the terms of any such arrangement may not be favorable to us. In either of these cases, our revenue, results of operations, business and reputation may be harmed and we may not be able to provide the therapies that our patients require.
The success of our business may also depend on the security of our products while in the supply chain for delivery to patients, which, as noted above, is dependent on third-party providers. For example, if our products are not fully and adequately secured from unauthorized access by third parties, any of our products may be tampered with or contaminated. If our products were
exposed to any tampering or contamination, or if they are not transported in accordance with the required specifications, our patients may be harmed through use of our products, and such harm may be severe. In addition, if the supply chain is not secure (or our distributors do not exercise control over our products while in their possession), we are also at risk for our products being diverted to patients other than those who are the intended recipient or to patients who do not have a prescription to receive our therapies (or it may be used for treatment by physicians who have not completed the necessary REMs protocols in order to treat patients) or it may be sold by distributors, channels or other entities that are not authorized by Alexion to sell our products. In addition, an unauthorized distributor may not properly store or ship our products, thereby exposing patients to potential harm from use of the product that was not handled in accordance with our standards. If any of the foregoing were to happen, we could be subject to costly litigation, significant monetary penalties, harm to our reputation and investigation by regulatory authorities (and potentially subject to regulatory action, including recall, product withdrawals, suspensions and monetary penalties).
The sale and use of counterfeit versions of our products could result in significant harm to patients, reduced sales of our products and harm to our reputation.
We are aware that counterfeit versions of our products have been sold by entities that are not affiliated with Alexion using product packaging suggesting that the product was manufactured by Alexion. If unauthorized third parties illegally distribute and sell counterfeit versions of our products, those products may not meet our very stringent product specifications (or the manufacturing, handling and distribution requirements for our products) and any patient that takes any counterfeit product may suffer serious adverse health consequences, including death. Our reputation and business could suffer harm as a result of counterfeit drugs sold under our brand name and could result in lost sales for us and decreased revenues.
If we are unable to establish and maintain effective sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or to enter into agreements with third parties to do so, we may be unable to successfully commercialize our products.
We currently market and sell our products in the U.S., the EU, Japan and several other territories through a direct sales force. In addition, in order to gain greater efficiencies in our operations, we are implementing a plan pursuant to which certain portions of our international commercial operations have already or will transition to a new operating model in which sales, distribution and marketing efforts in designated countries will be conducted by third-parties, and our direct sales and marketing presence will decrease (or be eliminated) in these regions.
Due to the fact that some of our products are new to the market, we do not have lengthy experience in marketing and selling these products to patients, healthcare providers and payers (for example, we are new to certain therapeutic areas, such as neurology (gMG and NMOSD), and our sales force has had limited exposure in educating and targeting sales to patients and physicians in neurology practices). This challenge is coupled with the fact that many members of our sales and marketing team are new to working with Alexion products and we are transitioning to third parties to market, distribute and sell our product in certain countries. If we are unable to successfully market and sell our new products (and expand our sales and commercial operations) and to successfully sell our products in new therapeutic areas, as well as successfully implement the transition to third parties to sell, distribute and market our products in certain countries, our business and sales may be harmed. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to establish, maintain and expand our own capabilities or enter into and maintain any sales, marketing or distribution agreements with third-party providers on acceptable terms, if at all, or that we will be able to manage the transition to third-party sales, marketing and distribution in the relevant jurisdictions that will not cause any interruption or disruption in our business and sales of our products. We will not exercise the same degree of control over such third parties that we do over our direct sales force and the ability to direct the third party and provide incentives for such third party to market and sell our products may not be as strong as in the case of a direct sales force. This transition and greater reliance on third party sales force, marketers and distributors may also increase the risk of litigation with or liability to third parties that we had previously engaged to perform services for us in jurisdictions where we are implementing these operational changes.
Even if we hire qualified sales and marketing personnel necessary to support our objectives and enter into distribution agreements with third parties on acceptable terms, we may not hire such employees or enter into such agreements in an efficient manner or on a timely basis. We may not be able to forecast accurately the size and experience of the sales and marketing force and the scale of distribution capabilities necessary to successfully market and sell our products which could result in decreased revenues or margins. In addition, as we launch new products, such as ULTOMIRIS, and we move into new therapeutic areas (such as neurology), and, if and when, the products we acquire in connection with acquisitions and development agreements with third parties move closer to regulatory approval, we may have a larger product portfolio and address more therapeutic areas and the foregoing risks may continue to apply and may increase. Our expenses associated with building up and maintaining the sales force and distribution capabilities around the world, and in
transitioning from direct sales force to third party sales, marketing and distribution, may be disproportionate compared to the revenues we may be able to generate on sales or any savings or efficiencies we gain through use of such third-parties. We cannot guarantee that we will be successful in commercializing any of our products for the above referenced or other reasons.
Our efforts to expand our business and product offerings through acquisitions of businesses and technologies may not be successful.
Building our product pipeline is a key strategic objective to address revenue concentration risk in C5 complement inhibitors and we expect to regularly evaluate and, when appropriate, purchase businesses and acquire, co-develop or license technologies and products from third parties in an effort to expand and diversify our pipeline, product offerings, and our technologies. For example, we recently completed the acquisition of Achillion Pharmaceuticals. Acquisitions of new businesses or products and in-licensing of new technologies and products may involve numerous risks, including:
substantial cash expenditures;
potentially dilutive issuance of equity securities and incurrence of debt;
assumption of material liabilities in connection with the target or purchased technology, some of which may be difficult or impossible to identify at the time of acquisition;
difficulties in integrating the operations of the acquired companies;
failure of any acquired businesses or products or in-licensed products or technologies to achieve the scientific, medical, commercial or other results we anticipate;
diverting our management’s attention away from other business opportunities and on-going operations;
the potential loss of our key employees or key employees of the acquired companies;
risks of entering disease areas and indications in which we have limited or no direct experience; and
investments in resources and personnel to evaluate, integrate and develop acquisition and in-license programs.
A substantial portion of our strategic efforts are focused on opportunities for rare disorders, but the availability of such opportunities may be limited. We may not be able to identify opportunities that satisfy our strategic criteria or are acceptable to us or our stockholders. Several companies have publicly announced intentions to establish or develop rare disease programs and we may compete with these
companies (some of which may be larger and may be able to provide more consideration than we can) for the same opportunities. For these and other reasons, we may not be able to acquire the rights to additional product candidates or approved products on acceptable terms, or at all. In such event, we may not be able to further rebuild our pipeline and any future revenue may remain largely dependent on our existing products, which are subject to the risks noted above.
In addition, through our business development initiatives we have acquired new technologies, including Factor D small molecules and two FcRN platforms. These technologies are intended to diversify our pipeline and revenue base (if products based on these technologies are approved by regulatory authorities), but we have limited experience with these technologies, including developing these therapies, operating clinical trials with these therapies, obtaining regulatory approval and commercializing these assets. If we are unable to successfully bring these products to market, we may not be able to diversify our revenue or generate a return on our investments.
Even if we are able to successfully identify and complete acquisitions and other strategic transactions, we may not be able to integrate or take full advantage of them. An acquisition or other strategic transaction may or may not result in short-term or long-term benefits to us. We may also incorrectly judge the value or worth of an acquired company or business or an acquired or in-licensed product, particularly if the acquired technology is in preclinical trials or early-stage clinical trials. Any therapies we acquire that are in clinical trials may not result in a commercialized product and any revenues or, if commercialized, may not result in generating an adequate return on our investment.
In order to support potential growth of the business, we will be required to make significant investments in our business operations.
To effectively manage our current and future potential growth, we must continue to effectively enhance and develop our global employee base and our operational and financial processes. Supporting our growth strategy may require significant capital expenditures and management resources, including investments in research, development, sales and marketing, manufacturing and other areas of our operations. Efforts to advance our product pipeline, including the increased number of clinical trials that are under way or will commence in the future, will require significant expense in 2020. The development or expansion of our business, any acquired business or any acquired or in-licensed products may require a substantial capital investment by us and we may likely incur substantial expenses in advancing acquired products through development, trials, regulatory approval and to commercialization. We may not have the necessary funds for these capital expenditures and expenses or these funds might not be
available to us on acceptable terms or at all. We may also seek to raise funds by incurring additional indebtedness and selling shares of our capital stock, which could dilute current stockholders’ ownership interest in our company, or securities convertible into our capital stock, which could dilute current stockholders’ ownership interest in us upon conversion.
Completion of proof of concept trials, biomarker studies, preclinical studies or clinical trials does not guarantee advancement to the next phase of development or regulatory approval or successful commercialization.
Conducting clinical trials is a complex, time-consuming and expensive process and there are no guarantees that any trial will meet its endpoints. Completion of preclinical studies or clinical trials does not guarantee that we will initiate additional studies or trials for our product candidates, if further studies or trials are initiated, what the scope and phase of the trial will be or that they will be completed, or if these further studies or trials are completed, that the design or results may provide a sufficient basis to apply for or receive regulatory approvals or to commercialize products. Results of clinical trials could be inconclusive, requiring additional or repeat trials. Data obtained from preclinical studies and clinical trials are subject to varying interpretations that could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Many companies have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in clinical trials but nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their drug candidate. If the design or results achieved in our clinical trials are insufficient to proceed to further trials or to sustain regulatory approval of our product candidates, we could be materially adversely affected. Failure of a clinical trial to achieve its pre-specified primary endpoint generally increases the likelihood that additional studies or trials may be required if we even determine to continue development of the product candidate, reduces the likelihood of timely development of and regulatory approval to market the product candidate, and may decrease the chances for successfully achieving the primary endpoint(s) in scientifically similar indications.
We are currently planning and conducting several clinical trials of products and product candidates that we anticipate may be important to our goal of expanding our business and diversifying our product portfolio. These trials may not yield the anticipated results for a number of reasons.
ULTOMIRIS may not be approved as a treatment for additional indications or in other jurisdictions and any clinical trials may not achieve the designated endpoints and prove to be effective for use in patients with these additional indications. For example, we plan to initiate a Phase III clinical trial for ULTOMIRIS as a treatment for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and an exploratory clinical study in Primary Progressive Multiple
Sclerosis (PPMS). There is no guarantee that the Phase III clinical trial for ALS or the exploratory clinical study in PPMS will provide sufficient evidence to advance our research beyond these stages. In addition, we are also conducting clinical trials in therapeutic areas with which we have limited experience (for example, ALXN1840 (WTX101), a therapy for Wilson’s disease), Factor D small molecules, and with technology platforms with which we also have limited experience (for example, humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits the interaction of FcRn with Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgG immune complexes). Each of these clinical trials, and any other trial we commence, require significant financial expenses and operational resources, is subject to the risks highlighted above and the investments we have made in these technologies may not generate the expected returns.
Our clinical studies may be costly and lengthy, and there are many reasons why drug testing could be delayed or terminated.
For human trials, patients must be recruited and each product candidate must be tested at various doses and formulations for each clinical indication. Many of our programs focus on diseases with small patient populations making patient enrollment difficult and requiring a relatively large number of trial sites to meet enrollment requirements to power our clinical trials to our desired levels for efficacy and, in certain cases, superiority. Additionally, we can have multiple clinical trials running for the same indication, further challenging clinical trial enrollment. Insufficient patient enrollment in our clinical trials could delay or cause us to abandon a product development program. We may decide to abandon development of a product candidate or a study at any time due to unfavorable results or other reasons, including if there are concerns about patient safety (as patients have, and may in the future, suffer injuries during clinical trials). If initial trials do not produce adequate results, we may have to spend considerable resources repeating clinical trials or conducting additional trials, either of which may increase costs and delay revenue from those product candidates, if any. We may open clinical sites and enroll patients in countries where or for indications in which we have little experience.
Even if we were to complete clinical trials for one or more of our therapies, we or regulatory authorities may determine that the results are not be sufficient for filing a BLA or NDA or granting approval.
We rely on a small number of clinical research organizations to carry out our clinical trial related activities, and one contract research organization (CRO) is responsible for many of our studies. We rely on such parties to enroll clinical sites and patients, operate trials and accurately report their results. Our reliance on CROs may impact our ability to control the timing, conduct, expense and quality of our clinical trials. In addition, we
may be responsible for any errors in clinical trials by a CRO as a result of the performance of services in connection with a clinical trial on our behalf. And regulatory agencies, in connection with a potential product approval or as part of ongoing monitoring, will review a CRO’s compliance with regulatory requirements relating to clinical trials and we may be subject to findings and regulatory action (including denial or delay of product approval) if a CRO fails to comply with regulations.
Additional factors that can cause delay, impairment or termination of our clinical trials or our product development efforts include:
delay or failure in obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval or the approval of other reviewing entities to conduct a clinical trial at each site;
delay or failure in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs, and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;
withdrawal of clinical trial sites from our clinical trials as a result of changing standards of care or the ineligibility of a site to participate in our clinical trials;
clinical sites and investigators deviating from trial protocol, failing to conduct the trial in accordance with regulatory requirements, or dropping out of a trial;
delay or failure in having patients complete a trial or return for post-treatment follow-up;
lack of sufficient supplies of the product candidate;
disruption of operations at the clinical trial sites;
adverse medical events or side effects in treated patients;
failure of patients taking the placebo to continue to participate in our clinical trials;
insufficient clinical trial data to support safety and effectiveness of the product candidates;
lack of effectiveness or safety of the product candidate being tested;
decisions by regulatory authorities, the IRB, ethics committee, or us, or recommendation by a data safety monitoring board, to suspend or terminate clinical trials at any time for safety issues or for any other reason;
failure to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for the product candidate or the approvals for the facilities in which such product candidate is manufactured; and
decisions by competent authorities, IRBs or ethics committees to demand variations in protocols or conduct of clinical trials.
We expect our operating results to fluctuate.
Our quarterly revenues, expenses and net income (loss) may fluctuate, even significantly, due to certain risks, including those described in these “Risk Factors” as well as the timing of charges and expenses that we may take, acquisitions and business development transactions (such as the Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Wilson Therapeutics and Syntimmune acquisitions) and the impact of converting patients from SOLIRIS to ULTOMIRIS (as noted above). We may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Since we have a limited sales and operating history with certain of our products and for new indications of existing products (such as SOLIRIS as a treatment for NMOSD), we may not be able to accurately forecast demand for our products or for new indications. Product demand and, in the case of conversion to ULTOMIRIS, product preference and conversion, is dependent on a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control. For these reasons, we may not be able to accurately forecast demand for our products. You should not consider our financial performance, including our revenue growth, in recent periods as indicative of our future performance.
We cannot guarantee that we will achieve our financial goals, including our ability to maintain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.
In the future, we may not generate sufficient revenues or control expenses to achieve our financial goals. Our investors and investment analysts may have widely varying expectations that may be materially higher or lower than actual revenues and profits and if our revenues and profits are different from these expectations, our stock price may experience significant volatility. Our revenues and profits are also subject to foreign exchange rate fluctuations due to the global nature of our operations and our results of operations could be adversely affected due to unfavorable foreign exchange rates. Although we use derivative instruments to manage foreign currency risk, our efforts to reduce currency exchange losses may not be successful.
In addition, we have in the past provided, and expect to continue to provide, financial guidance for future periods and if our actual operating results fail to meet or exceed the guidance that we have previously provided to our investors, our stock price could drop suddenly and significantly. Financial guidance is based on certain assumptions about future performance and such guidance is not a guarantee that the targets set forth will be achieved.
As we attempt to grow and expand our business, we may have substantial expenses as we continue our
research and development efforts and our efforts to develop the assets we have acquired through acquisitions, collaborations and in-licenses, continue to undertake additional business development activities, continue to conduct clinical trials and continue to develop and expand manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution capabilities worldwide, some of which could be delayed, scaled-back or eliminated to control expenses and/or achieve our financial objectives. Additionally, business development activities may include milestone and royalty obligations and may require substantial investment in research and development to achieve product approval. These expenses may increase and such increases may exceed analyst and investor expectations.
If we fail to attract and retain highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully develop, manufacture or commercialize our products or products candidates.
The success of our business is dependent in large part on our continued ability to attract and retain our senior management, and other highly qualified personnel in our scientific, clinical, manufacturing, governmental regulations and commercial organizations and across the many geographies in which we operate. There is intense competition in the biopharmaceutical industry for these types of personnel.
Our business is specialized and global and we must attract and retain highly qualified individuals across many geographies and expertise. We may not be able to continue to attract and retain the highly qualified personnel necessary to develop, manufacture and commercialize our products and product candidates. If we are unsuccessful in our recruitment and retention efforts, or if our recruitment efforts take longer than anticipated, our business may be harmed.
We may not achieve some or all of the expected benefits of our current and future restructuring plans and restructurings may adversely affect our business.
We announced our most recent restructuring in the first quarter 2019, which was designed to re-align our commercial organization through re-prioritization of certain geographical markets and to implement operational excellence through strategic reallocation of resources. We may undertake additional restructurings in the future. Implementation of a restructuring plan may be costly and disruptive to our business, and we may not be able to obtain the estimated cost savings and benefits that were initially anticipated in connection with our restructuring in a timely manner or at all. Additionally, as a result of any restructuring, we may experience a loss of continuity, loss of accumulated knowledge and/or inefficiency during transitional periods. Reorganization and restructuring can require a significant amount of management and other employees’ time and focus, which may divert attention from operating and growing our business. If we fail to
achieve some or all of the expected benefits of restructuring, it could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
If we fail to satisfy our debt service obligations or our contingent obligations, we may be unable to commercialize our products or continue or complete our product development.
We have significant debt service obligations. In addition to the obligations to make interest and principal payments under our credit facility throughout the term of the loans, any changes in interest rates related to this debt could significantly increase our annual interest expense and any hedging of this interest may not be effective to control expenses.
Our Amended and Restated Credit Agreement requires us to comply with certain financial covenants and negative covenants, restricting or limiting our ability and the ability of our subsidiaries to, among other things, incur additional indebtedness, grant liens, and engage in certain investment, acquisition and disposition transactions, subject to limited exceptions. If an event of default occurs (due to, for example, the failure to comply with certain covenants in the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement), the interest rate may increase and the administrative agent may be entitled to take various actions, including the acceleration of amounts due under the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement. If the interest rate imposed under our Amended and Restated Credit Agreement were to increase as a result of a default, our expenses may increase and we may need to allocate additional funds to this interest expense (which may limit the use of these funds for other purposes, including growing our business or responding to changes in our business and industry). If some or all of the amounts outstanding under the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement were to be accelerated by the lenders, we may not have sufficient cash on hand to pay the amounts due, we may not be able to refinance such debt on terms acceptable to us (or at all) and we may be required to sell certain assets on terms that are unfavorable to us.
In addition, we have substantial contingent liabilities, including milestone and royalty obligations associated with acquisitions and strategic transactions, and we have been, and in the future may again be, engaged in disputes with certain counterparties regarding potential milestone and royalty obligations. Our increased indebtedness, including increased interest expense, together with our significant contingent liabilities, could, among other things:
make us more vulnerable to economic or industry downturns and competitive pressures;
make it difficult for us to make payments on our credit facilities and require us to use cash flow from operations to satisfy our debt obligations,
which may reduce the availability of our cash flow for other purposes, including business development efforts and research and development;
limit our ability to incur additional debt or access the capital markets; and
limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to changes in, our business.
Our ability to satisfy our obligations under the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement and meet our debt service obligations and our royalty and milestone obligations will depend upon our future performance, which will be subject to financial, business and other factors affecting our operations, many of which are beyond our control.
We may not be able to access the capital and credit markets on terms that are favorable to us or at all.
We may need to raise additional capital to supplement our existing funds and cash generated from operations for working capital, capital expenditure and debt service requirements, and other business activities (including business and technology acquisitions). The amount of capital we may need depends on many factors, including, the cost of any acquisition or any new collaborative, licensing or other commercial relationships that we may establish, the time and cost necessary to build new manufacturing facilities or enhance our manufacturing and related operations, amounts we may need to pay in connection with the resolution of any government investigation or litigation matter (including any securities class action matter or any product liability claim or any tax assessment), the cost of obtaining and maintaining the necessary regulatory approvals for our manufacturing facilities, and the progress, timing and scope of our preclinical studies, clinical trials and product development and commercialization efforts. The capital and credit markets have experienced and may continue to experience extreme volatility and disruption. We may not receive additional funding when we need it or funding may only be available on unfavorable terms. If we cannot raise adequate funds to satisfy our working capital, capital requirements and debt repayment obligations (or royalty and milestone obligations) or business development activities, we may have to delay, scale-back or eliminate certain research, development, manufacturing, acquisition or commercial activities or sell certain assets and technologies.
We may incur impairment charges in the future for certain of our assets, including goodwill in connection with acquisitions, and such amounts may be material.
If the purchase price of a business acquisition exceeds the value of the assets (and liabilities) acquired, the acquirer must recognize goodwill in such amount. We may be required to recognize impairment charges
for our goodwill and other intangible assets, and such charges may be material and have an adverse impact on our financial results in the period such charges are incurred.
As of December 31, 2019, the net carrying value of our goodwill and other intangible assets, net totaled $8,381.7. As required by GAAP, we periodically assess these assets to determine if there are indicators of impairment. We have recorded charges that include inventory write-downs for failed quality specifications or recalls, impairments with respect to investments and acquisitions, fixed assets and long-lived assets, outcomes of litigation and other legal or administrative proceedings, regulatory matters and tax matters, and payments in connection with acquisitions and other business development activities, such as milestone payments. The impairment of tangible and intangible assets may be triggered by developments both within and outside our control. Deteriorating economic conditions, technological changes, disruptions to our business, inability to effectively integrate acquired businesses, unexpected significant changes or planned changes in the use of the assets, intensified competition, divestitures, market capitalization declines and other factors may impair our goodwill and other intangible assets. As part of our standard quarterly procedures, we reviewed the KANUMA asset as of December 31, 2019 and determined that there were no indicators of impairment. We will continue to review the related valuation and accounting of this asset in future quarters as new information becomes available to us. Cash flow models used in our assessments are based on our commercial experience with KANUMA to date and require the use of significant estimates, which include, but are not limited to, long-range pricing expectations and patient-related assumptions, including patient identification, conversion and retention rates. As we continue to sell this product, new data may cause us to adjust the assumptions in our cash flow models. Changes to assumptions used in our net cash flow projections may result in material impairment charges in subsequent periods. The net book value of the KANUMA intangible asset as of December 31, 2019 was $2,992.4.
The efficiency of our corporate structure depends on the application of the tax laws and regulations in the countries where we operate and we may have exposure to additional tax liabilities or our effective tax rate could increase, which could have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position.
As a company with international operations, we are subject to income taxes, as well as non-income based taxes, in both the U.S. and various foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining our worldwide tax liabilities. Although we believe our estimates are reasonable at the time made, the final taxes we owe may differ from the amounts recorded in
our financial statements (and such differences may be material). If the IRS, or other taxing authority, disagrees with the positions we take, we could have additional tax liability, and this could have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position. Our effective tax rate could be adversely affected by changes in the mix of earnings in countries with different statutory tax rates, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, changes in tax laws and regulations, changes in interpretations of tax laws, including pending tax law changes, changes in our manufacturing activities and changes in our future levels of research and development spending.
We have designed, and from time to time we modify, our corporate structure, the manner in which we develop and use our intellectual property, and our intercompany transactions between our affiliates in a way that is intended to enhance our operational and financial efficiency and increase our overall profitability. The application of the tax laws and regulations of various countries in which we operate and to our global operations is subject to interpretation. We also must operate our business in a manner consistent with our corporate structure to realize such efficiencies. The tax authorities of the countries in which we operate may challenge our methodologies for valuing developed technology or for transfer pricing or other operations. If tax authorities determine that the manner in which we operate results in our business not achieving the intended tax consequences, our effective tax rate could increase (and such increase may be material) and harm our financial position and results of operations. In addition, certain governments are considering and may adopt tax reform measures that significantly increase our worldwide tax liabilities. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and other government bodies have focused on issues related to the taxation of multinational corporations, including, in the area of “base erosion and profit shifting,” where payments are made from affiliates in jurisdictions with high tax rates to affiliates in jurisdictions with lower tax rates. It is possible that these reform measures could increase our effective tax rate (and such increase may be material) and harm our financial position and results of operations over the next several years.
Our sales and operations are subject to a variety of risks relating to the conduct of our international business.
We have increased our international presence, including in emerging markets. Our operations in foreign countries subject us to a variety of risks, including:
difficulties or the inability to obtain necessary foreign regulatory or reimbursement approvals of our products in a timely manner or at all;
political or economic determinations that adversely impact pricing or reimbursement policies;
economic problems or political instability;
fluctuations in currency exchange rates;
difficulties or inability to obtain financing in markets;
unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements;
customs and tax officials in foreign jurisdictions may disagree with the value we set when we or others import our products (including products that are donated for charitable purposes or used for clinical trials) and we may be required to pay additional duties or fines and such amounts may be substantial. For example, our offices in Brazil were visited by the Brazilian federal tax authorities and we received a written notice from such authorities requesting information with respect to the importation of SOLIRIS free of charge to patients in Brazil from 2014 to 2019. In connection with this matter, in August 2019, the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service provided a Notice of Tax and Description of the Facts to, among others, two Alexion subsidiaries. This notice focuses on: (i) the identity of the importer and (ii) the importation value of SOLIRIS vials in connection with Alexion’s free drug program in Brazil. See Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements for more information on this matter);
difficulties in establishing and enforcing contractual and intellectual property rights;
compliance with complex import and export control laws;
trade restrictions and restrictions on direct investments by foreign entities;
compliance with tax, employment and labor laws;
costs and difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified managers and employees to manage and operate the business in local jurisdictions;
costs and difficulties in managing and monitoring international operations; and
Additionally, our business and marketing methods are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in which we operate, which may differ significantly from country to country and may conflict with U.S. laws and regulations. The FCPA and anti-bribery laws and regulations in the locations in which we operate our business are extensive and far-reaching, and we must maintain accurate records and control over the activities of our employees, distributors and third party service providers in countries where we operate. We have policies and procedures, and we are committed to strengthening our compliance program and we are currently enhancing and continuing to implement a
comprehensive company-wide compliance program and effort, designed to help us and our representatives, including our employees and our vendors and distributors, comply with such laws, however we cannot guarantee that these policies, programs and procedures will protect us against liability under the FCPA or other anti-bribery laws for actions taken by us, our employees or our representatives. Any determination that our operations or activities are not in compliance with existing laws or regulations, including the FCPA and the UK Anti-Bribery Act, could result in the imposition of fines, civil and criminal penalties, equitable remedies, including disgorgement, injunctive relief, and/or other sanctions against us, and remediation of such findings could have a material and adverse effect on our business operations. In addition, as our international operations expand, we are likely to become subject to new anti-corruption/anti-bribery laws or existing laws may govern our activities in new jurisdictions in which we operate. In addition, as we move from a direct sales force to third-party sales force, distributors and marketers in certain countries and regions, we may also have liability under the FCPA and anti-bribery laws and regulations for the actions of these third parties. Although we can impose contractual restrictions on what these third parties are authorized to do on our behalf, we will exercise only limited control over the actions of these third parties but may still face the same liabilities for their actions. Our failure, and the failure of others who we engage to act on our behalf, to comply, with the laws and regulations of the countries in which we operate, or will operate in the future, could materially harm our business.
Our business involves environmental risks and potential exposure to environmental liabilities.
As a biopharmaceutical company, our business involves the use of certain hazardous materials in our research, development, manufacturing and other activities. We and our third party providers are subject to various federal, state, local and foreign environmental laws and regulations concerning the handling and disposal of non-hazardous and hazardous wastes, such as medical and biological wastes, and emissions and discharges into the environment (including air, soils and water sources). We also are subject to laws and regulations that impose liability and clean-up responsibility for releases of hazardous substances into the environment and a current or previous owner or operator of property may be liable for the costs of remediating its property or locations, without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of or caused the contamination. Although our safety procedures for handling and disposing of hazardous materials are designed to comply with the laws and regulations established by state, federal, local and foreign regulators, the risk of loss of, or accidental contamination or injury from, these materials cannot be
eliminated. If an accident or environmental discharge occurs, or if we discover contamination caused by prior owners and operators of properties we acquire, we could be liable for remediation obligations, damages and fines that could exceed our insurance coverage and financial resources. Such obligations and liabilities, which to date have not been material, could have a material impact on our business and financial condition.