SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): December 20, 2017
OPIANT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(State or other jurisdiction of
(Commission File Number
(IRS Employer Identification No.)
201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500
Santa Monica, CA
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code
(Former name or former address if changed since last report,)
Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:
¨ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
¨ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).
Emerging growth company ¨
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. ¨
Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Principal Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
In line with the overall efforts by Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) during the 2017 calendar year to upgrade its internal corporate governance, including, but not limited to, (i) effecting a redomestication merger to change the Company’s domicile from Nevada to Delaware, (ii) adopting the Company’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, (iii) implementing the Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, (iv) approving and establishing a classified board of directors, (v) transferring the trading of the Company’s common stock, $0.001 par value per share (“Common Stock”), from the OTCQB Marketplace to the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, and (vi) hiring an experienced public company chief financial officer, Dr. Michael Sinclair will transition from the role of Executive Chairman of the Company to the Company’s Chairman of the Board of Directors (the “Board”), a position which he currently holds. Pursuant to Section 3.6 of the Company’s Bylaws, Dr. Sinclair was appointed by the Board and shall serve in such capacity until his successor is duly appointed and qualified. The Board shall appoint the Chairman of the Board on an annual basis. Effective January 1, 2018, Dr. Sinclair will no longer receive a salary from the Company and will no longer be eligible to receive benefits available to Company employees. Dr. Sinclair will receive director compensation equal to $175,000 in 2018, comprised of a $65,000 fee for serving as a Board member and a $110,000 fee for serving as the Chairman of the Board. As Chairman of the Board, Dr. Sinclair will not be eligible to receive grants of options to purchase Common Stock which are available to be granted in 2018 to non-employee directors of the Company.
Item 8.01 Other Events.
On December 20, 2017, the Company issued a press release announcing that it expects that, beginning in the first quarter of 2018, it will receive 90% of royalty and milestone payments related to NARCAN® Nasal Spray sales directly from the Company’s partner, Adapt Pharma Operations Limited. A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
Additionally, the Company is filing this Form 8-K to update information disclosed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2017 (the “2018 First Quarter 10-Q”).
The Company is adding the following risk factor to supplement those risks previously disclosed in the Company’s periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2017 and the 2018 First Quarter 10-Q:
We are planning to pursue the FDA 505(b)(2) pathway for our product candidates, and if we are not able to successfully do so, seeking approval of these product candidates through the 505(b)(1) NDA pathway would require full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness. Although we find the feedback received from the FDA to date generally encouraging toward our interest in pursuing the 505(b)(2) pathway for the treatment of AUD, such feedback is preliminary only and includes a number of comments and recommendations that we will need to address in our drug development program to meet FDA standards for approval. Even if we are able to pursue the 505(b)(2) pathway for our AUD or BN or other product candidates, we could be subject to legal challenges and regulatory changes which might result in extensive delays or result in our 505(b)(2) application being unsuccessful.
Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained
a right of reference. Section 505(b)(2), if applicable to us, would allow an NDA we submit to the FDA to rely in part on data in the public domain or the FDA's prior conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of approved compounds, which could expedite the development program for a product candidate by potentially decreasing the amount of clinical data that we would need to generate in order to obtain FDA approval. We plan to pursue this pathway for our product candidates.
If the FDA does not allow us to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway as anticipated, we would need to reconsider our plans and might not be able to commercialize our product candidates in a cost-efficient manner, or at all. If we were to pursue approval under the 505(b)(1) NDA pathway, we would be subject to more extensive requirements and risks.
In some instances over the last few years, certain brand-name pharmaceutical companies and others have objected to the FDA's interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) and legally challenged decisions by the agency. If an FDA decision or action relative to our product candidate, or the FDA's interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) more generally, is successfully challenged, it could result in delays or even prevent the FDA from approving a 505(b)(2) application for our product candidates.
The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. A claim by the applicant that a patent is invalid or will not be infringed is subject to challenge by the patent holder, requirements may give rise to patent litigation and mandatory delays in approval (i.e., a 30-month stay) of a 505(b)(2) application. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer of an approved product to file a citizen petition with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products. If successful, such petitions can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. However, even if the FDA ultimately denies such a petition, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition.
Even if we are able to utilize the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, there is no guarantee this would ultimately lead to accelerated product development or earlier approval. Even if approved pursuant to the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, a drug may be subject to the same post-approval limitations, conditions and requirements as any other drug.
* * * *
The Company is adding the following disclosure related to government regulation to supplement disclosure in the Company’s periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2017 and the 2018 First Quarter 10-Q:
Government Regulation and Product Approval
Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, (including manufacturing changes), quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, export and import of products such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.
U.S. Drug Development Process
In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA and the FDA's implementing regulations.
Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process, or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA's refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:
completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies according to Good Laboratory Practices regulations;
submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical studies may begin;
approval by an independent IRB, at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated;
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical studies according to GCP regulations, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug for its intended use;
preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA;
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product, or components thereof, are produced to assess compliance with cGMP to assure that the facilities, methods, and controls are adequate to preserve the drug's identity, strength, quality, and purity; and
FDA review and approval of the NDA.
The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates (or those of our collaborators or licensees) will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.
An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, to the FDA as part of the IND. The sponsor must also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the initial clinical study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated if the initial clinical study lends itself to an efficacy evaluation. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions related to a proposed clinical study and places the study on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical study can begin. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during clinical studies due to safety concerns or non-compliance, and may be imposed on all product candidates within a certain pharmaceutical class. The FDA also can impose partial clinical holds, for example, prohibiting the initiation of clinical studies of a certain duration or for a certain dose.
All clinical studies must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with GCP regulations. These regulations include the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical study. Further, an IRB must review and approve the plan for any clinical study before it commences at any institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. An IRB considers, among other things, whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical study are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the information regarding the clinical study and the consent form that must be provided to each clinical study subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical study until completed. Each new clinical protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted for FDA review, and to the IRBs for approval. Protocols detail, among other things, the objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety. Study sites are subject to inspection for compliance with GCP.
Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.
Human clinical studies are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:
Phase I. The product is initially introduced into a small number of healthy human subjects or patients and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product is suspected or known to be unavoidably toxic, the initial human testing may be conducted in patients.
Phase II. Involves clinical studies in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage and schedule.
Phase III. Clinical studies are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites. These clinical studies are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling.
Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical studies must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical study at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical study at its institution if the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB's requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
U.S. Review and Approval Processes
Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical studies, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA for a new drug, requesting approval to market the product.
The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of a substantial application user fee although a waiver of such fee may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. For example, the agency will waive the application fee for the first human drug application that a small business or its affiliate submits for review. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to annual program user fees.
In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 (PREA), an NDA application (or supplements to an application) for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the applicant has obtained a waiver or deferral.
In 2012, the FDASIA amended the FDCA to require that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (PSP), within sixty days of an End-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. The FDA and the sponsor must reach agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical studies, and/or other clinical development programs.
The FDA also may require submission of a REMS to mitigate any identified or suspected serious risks. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans, and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools.
The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an application for filing. In this event, the application must be re-submitted with the additional information. The re-submitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review to determine whether the product is safe and effective for its intended use.
The FDA may refer the NDA to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. An advisory committee is a panel of experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, who provide advice and recommendations when requested by the FDA. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions.
Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure clinical data supporting the submission were developed in compliance with GCP.
The approval process is lengthy and difficult and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or may require additional clinical data or other data and information. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical studies are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than an applicant interprets the same data.
After the FDA's evaluation of an application, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter to indicate that the review cycle is complete and that the application is not ready for approval. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met to secure final approval of the application and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing for the FDA to reconsider the application. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical studies. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the application, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application or request an opportunity for a hearing.
Even with submission of additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA's satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.
If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, the FDA may require post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical studies, to further assess safety and effectiveness after approval and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.
ANDAs and Section 505(b)(2) New Drug Applications
Most drug products obtain FDA marketing approval pursuant to an NDA (described above) for innovator products, or an ANDA for generic products. Relevant to ANDAs, the Hatch-Waxman amendments to the FDCA established a statutory procedure for submission and FDA review and approval of ANDAs for generic versions of branded drugs previously approved by the FDA (such previously approved drugs are also referred to as listed drugs). Because the safety and efficacy of listed drugs have already been established by the brand company (sometimes referred to as the innovator), the FDA does not require a demonstration of safety and efficacy of generic products. However, a generic manufacturer is typically required to conduct bioequivalence studies of its test product against the listed drug. The bioequivalence studies for orally administered, systemically available drug products assess the rate and extent to which the API is absorbed into the bloodstream from the drug product and becomes available at the site of action. Bioequivalence is established when there is an absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent for absorption of the generic product and the listed drug. In addition to the bioequivalence data, an ANDA must contain patent certifications and chemistry, manufacturing, labeling and stability data.
The third alternative is a special type of NDA, commonly referred to as a Section 505(b)(2) NDA, which enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA's findings of safety and efficacy of an existing product, or published literature, in support of its application. Section 505(b)(2) NDAs often provide an alternate path to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The applicant may rely upon the FDA's findings with respect to certain preclinical or clinical studies conducted for an approved product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all or some of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.
In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA certain patents of the applicant or that are held by third parties whose claims cover the applicant's product. Upon approval of an NDA, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the Orange Book. Any subsequent applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the Orange
Book or a 505(b)(2) NDA referencing a drug listed in the Orange Book must make one of the following certifications to the FDA concerning patents: (1) the patent information concerning the reference listed drug product has not been submitted to the FDA; (2) any such patent that was filed has expired; (3) the date on which such patent will expire; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. This last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification. A notice of the paragraph IV certification must be provided to each owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification and to the holder of the approved NDA to which the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application refers. The applicant may also elect to submit a "section viii" statement certifying that its proposed label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent.
If the reference NDA holder or patent owners assert a patent challenge directed to one of the Orange Book listed patents within 45 days of the receipt of the paragraph IV certification notice, the FDA is prohibited from approving the application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the paragraph IV certification expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the applicant. The ANDA or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the branded reference drug has expired as described in further detail below. Thus approval of a Section 505(b)(2) NDA or ANDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) applicant.
Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to extensive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping (including certain electronic record and signature requirements), periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of certain adverse experiences, deviations, and other problems with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.
The FDA strictly regulates labeling, advertising, promotion and other types of information on products that are placed on the market. Products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. Further, manufacturers must continue to comply with cGMP requirements, which are extensive and require considerable time, resources and ongoing investment to ensure compliance. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.
Manufacturers and certain other entities involved in the manufacturing and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. The cGMP requirements apply to all stages of the manufacturing process, including the production, processing, sterilization, packaging, labeling, storage and shipment of the product.
Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.
The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an application. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product's safety and effectiveness after commercialization.
The FDA may withdraw a product approval if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, problems with manufacturing processes, or failure to
comply with regulatory requirements, may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market.
Potential implications include required revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:
restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;
warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;
refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;
product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; or
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
In addition, the distribution of prescription drugs is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA), which regulates the distribution of the products and product samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.
From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations, guidances, and policies are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our product candidates. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or FDA regulation or policy changes will be enacted or implemented and what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.
Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement
In the United States, sales of any products for which we (or our collaborators or licensees) may receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations.
Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a drug may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Some of the additional requirements and restrictions on coverage and reimbursement levels imposed by third-party payors influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drugs on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication, or place drugs at certain formulary levels that result in lower reimbursement levels and higher cost-sharing obligation imposed on patients. Moreover, a payor's decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Further, one payor's determination to provide coverage does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement may differ significantly from payor to payor.
Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain and maintain coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of any products, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. If third-party payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover the product after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to sell its products at a profit.
The U.S. government and state legislatures have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and coverage and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. Adoption of government controls and measures, and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing
controls and measures, could exclude or limit our drugs and product candidates from coverage and limit payments for pharmaceuticals.
In addition, we expect that the increased emphasis on managed care and cost containment measures in the United States by third-party payors and government authorities to continue and will place pressure on pharmaceutical pricing and coverage. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
Exhibit No. Description
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Date: December 27, 2017
/s/ David D. O’Toole
Name: David D. O’Toole
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Opiant Pharmaceuticals Announces Significant Financial Developments Related to NARCAN® Nasal Spray for Opioid Overdose
Opiant Expects to Receive 90% of NARCAN Sales-Related Royalty and Milestone Payments, Going Forward
SANTA MONICA, Calif, December 20, 2017 -- Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Opiant”) (NASDAQ: OPNT), a specialty pharmaceutical company developing pharmacological treatments for addictions, today announced that it expects that, beginning in the first quarter of 2018, it will receive 90% of royalty and milestone payments related to NARCAN sales directly from Adapt Pharma. Correspondingly, the royalty and milestone payments due to SWK Holdings will now be reduced to 10%, as they will have been paid the $26.25 million per the royalty monetization agreement between Opiant and SWK.
Actual royalty revenue to be recorded by Opiant for the period ending December 31, 2017, will be reported in the Company’s 10-K for the period of August 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
“The ability to capture milestones and royalties from NARCAN sales will have a significant impact on our balance sheet,” said Roger Crystal, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Opiant.
“Most importantly, our cash runway will now be extended, thereby reducing the amount of financing required, as we continue to focus on advancing our promising pipeline of addiction-related product candidates. Looking ahead, we expect Adapt to achieve continued success with NARCAN. We are encouraged that Aetna will become the first national payer to waive copays for NARCAN for its fully-insured commercial members. Additionally, Walgreens recently announced that it is now stocking NARCAN in all of its over 8,000 pharmacies throughout the U.S.”
NARCAN is the only FDA-approved naloxone nasal spray for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose. NARCAN Nasal Spray is approved for marketing in the U.S. and Canada by Opiant’s partner, Adapt Pharma Limited.
About Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company developing pharmacological treatments for addictions. NIDA, a division of the NIH, describes these disorders as chronic relapsing brain diseases which burden society at both the individual and community levels. With its innovative opioid antagonist nasal delivery technology, Opiant is positioned to become a leader in these treatment markets. Its first product, NARCAN® Nasal Spray, is approved for marketing in the U.S. and Canada by the company’s partner, Adapt Pharma Operations Limited. For more information please visit: www.opiant.com.
This press release contains forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events or our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our or our industry’s actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed, implied or inferred by these forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “projects,” “potential,” or “continue” or the negative of such terms and other comparable terminology. These statements are only predictions based on our current expectations and projections about future events. You should not place undue reliance on these statements. Actual events or results may differ materially. In evaluating these statements, you should specifically consider various factors. These and other factors may cause our actual results to differ materially from any forward-looking statement. We undertake no obligation to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this press release to conform those statements to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by applicable law.
LifeSci Advisors, LLC