Unicycive Therapeutics (UNCY) Risk Analysis

It is essential to our business strategy that our technology and network infrastructure and our physical buildings remain secure and are perceived by our customers and corporate partners to be secure. Despite security measures, however, any network infrastructure may be vulnerable to cyber-attacks by hackers and other security threats. We may face cyber-attacks that attempt to penetrate our network security, sabotage, or otherwise disable our research, products and services, misappropriate our or our customers' and partners' proprietary information, which may include personally identifiable information, or cause interruptions of our internal systems and services. Despite security measures, we also cannot guarantee security of our physical buildings. Physical building penetration or any cyber-attacks could negatively affect our reputation, damage our network infrastructure and our ability to deploy our products and services, harm our relationship with customers and partners that are affected, and expose us to financial liability. Additionally, there are a number of state, federal and international laws protecting the privacy and security of health information and personal data. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") imposes limitations on the use and disclosure of an individual's healthcare information by healthcare providers, healthcare clearinghouses, and health insurance plans, or, collectively, covered entities, and also grants individuals rights with respect to their health information. HIPAA also imposes compliance obligations and corresponding penalties for non-compliance on individuals and entities that provide services to healthcare providers and other covered entities. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("ARRA") the privacy and security provisions of HIPAA were amended. ARRA also made significant increases in the penalties for improper use or disclosure of an individual's health information under HIPAA and extended enforcement authority to state attorneys general. As amended by ARRA and subsequently by the final omnibus rule adopted in 2013, HIPAA also imposes notification requirements on covered entities in the event that certain health information has been inappropriately accessed or disclosed, notification requirements to individuals, federal regulators, and in some cases, notification to local and national media. Notification is not required under HIPAA if the health information that is improperly used or disclosed is deemed secured in accordance with encryption or other standards developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Most states have laws requiring notification of affected individuals and/or state regulators in the event of a breach of personal information, which is a broader class of information than the health information protected by HIPAA. Many state laws impose significant data security requirements, such as encryption or mandatory contractual terms, to ensure ongoing protection of personal information. Activities outside of the U.S. implicate local and national data protection standards, impose additional compliance requirements and generate additional risks of enforcement for non-compliance. We may be required to expend significant capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws, to protect against security breaches and hackers or to alleviate problems caused by such breaches.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, upon completion of this offering and in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Market acceptance and sales of any approved products, including OLC, if approved, depends significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third party payors and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures. Governmental authorities, third party payors, and PBMs decide which drugs they will cover, as well as establish formularies or implement other mechanisms to manage utilization of products and determine reimbursement levels. We cannot be sure that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be available for OLC, if approved, or any of our potential future products. Even if we obtain coverage for an approved product, third party payors may not establish adequate reimbursement amounts, which may reduce the demand for our product and prompt us to have to reduce pricing for the product. If reimbursement is not available or is limited, we may not be able to successfully commercialize certain of our products. Coverage and reimbursement by a governmental authority, third-party payor or PBMs may depend upon a number of factors, including the determination that use of a product is: - a covered benefit under the health plan;- safe, effective and medically necessary;- appropriate for the specific patient; and - cost effective. Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a governmental authority, PBM or a third-party payor is a time consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. In the U.S., there are multiple governmental authorities, PBMs and third-party payors with varying coverage and reimbursement levels for pharmaceutical products, and the timing of commencement of reimbursement by a governmental payor can be dependent on the assignment of codes via the Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System, which codes are assigned on a quarterly basis. Within Medicare, for oral drugs dispensed by pharmacies and also administered in facilities, coverage and reimbursement may vary depending on the setting. CMS, local Medicare administrative contractors, Medicare Part D plans and/or PBMs operating on behalf of Medicare Part D plans, may have some responsibility for determining the medical necessity of such drugs, and therefore coverage, for different patients. Different reimbursement methodologies may apply, and CMS may have some discretion in interpreting their application in certain settings. In the current reimbursement environment, oral phosphate lowering therapies like OLC are covered by Medicare under Part D for the treatment of patients with hyperphosphatemia. In January 2011, CMS implemented the ESRD PPS, a prospective payment system for dialysis treatment. Under the ESRD PPS, CMS generally makes a single bundled payment to the dialysis facility for each dialysis treatment that covers all items and services routinely required for dialysis treatments furnished to Medicare beneficiaries in Medicare-certified ESRD facilities or at their home. The inclusion of oral medications without injectable or intravenous equivalents such as OLC in the bundled payment was initially delayed by CMS until January 1, 2014, and through several subsequent legislative actions has been delayed until January 1, 2025. Given the potential approval timeline for OLC in mid-2025, our drug would be launched into this bundled setting. Absent further legislation or regulation on this matter, beginning in January 2025, oral ESRD-related drugs without injectable or intravenous equivalents, including phosphate lowering medications, will be included in the ESRD bundle and separate Medicare payment for these drugs will no longer be available, as is the case today under Medicare Part D. ESRD facilities may nonetheless receive a TDAPA for new renal dialysis drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria for a minimum of two years. The TDAPA will provide separate payment based on the drug's Average Sales Price, or ASP, that will be in addition to the base rate in order to facilitate the adoption of innovative therapies. There can be no assurances that CMS will not again delay the inclusion of these oral ESRD-related drugs in the bundled payment. Moreover, in the post-TDAPA period, CMS currently expects to increase the single bundled payment base rate paid to the dialysis facility for each dialysis treatment to reflect that oral only phosphate lowering drugs will be reimbursed as part of the single bundled payment for Medicare patients. There can be no assurances that any increase in the single bundled payment base rate will be sufficient to adequately reimburse the dialysis facilities for OLC at a price that is profitable for us. Medicaid reimbursement of drugs varies by state. Private third-party payor reimbursement policies also vary and may or may not be consistent with Medicare reimbursement methodologies. Manufacturers of outpatient prescription drugs may be required to provide discounts or rebates under government healthcare programs or to certain third-party payors in order to obtain coverage of such products. Additionally, we may be required to enter into contracts with third party payors and/or PBMs offering rebates or discounts on our products in order to obtain favorable formulary status and we may not be able to agree upon commercially reasonable terms with such third party payors or PBMs, or provide data sufficient to obtain favorable coverage and reimbursement for many reasons, including that we may be at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines. In addition, third party payors, PBMs and other entities that purchase our products may impose restrictions on our ability to raise prices for our products over time without incurring additional costs. We currently believe it is likely that OLC, if approved, will be reimbursed using the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, or TDAPA, followed by inclusion in the bundled reimbursement model for Medicare beneficiaries, but reimbursement under TDAPA it is subject to review and approval by CMS. For those that obtain dialysis through commercial insurance during the 30-month coordination period or through Medicaid prior to Medicare becoming primary payor after 90 days, patients may access OLC through contracts we negotiate with third party payors for reimbursement of OLC, which would be subject to the risks and uncertainties described above. Additionally, applying for and obtaining reimbursement under the TDAPA is expected to take six months following filing acceptance, which will affect adoption, uptake and product revenue for OLC during that time, and if there are updates to the TDAPA rule that decrease the basis for reimbursement or eligibility criteria during the transition period or if the TDAPA is eliminated, then our profitability may be adversely affected. Further, if OLC is approved in the U.S., we expect it to be included in the fixed reimbursement model for a bundle of dialysis services, or the bundle, which may require us to enter into contracts to supply OLC to specific dialysis providers, instead of through distributors, which we believe could be challenging. The dialysis market is unique and is dominated by two providers: DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care, which account for a vast majority of the dialysis population in the U.S. Similar to how payor coverage may affect the sales of a product, formulary status within dialysis organizations may affect what products are prescribed within that specific organization. Therefore, if a product is not on a formulary, the prescribers within that organization may be less likely to prescribe that product or may have a difficult time prescribing that product, resulting in less sales. Further, one dialysis organization's determination to add a product to their formulary does not assure that other dialysis organizations will also add the product to theirs. There is always a risk a dialysis organization will not contract with a drug manufacturer for a specific product, resulting in that product not being on that organization's formulary. If any dialysis organization does not add OLC, if approved, to the formulary, our business may be materially harmed. In addition, we may be unable to sell OLC, if approved, to dialysis providers on a profitable basis if CMS significantly reduces the level of reimbursement for dialysis services and providers choose to use alternative therapies or look to re-negotiate their contracts with us. Our profitability may also be affected if our costs of production increase faster than increases in reimbursement levels. Adequate coverage and reimbursement of our products by government and private insurance plans are central to patient and provider acceptance of any products for which we receive marketing approval. Existing competitive products may enter into sole source agreements with dialysis providers that impact the ability for new product innovations and new competitors may face price pressure based on existing contracts with dialysis providers. Further, in many countries outside the U.S., a drug must be approved for reimbursement before it can be marketed or sold in that country. In some cases, the prices that we intend to charge for our products are also subject to approval. Approval by the EMA or another regulatory authority does not ensure approval by reimbursement authorities in that jurisdiction, and approval by one reimbursement authority outside the U.S. does not ensure approval by any other reimbursement authorities. However, the failure to obtain reimbursement in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to obtain reimbursement in another jurisdiction. In addition, we plan to rely on a partner to obtain approval by reimbursement authorities outside the U.S. Our partners may not be able to obtain such reimbursement approvals on a timely basis, if at all, and favorable pricing in certain countries depends on a number of factors, some of which are outside of our partners' control.

Our current product candidates and future candidates face, and will continue to face, intense competition from large pharmaceutical companies, as well as academic and research institutions. We compete in an industry that is characterized by: (i) rapid technological change, (ii) evolving industry standards, (iii) emerging competition and (iv) new product introductions. Our competitors have existing products and technologies that will compete with our products and technologies and may develop and commercialize additional products and technologies that will compete with our products and technologies. Because several competing companies and institutions have greater financial resources than us, they may be able to: (i) provide broader services and product lines, (ii) make greater investments in research and development and (iii) carry on larger research and development initiatives than us. Our competitors also have greater development capabilities than we do and have substantially greater experience in undertaking pre-clinical and clinical testing of products, obtaining regulatory approvals, and manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products. They also have greater name recognition and better access to customers than us.

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus ("COVID-19") has evolved into a global pandemic. The extent to which COVID-19 impacts our business and operating results will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be accurately predicted. Due to COVID-19, our planned project timelines may be delayed due to reduced availability of human resources or critical supplies needed to carry out such plans. Moreover, our clinical trials may be affected by COVID-19. Site initiation, participant recruitment and enrollment, participant dosing, availability and distribution of clinical trial materials, study monitoring and data analysis may be paused or delayed due to changes in hospital or university policies, federal, state or local regulations, prioritization of hospital resources toward pandemic efforts, or other reasons related to COVID-19. The ultimate impact of COVID-19, or any other health epidemic, is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, our research programs, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could have a material impact on our operations, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.