BRPA Big Rock Partners Acquisition Corporation

Table of Contents

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

​

FORM 10-K

​

(Mark One)

​

☒   ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

​

For the Fiscal Year Ended: December 31, 2022

​

1201 Orange Street, Suite 600

Wilmington, DE 19801

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

​

(484) 254-6134

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

​

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

​

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 definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company”, and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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 has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to § 240.10D-1(b). ☐

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐  No ☒

​

The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on December 31, 2022, was $34,952,532 million.

​

As of March 29, 2023, the registrant had 71,557,580 shares of common stock outstanding.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

INDEX

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT

​

This document and the information incorporated by reference herein include “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which may include, but are not limited to, statements regarding our financial outlook, product development, business prospects, and market and industry trends and conditions, as well as the Company’s strategies, plans, objectives, and goals. These forward-looking statements are based on current beliefs, expectations, estimates, forecasts, and projections of, as well as assumptions made by, and information currently available to, the Company’s management. Words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “believe,” “hope,” “target,” “project,” “goals,” “estimate,” “potential,” “predict,” “may,” “will,” “might,” “could,” “would,” “seek,” “plan,” “intend,” “shall,” and variations of these terms or the negative of these terms and similar expressions are intended to identify these forward-looking statements. These forward- looking statements are, by their nature, subject to significant risks and uncertainties, many of which involve factors or circumstances that are beyond the Company’s control. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, our relatively limited operating history; our ability to expand, retain and motivate our employees and manage our growth; risks associated with general industry conditions and competition; general economic factors, including interest rate and currency exchange rate fluctuations; the impact of the global outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”); the impact of pharmaceutical industry regulation and health care legislation in the United States and internationally; global trends toward health care cost containment; technological advances, new products and patents attained by competitors; challenges inherent in new product development, including obtaining regulatory approval; the Company’s ability to accurately predict future market conditions; manufacturing difficulties or delays; changes in laws, rules or regulations relating to any aspect of the Company’s business operations, or general economic, market and business conditions; financial instability of international economies and sovereign risk; dependence on the effectiveness of the Company’s patents and other protections for innovative products; and the exposure to litigation, including patent litigation, and/or regulatory actions. Furthermore, there can be no guarantees with respect to pipeline products that the products will receive the necessary regulatory approvals or that they will prove to be commercially successful. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results may differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. The Company assumes no obligation and does not intend to update or otherwise revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. As a result of these and other risks, uncertainties and assumptions, forward-looking events and circumstances discussed herein might not occur in the way that the Company’s management expects, if at all. Accordingly, you should not place reliance on any forward-looking statement, and all forward-looking statements are herein qualified by reference to the cautionary statements set forth above.

​

​

3

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

NRx Products in Development

NRX-101

NRX-101 is a combined NMDA/5-HT_2A-targeted medicine designed to address both depression and suicidal ideation, consisting of a patented, oral, fixed dose combination of D-cycloserine (DCS) and lurasidone. Currently, there are numerous atypical antipsychotic drugs targeting the 5-HT2A receptor, approved for treatment of bipolar depression. However, all are known to increase a side effect known as akathisia, which is closely linked to suicidal ideation and behavior, and all carry a black box warning on the label regarding the potential for increased risk of suicide. In contrast, DCS has been demonstrated in at least two clinical trials (Nierenberg 2022ⁱ, Chen 2019ⁱⁱ) to reduce suicidal ideation, a finding also demonstrated for ketamine (Abbar 2022ⁱⁱⁱ, Grunebaum 2017^iv). Because its effect is synergistic to the antidepressant effects of serotonin-targeted drugs and because of the specific effect on suicidal ideation, the NMDA receptor of the brain is increasingly viewed as a key target for treating depression and suicidality. To the Company’s knowledge, NRX-101 is the first investigational medicine to advance to Phase 3 for severe bipolar depression in patients with Acute Suicidal Ideation and Behavior (“ASIB”).

A safe, oral medicine for suicidal depression represents a key unmet medical need because the only currently approved treatment for this condition today is electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Although the effects of NMDA antagonist drugs were first reported by Javitt in 1989, the development of NMDA-targeted medicines has been hampered by the known propensity of direct-acting NMDA-targeted drugs to cause neurotoxicity, addiction, psychedelic effects, and blood pressure elevation. Javitt discovered and patented the finding that when serotonin-targeted drugs are added to NMDA-targeted drugs, the hallucinogenic side effects of NMDA-targeted drugs are blocked and, at the same time, the NMDA component blocks the akathisia that is a known side effect of serotonin-targeted drugs – a side effect associated with suicidal ideation and behavior.

D-cycloserine, the NMDA-targeting component of NRX-101, is a mixed NMDA agonist/antagonist that has been demonstrated in nonclinical studies to have no potential for neurotoxicity or addiction. Although it may have psychedelic effects when given as monotherapy, psychedelic effects of DCS have not been seen in four different studies where DCS was administered together with serotonin-targeted drugs. Javitt additionally discovered and patented the finding that DCS is a mixed NMDA agonist/antagonist and a critical dose of DCS must be administered (in the region of 400mg – 500mg per day) in order to access its NMDA antagonist properties. This finding explains the failure of DCS to demonstrate clinical effects in a number of published trials at lower doses.

Although development of NRX-101 began in 2015, when NeuroRx, Inc. was privately funded, the COVID pandemic interrupted clinical development in March 2020 because of study site closures. The Company was hampered in continuing to manufacture its investigational product in China because of global supply chain and other international challenges. Accordingly, when the Company raised funds in February 2022 to reinitiate the psychiatric drug development program, a strategic decision was made to transfer all manufacture to the United States and to upgrade the Chemical Manufacturing Controls (CMC) level of NRX-101 to a commercial standard prior to entering phase 3 trials.

Manufacturing is a key component of drug approvals and current estimates suggest that more phase 3 biotechnology products fail or experience delays over manufacturing issues than over safety and efficacy. Moreover, registrational studies require either that the trial be conducted with commercial grade investigational product or compel the sponsor to conduct subsequent bridging studies to prove biological equivalence to commercial grade product.

In March 2022, the Company executed a tender process and selected Alcami (Wilmington, NC) as its manufacturing partner. Technology transfer was accomplished within 3 months and a first phase 3/commercial-scale batch was completed by August 2022. In October 2022 sufficient stability data were collected to submit the manufacturing information (IND Module 3) to FDA, which was reviewed without negative comment. The Company submitted a briefing document to FDA detailing the CMC and stability approach as part of a Type C meeting process. On January 10, 2023, FDA provided written feedback in lieu of a Type C meeting in dictating alignment with the FDA regarding its proposed registration manufacturing and stability plan.

5

Table of Contents

On February 14, 2023, the Company announced its receipt of the written minutes of a Type B meeting held with the FDA held on January 11, 2023, to outline the clinical & preclinical requirements for registration of NRX-101. Overall, the FDA suggested expanding the safety data base of NRX-101 to allow for chronic/intermittent use of NRX-101, as well as a broadening of the addressable population of the indication (under the SPA or otherwise) to patients with severe bipolar depression and recent acute suicidality regardless of how the initial stabilization was achieved. This broader indication would enable the Company to potentially demonstrate the use of NRX-101 to maintain stabilization from acute suicidality in patients stabilized either with ketamine (NRX-100) or with other standard of care therapeutic approaches. FDA encouraged the Company to request a Breakthrough Therapy Planning Meeting for NRX-101, which we intend to accomplish in second quarter of 2023.

We initiated a new registrational study of NRX-101 for the treatment of severe bipolar depression with ASIB, a potentially lethal condition that currently takes the lives of thousands of Americans each year, after initial stabilization with NRX-100 (described below). We intend to use newly manufactured material that was manufactured using the expected commercial process. On January 3, 2023, the Company announced that its first clinical trial sites had been contracted for this study. Patient recruitment has not yet started for this study.

We are also conducting a clinical study for the treatment of severe bipolar depression in patients with sub-acute suicidal ideation and behavior (“SSIB”), an indication to which we now refer as “Suicidal Treatment Resistant Bipolar Depression.” The US population of patients with Suicidal Treatment Resistant Bipolar Depression is estimated to be between 700,000 and 1,000,000 people.  The DSMB reviewed the unblinded results of the first 50 patients randomized and treated in this study. The DSMB found no futility signal at this stage of the trial. Similarly, no safety signals were identified in association with NRX-101 and the DSMB recommended that enrollment in the trial continue as planned.  According to the study's statistical analysis plan, the failure to identify futility requires that a numerical advantage of the investigational drug relative to the comparator treatment must be observed by the DSMB. The DSMB will continue to monitor safety and efficacy in the trial. Based on the DSMB findings, together with the recent completion of Phase 3 commercial stage manufacture of NRX-101, the Company has upgraded the ongoing trial to a Phase 2b/3 trial whose results may be used in a future registrational filing, should the primary endpoint be met.  

Based on the comments and guidance from the FDA in its recent Type B meeting regarding the registrational Acute Suicidality trial and a potentially broader indication, as well as the guidance it received from the DSMB regarding the ongoing Phase IIb/3 clinical study of NRX-101 for the treatment of severe bipolar depression in patients with SSIB, the Company is evaluating changes to its registrational program for NRX-101 and will seek to consolidate patients originally expected to enroll in the in the ASIB study into the currently enrolling Phase IIb/3 trial. This would potentially allow registration of NRX-101 for Suicidal Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression, regardless of the mechanism of stabilization.  With the FDA’s guidance to enroll patients for the acute (SPA) study in the outpatient setting only after stabilization, the design of this trial has effectively converged with the currently enrolling phase IIb/3 trial; patients within both groups are deemed to have treatment resistant bipolar depression with suicidality.  This broader indication may also offer significant advantages in commercialization, while negating the need for a separate NDA for ketamine in Suicidal stabilization. We expect top-line data from this consolidated trial in the first quarter of 2024. 

Lastly, the Company will also continue exploring early signal-finding studies in PTSD and chronic pain. 

NRX-100

NRX-100 is racemic ketamine, which is a generic anesthetic that has shown efficacy in some clinical studies of depression and suicidality. In the Company’s STABIL-B Study, NRX-100 was used for the initial stabilization of patients with bipolar depression who were also acutely suicidal, prior to receiving NRX-101 or lurasidone. The Company has opened an Investigational New Drug (IND) file with the FDA for the purpose of developing ketamine as a rapid induction agent in the treatment of Severe Bipolar Depression with Acute Suicidal Ideation and Behavior.

6

Table of Contents

Zyesami

Between March 2020 and mid-2022, the Company engaged in the development of aviptadil acetate (ZYESAMI®) for the treatment of respiratory failure in COVID-19 under a collaboration agreement signed with Relief Therapeutics Holdings, AG. ZYESAMI initially showed promise when administered intravenously to patients with acute respiratory failure and demonstrated a statistically significant 2-fold decrease in mortality when administered in a randomized, prospective clinical trial. Significant improvement in survival and recovery was additionally demonstrated by Youssef in a prospective open-label trial conducted at Houston Methodist Hospital. These results were published by Youssef and coworkers in the peer reviewed literature.^v This finding was deemed “hypothesis generating” by the US FDA because mortality was the declared secondary endpoint of the clinical trial and the primary endpoint, recovery from respiratory failure, was deemed to be near (P=0.08) but not sufficiently significant to warrant Emergency Use Authorization. The study further documented immediate improvement in levels of blood oxygen and decrease in inflammatory cytokines, evidence of biological activity.

A subsequent large multicenter conducted by the US National Institutes of Health was halted for futility in May 2020. Thus far, the NIH has not published results of the clinical trial. Two additional trials were conducted with inhaled aviptadil for treatment of earlier stages of respiratory failure. One trial, conducted by the Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority of the US Department of Health and Human Services was similarly halted after hitting a futility endpoint. A second trial, sponsored by NRx was suspended following the first DSMB review of data for lack of funding under the Relief collaboration agreement. In 2022, we suspended our efforts to develop the pharmaceutical product, aviptadil acetate for all indications.

On December 20, 2022, the Company transferred to Relief all of the assets it used in its aviptadil development program. Relief now has the exclusive right to control, and the obligation to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize, an aviptadil product. If successful, Relief is obligated to pay NeuroRx (i) milestone payments should Relief successfully obtain commercial approval of an aviptadil product (whether for COVID-19 or any other indication) and (ii) royalties based on a percentage of future sales of an aviptadil product (whether for COVID-19 or any other indication), up to a maximum of $30 million in the aggregate. In addition, Relief has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to continue the existing Right to Try Program for aviptadil in the U.S. for at least two years. Following the closing, Relief and NeuroRx dismissed their pending litigation.

Background of the CNS Portfolio

Our CNS portfolio is based upon fundamental scientific discoveries of Daniel Javitt, MD, PhD, a Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University and co-founder of NRx. In 1987, Daniel Javitt discovered the role of blocking the brain’s NMDA receptor (a molecule on the surface of brain cells) in producing psychosis. The discovery was made in the context of attempting to determine the molecular mechanism by which phencyclidine (angel dust: a once popular drug of abuse frequently added to cannabis) caused acute psychosis in a high proportion of users. Daniel Javitt discovered that phencyclidine exerted its psychotogenic action by blocking the NMDA receptor and devoted the balance of his ongoing career to studying the brain chemistry of schizophrenia, depression, and related disorders. Daniel Javitt is one of the most widely published scientists in molecular psychiatry.

About 10 years after the original discovery, it was learned that NMDA inhibition is the mechanism by which ketamine, dextromethorphan, and other NMDA antagonists exert their antidepressant effects. Javitt subsequently made the seminal observation that when an NMDA antagonist, specifically D-cycloserine (“DCS”), is combined with a traditional (serotonin-targeted) antidepressant or antipsychotic, the two drugs have a synergistic effect wherein antidepressant activity is enhanced, and side effects are decreased. The mechanism of this synergy has been demonstrated in multiple non-clinical models. The discovery has led to a broad patent portfolio now owned by us and to the development of NRX-101, the first investigational drug specifically targeting bipolar depression with suicidality.

7

Table of Contents

History of our development of NRX-100/101

NRx was founded in 2015 by Drs. Jonathan Javitt and Daniel Javitt to develop drugs that aim to treat psychiatric disorders based on the initial discovery of the phencyclidine binding site on the NMDA receptor and the role of NMDA antagonists in schizophrenia and experimental psychosis. Javitt subsequently discovered a synergistic effect when NMDA antagonists are combined with inhibitors of the brain’s 5-HT2A receptor (e.g., SSRI antidepressants and atypical antipsychotic drugs). This synergy has now been demonstrated in both laboratory rodent behavioral experiments and in multiple Phase II clinical trials and resulted in a Composition of Matter patent awarded in the U.S. and multiple foreign jurisdictions. Javitt subsequently observed that when patients with depression were treated with DCS, an NMDA antagonist, in combination with antidepressants, they manifested increased antidepressant effect, but did not exhibit the hallucinations and other NMDA effects previously reported with DCS. He further observed that DCS appeared to reduce some of the antidepressant side effects (akathisia) common to all known serotonin-targeted anti-depressants.

Figure 1 Synergistic composition of matter in which drugs that inhibit the NMDA receptor block the akathisia caused by serotonin-targeted drugs and serotonin-targeted drugs, in turn, block the psychedelic effects of NMDA inhibitors. Basis for US Patent 10583138. Source: NeuroRx, Inc.

These patented discoveries support NRX-101, the first investigational oral antidepressant to be granted Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation and a Special Protocol Agreement by the FDA for severe bipolar depression in patients with ASIB. NRx is engaged in the research, development and future commercialization of this and other products for the treatment of patients suffering from suicidal ideation in the setting of bipolar depression and major depressive disorder (“MDD”) as well as PTSD and potentially chronic pain. Drugs that inhibit the brain’s NMDA receptor without ketamine’s limitations, have generated substantial interest, and have been explored for the treatment of the above conditions since the finding that ketamine has potent effects in reducing depression and suicidal ideation. It is our view that NRX-101 and our intellectual property to combine different molecules may yield a competitive advantage to use NMDA-inhibiting drugs for this purpose, as other compounds may be limited by adverse elements such as neurotoxicity (with prolonged use), hallucinations, potential habituation (i.e., addictive properties), blood pressure elevations, and/or lack of oral bioavailability.

This synergy is a key discovery underlying the patent portfolio described below. The scientific findings showed that some of the side effects of an NMDA drug can be blocked by the 5-HT2A drug and, in turn, the NMDA component can block akathisia, a known side effect of 5-HT2A-blocking drugs which is known to predispose to suicide. This dual-targeted approach is a primary basis of our worldwide patent portfolio, which currently encompasses 38 pending applications, and 48 granted patents in multiple jurisdictions covering compositions of matter and methods of use (See “NRx Patent Portfolio”). The relevant patents and patent applications in this portfolio are either owned by NeuroRx, exclusively licensed to NeuroRx by Glytech, LLC (“Glytech”), a Delaware limited liability company solely owned by Dr. Daniel Javitt (the “Glytech License”), or exclusively licensed to NeuroRx by Sarah Herzog Memorial Hospital Ezrat Nashim (“SHMH”), a non-profit organization organized under the laws of the State of Israel (the “SHMH License”).

8

Table of Contents

NeuroRx owns a U.S. composition of matter patent that covers NRX-101. Patents under the Glytech License, which cover compositions of matter (including NRX-101 and pipeline therapeutic candidates) and methods of use (including methods of using NRX-101 in the treatment of bipolar depression with suicidal ideation and in treating PTSD), have been granted in the U.S., Europe (including validation by 18 members of the European Patent Convention), Japan, Australia and China.

Additional patent applications under the Glytech License cover compositions of matter and methods of use of pipeline therapeutic candidates other than NRX-101 together with methods of use of NRX-101 in treating additional CNS disorders. These patents are pending in various locations including the U.S., Canada, Israel, Europe, Japan, Australia and China. Assuming all maintenance fees are timely paid in each jurisdiction and that the patents are not held invalid or unenforceable by a court or patent office, the patents licensed to NeuroRx by Glytech will expire in each jurisdiction in which they have been granted in 2033 (for the base NRX-101 patents) and 2038 (for the PTSD treatment patents). See “Summary of NRx Material In-licensing Obligations — NRX-100/101 — Glytech Development and License Agreement” for more information. We intend to seek patent extensions as allowed by law.

Patents under the SHMH License, which cover methods of use of DCS, alone or in combination with an antidepressant agent or an antipsychotic agent (including but not limited to lurasidone) in the treatment of depression, have been granted in the U.S. and Europe with additional patent applications covering similar subject matter pending in these countries and in Israel and Canada. Assuming all maintenance fees are timely paid in each jurisdiction and that the patents are not held invalid or unenforceable by a court or patent office, the patents licensed to NeuroRx by SHMH will expire in each jurisdiction in which they have been granted in 2032. See “Summary of NRx Material In-licensing Obligations — NRX-100/101 — Sarah Herzog Memorial Hospital License Agreement” for more information.

Background on the Indication

Bipolar disorder, formerly known as manic depressive disorder, is a well-established psychiatric diagnosis. According to the NIH, an estimated 2.8% of the US adult population had bipolar disorder in the past 12 months, and the lifetime prevalence is 4.4% of adults in the U.S. The risk of ASIB is uniquely high in patients during bipolar depressive episodes, compared to those with MDD, thought disorders, and personality disorders. Lifetime suicide behavior occurs in 25% to 56% of people with bipolar depression. It is possible that a significant portion of the approximately 48,000 deaths in 2021 from suicide in the U.S. were associated with bipolar depression. Substance abuse is high in this population and death due to drug overdoses are generally not counted as suicides. Furthermore, according to the CDC, the COVID-19 pandemic increased many of the risk factors for suicide. Patients with bipolar depression are 20-30 times more likely to attempt suicide than the general population. Some epidemiological study data suggests that over the course of 5 years, approximately 1 in 5 patients suffering from bipolar depression may attempt suicide or have serious thoughts about attempting suicide. The overall rate of death by suicide among bipolar patients is approximately 10-30 fold greater than that of the general population. Those who have attempted suicide are at significantly higher risk to experience another suicide attempt or die by suicide. Thus, ASIB in bipolar depression has uniquely lethal clinical characteristics.

Current Treatment Options for ASIB in Bipolar Depression

Despite its lethal characteristics, there are no approved pharmacologic treatments for patients with ASIB in bipolar depression. As a result, ECT, often combined with inpatient psychiatric care, remains the only FDA-approved treatment for patients with ASIB in bipolar depression, despite ECT’s well-documented side effects that include memory loss and confusion, along with its high cost. In recent years, several combined D2/5-HT2a antagonists have been shown to have efficacy in treating bipolar depression (olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, quetiapine, lurasidone, cariprazine, lumateperone) with treatment guidelines endorsing common use as first-line standard-of-care treatment in acute bipolar depression. While these medications are effective at reducing overall symptoms of depression, they do not specifically reduce suicidal ideation, and may potentially increase the risk of suicide. In the two bipolar depression registration studies of lurasidone, individuals with active suicidal ideation were specifically excluded because of concerns regarding the possibility of exacerbating suicidality. Similarly, acutely suicidal patients are routinely excluded from clinical trials of other experimental anti-depressive agents. Thus, ASIB in bipolar depression represents a major unmet medical need that must frequently be treated with voluntary or involuntary hospitalization under highly supervised conditions and in some cases the use of ECT.

9

Table of Contents

Whereas all approved drugs for depression act primarily through monoaminergic mechanisms, the serendipitous discovery that ketamine can have a rapid and profound effect on depression and suicidality led to the realization that the glutamate system and the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (“NMDAR”) may also play an important role in depression and suicidality. In our Phase IIb/III registrational study, acutely suicidal and depressed bipolar patients will receive a single low dose of IV ketamine to determine clinical response. Patients who respond with an acute improvement of suicidality and depressive symptoms to ketamine (NRX-100), in a separate study will receive NRX-101 orally twice daily for up to six weeks to determine if NRX-101 may prolong the resolution of depressive symptoms and time to clinical relapse versus lurasidone.

NMDAR-based Treatment for Bipolar Depression

NRX-101 is a dual-targeted sequential therapy regimen (the “NRx Pharmaceuticals Sequential Therapy”) originally consisting of an initial stabilization treatment with NRX-100 (intravenous ketamine) followed by 6-week treatment with NRX-101 (combined DCS and lurasidone). The treatment is intended for rapid stabilization of individuals with ASIB related to acute exacerbation of depressive symptoms in individuals with bipolar disorder, followed by longer term stabilization to permit resolution of the crisis. The drug is intended for treatment of both depression and ASIB in individuals with an acute depressive decompensation in bipolar disorder.

Rationale for NRX Sequential Treatment

NRX-100 is an intravenous infusion of ketamine administered to enable an initial rapid stabilization of patients with bipolar depression who are acutely suicidal. Once a patient who initially was acutely suicidal is sufficiently stable NRX-101 is administered. NRX-101 is a fixed-dose combination oral capsule composed of DCS and lurasidone used to maintain remission from acute suicidality in acutely depressed bipolar patients. Congruent with our strategy of applying innovative science to known molecules, the NRx Sequential Therapy takes advantage of the unique synergistic confluence of three FDA-approved drugs with long histories of use: DCS, lurasidone and ketamine.

DCS is a broad-spectrum antibiotic approved for the treatment of tuberculosis (Seromycin, or Cycloserine). DCS has been used in millions of patients and has a well-known safety profile. Its antidepressant effects were first noted as a serendipitous observation in individuals with co-morbid tuberculosis and depression receiving high-dose DCS treatment for anti-tuberculosis therapy and subsequently confirmed in a prospective investigation. However, these were not pursued further at the time because of the liability of DCS to induce significant psychotomimetic side effects when given at high dose. The interaction of DCS with the NMDA receptor was first demonstrated in 1989, leading to some interest in NMDAR blockers as potential antidepressant treatments. For example, both DCS and the related compound ACPC were shown to be active in mice, using the forced swim test for depression.

High-dose (>500 mg) DCS was subsequently shown to reduce persistent depressive symptoms in patients with MDD who were depressed despite treatment with approved antidepressant agents. A slow DCS titration was used, with 250 mg/dX3 days, followed by 500 mg/d for 18 days (i.e., until end of week 3); followed by 750 mg/day for 1 week (i.e., until end of week 4), followed by 1000 mg/day (i.e., until end of study). In the study (Figure 13), significant beneficial effects were observed in 13 subjects vs. placebo control with SSRI- nonresponsive depressive symptoms. The improvements were manifest within two weeks and persisted throughout the six-week treatment period. These data suggest a >0.9 effect size. Statistical separation between groups was observed by end of week 4, i.e., within 1 week of initiation of a dose >500 mg/day. An unexpected finding of the study was that psychotomimetic effects of combined DCS and antidepressants were minimal, suggesting unexpected synergy between the two components of the treatment.

Lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic with approval for the treatment of depressive episodes associated with bipolar I depression in adults and pediatric patients (10-17 years old) as a monotherapy and as an adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate in adults. It is also approved for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults and patients 13-17 years of age.

10

Table of Contents

Ketamine HCl is a dissociative, rapid-acting general anesthetic for intravenous or intramuscular injection, approved for surgical anesthesia. Ketamine has shown in multiple randomized clinical trials the potential to rapidly reduce depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation. However, the clinical effect has been demonstrated to diminish three to seven days post-dose when used intravenously and two days post-dose when the S-enantiomer is delivered intranasally. Ketamine is classified as a schedule III substance under the Controlled Substances Act, due to its potential for addiction.

Whereas ketamine is a direct NMDA channel blocker, which binds to the phencyclidine binding site, DCS in high doses has an NMDA-antagonist effect mediated through interaction with the glycine binding site. This effect is apparently unrelated to its properties as an anti-infective. By combining the potential of DCS to extend the anti-depressant effects of ketamine with the antipsychotic properties of lurasidone, the NRx Pharmaceuticals Sequential Therapy has the potential to stabilize individuals with bipolar depression during acute crisis and address a serious medical need.

Ketamine HCl, infused at 0.5 mg/kg IV over 40 minutes has been shown to induce acute reductions in suicidality and depression in patients with bipolar depression, relative to control. Numerous reports have documented approximately a 50% reduction in the MADRS and up to a 75% reduction in suicidality following a single infusion of ketamine in patients with suicidal ideation and depression. While the long-term repeat use of ketamine for psychiatric indications may be concerning to some, DCS, when combined with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (“SSRI”) antidepressants in patients with treatment resistant depression, and when combined with atypical antipsychotics, in particular lurasidone, has shown separation from control and ability to maintain remission from suicidality and depression over 6 weeks with oral use.

Figure 2 Effect of DCS on persistent depressive symptoms in MDD, when added to existing anti-depressants (Heresco-Levy et. al. 2013).

Preclinical Observations

Cross-species translation of DCS effects is based upon plasma level, such that NMDAR antagonist effects are observed consistently at plasma levels >25 μg/ml (~250 μM). This plasma level is achieved in rodents with doses >30 mg/kg and in humans with doses >10 mg/kg. Evidence for functional target engagement at these doses comes from 1) rodent behavioral studies, 2) clinical studies of DCS in schizophrenia, and 3) clinical studies of DCS in depression.

Effects of DCS on NMDAR activation were first evaluated in 1990 by Hood et al., 1989 who noted inhibition of NMDAR activation by DCS at doses similar to our proposed active dose. These effects were subsequently confirmed by Watson et al., 1990, and the issue of high-dose antagonist effects of DCS were extensively discussed by Lanthorn et al., 1994.

The majority of rodent behavioral studies conducted with DCS used doses of DCS of 30 mg/kg produced significant dose-dependent anxiolytic effects in the fear-potentiated startle assay that were similar to those produced by the known NMDAR glycine-site antagonist 7-chlorokynurenate. The authors state as follows: “…the results of the present study show that D-cycloserine exhibits anxiolytic activity at higher doses, an effect consistent with antagonist activity,” and also argue for potential effectiveness of DCS in treatment of anxiety- and fear-related disorders including generalized anxiety disorder or PTSD.

11

Table of Contents

Preclinical Safety

A major concern with use of agents that block the channel site of the NMDAR is their propensity to induce neurotoxicity within frontal brain regions (“Olney lesions”) with extended or higher levels of exposure. This propensity for neurotoxicity has been observed with direct channel-blocking NMDAR agents, but has not been observed with any glycine-site modulator, such as NRX-101. The concern regarding neurotoxicity has caused the FDA to issue new guidance for the development of NMDAR-targeted antidepressants, requiring neurotoxicity studies, according to FDA-agreed protocols. This element of NMDAR-targeted antidepressant use may become increasingly relevant in coming years, because drugs containing ketamine and dextromethorphan, two molecules with known neurotoxic potential in humans have been proposed for repeated administration in the treatment of depression.

We took advice from the FDA in 2016 and conducted a rodent neurotoxicity study according to a protocol agreed in advance between the FDA and NRx Pharmaceuticals. The combination of the drugs for the NRx Pharmaceuticals Sequential Therapy (DCS, lurasidone, and ketamine) were tested according to this protocol and found to have no evidence of neurotoxicity (Figure 3) demonstrating safety factors of 4-fold, 16-fold and 7.4-fold for ketamine, DCS, and lurasidone, respectively.^vi Each of the proposed drugs has a long history of safe use in humans, and their adverse event profiles are well characterized.

​

Figure 3 Rodent neurotoxicity study showing “Olney lesions” induced by the NMDAR channel blocker MK-801 (right). No significant neurotoxicity was observed for DCS (left). Source: Jordan 2022

Direct channel-blocking NMDAR-targeted antidepressants have shown substantial propensity for addiction and abuse liability, a propensity that has not been seen with glycine site modulators. This propensity may be related to theories that have been advanced indicating that such agents also bind opiate receptors. DCS has also been investigated in a drug-abuse liability assay using intravenous self-administration. Both ketamine and S-ketamine are known to have significant abuse liability and support self-administration in rodents. Substantial abuse liability is also known in association with dextromethorphan. We conducted a rodent abuse liability study in which the relative abilities of ketamine, S-ketamine and DCS to support self-administration were investigated in animals trained to self-administer ketamine (Figure 4). As expected, both ketamine (gray bar) and S-ketamine (yellow bar) significantly replaced ketamine, consistent with high clinical abuse potential. DCS did not significantly replace ketamine in this assay, consistent with lack of reported clinical abuse despite >50 years of clinical use.

12

Table of Contents

Figure 4 Relative effects of DCS and ketamine on rodent self-administration, showing a significant difference between ketamine and DCS, and no significant difference between DCS and saline. Source: Psychogenics, Inc.

Phase IIb/III Clinical Trial - Sequential Therapy (NRX-100 Followed by NRX-101) for the Treatment of Acute Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Bipolar Depression: the STABIL-B Study

Study Design

An initial study was conducted to confirm the selected dosing levels for DCS and lurasidone and evaluate the NRx Pharmaceuticals Sequential Therapy approach. The study enrolled patients with severe bipolar depression and acute suicidal ideation and behavior. Severe depressive symptoms are defined as a score of 30 or higher on the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale (“BISS”) derived MADRS score (“BDM”). Active suicidal intent with or without plan, but requiring hospitalization, was defined as a score of 4 or 5 using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (“C-SSRS”). In Stage 1, all subjects received treatment with a blinded infusion of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or saline. Response to Stage 1 was defined as 25% improvement in BDM, and C-SSRS 3 or less. Responders to Stage 1 were entered into a 6-week double-blind comparison study of NRX-101 vs. lurasidone alone. The objective of the study was to demonstrate significant superiority of NRX-101 vs. lurasidone alone for maintenance of improvement and prevention of relapse following initial successful IV ketamine treatment.

Dosing: Target doses were used of 950 mg for DCS and 66 mg for lurasidone. Both compounds were titrated upwards over the initial 5-days of treatment. Flexible dosing was permitted to allow dose reduction for side effects, or dose increases for agitation.

Endpoints: The primary endpoint consisted of relative change in BDM score between NRX-101 and lurasidone. Secondary endpoints included suicidality, as reflect in both C-SSRS score and clinician-rated global suicidality impression score (“CGI-SS”) and relapse.

Study Results

Stage 1: 22 subjects entered Stage 1. 17 were assigned to IV ketamine (NRX-100) and 5 to saline. All subjects showed significant response to treatment and were entered into Stage 2.

Stage 2: Data were analyzed for the 17 subjects who responded to IV ketamine in Stage 1. These subjects were randomized to either NRX-101 (n=12) or lurasidone alone (n=5). Sequential treatment with ketamine/NRX-101 significantly reduced depression symptoms compared to sequential treatment with ketamine/lurasidone alone (P=.032) in a last-observation carried forward (“LOCF”) analysis. In a parallel MMRM analysis, a statistical difference of P=0.09 was observed between groups. In addition, there were no relapses during NRX-101 treatment (0/12, 0%) vs. 2 relapses in the lurasidone alone group (2/5, 40%). The between-group significance level of P=0.0735 was not significant but showed feasibility of detecting a difference with larger samples given a similar response pattern.

In LOCF analyses of secondary endpoints, a significant between-group difference was also observed both for C-SSRS (P=0.02) and for CGI-SS (P=0.019). These findings suggest clinically noticeable between-group differences in liability for return of suicidality following initial ketamine treatment. Both effects were non-significant (p =0.11; P=0.15) on MMRM analysis.

13

Table of Contents

Figure 5: Change in depression score during Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the STABIL-B study. All subjects improved significantly in Stage 1. In Stage 2, subjects assigned to NRX-101 showed no significant worsening of depression, or reversion toward pre-Study 1 baseline. By contrast, significant worsening was observed in the lurasidone alone group. The mean difference in BDM score through day 42 was 7.7 points (P=0.032 between groups), which was considered a statistically large effect (d=1.60). Source: Nierenberg 2022

Table 1 Change in scores related to suicidal ideation and intent (C-SSRS and CGI-SS) during stage 2 of the STABIL-B study. When scores are analyzed using “Last Observation Carried Forward” (LOCF) a statistically significant difference favoring NRX-101 vs. lurasidone is observed.

No significant treatment-related safety issues were observed in either group, and no deaths were reported in the study. Plasma DCS levels achieved during the study were within the range expected based on prior human PK studies.

Study Interpretation

Overall, these results support continued development of NRX-101 for maintenance of clinical benefit in both depression and suicidality following initial successful treatment with IV ketamine. Significant group differences were observed on LOCF analysis for both depressive symptoms, which was the prespecified primary endpoint, and for suicidality, which was a pre-specified key secondary endpoint. For suicidality, significant LOCF differences were observed both for formal suicidality ratings obtained by certified raters and for clinical impression recorded by the treating physician, suggesting clinically meaningful effect.

The differences were significant in the MMRM analyses, suggesting an effect size in excess of 1.5, which if replicated would exceed the effect size seen with currently approved antidepressants. To increase the likelihood of a successful follow-on trial, NRx powered the phase 2 trial to detect an effect size of 0.72, approximately have the effect size observed in the STABIL-B study. This power analysis suggested a sample size of at least 62 patients and the Company adopted a final sample size of 72 patients to allow for dropouts and losses to follow up. Thus, the magnitude of expected between-group differences suggested that a sample size of 72 subjects would be sufficient to achieve clinical significance if half the effect size seen in the STABIL-B is observed.

14

Table of Contents

Study Summary

We initiated a clinical research program of NRX-101 during the second half of 2017 under an FDA IND application that was granted Fast Track designation by the FDA in August 2017 and upon presentation of the results was granted Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA in November 2018. In April 2018, the FDA granted a Special Protocol Agreement (SPA). We completed a Phase II clinical trial (the STABIL-B trial) of NRX-101 in 22 patients with severe bipolar depression and Acute Suicidal Ideation and Behavior (ASIB) following initial stabilization with a single dose of ketamine (NRX-100) and saw a statistically significant reduction in depression (P=0.04) and suicidal ideation (P=0.02) compared to lurasidone alone over 42 days of treatment. If this statistically-significant advantage is replicated in the Phase IIb/III clinical trial, under the terms agreed to with the FDA in our Special Protocol Agreement, or in a similar design as per the latest FDA guidance, we aim to submit an NDA to the FDA for the regulatory approval and commercialization of NRX-101 in the U.S. in 2023 and will evaluate our ability to submit to regulatory agencies in other regions or countries.

We believe our products are urgently needed by patients because no current serotonin-targeted antidepressant (such as SSRI drugs) or atypical antipsychotic (e.g., the D2/5HT2A drugs) has been shown to decrease suicidal ideation in patients with bipolar depression or PTSD. Moreover, drugs in these classes bear an FDA-mandated warning regarding the potential increased risk of suicide in vulnerable patients, and to monitor all antidepressant-treated patients for the increased risk of suicide. Ketamine has been shown to decrease suicidal ideation because of its NMDA-blocking properties, but is known to be hallucinogenic, addictive, potentially neurotoxic, and not administrable by mouth. The only FDA-approved therapy for patients with suicidal bipolar depression remains electroconvulsive therapy (“ECT”), a treatment that is known to be effective, but to have a large number of serious side effects, and is very disruptive to the lives of these individuals.

Analysis of the STABIL-B trial showed a statistically significant reduction in depression and suicidal ideation vs. the control group over 42 days. We commenced a pivotal Phase IIb/III clinical trial under an FDA Special Protocol Agreement of our lead product candidate, NRX-101, in 2019 and paused that study due to the pandemic. During this pause we advanced the commercial manufacture of NRX-101, transferring the manufacture from China to the USA. We concluded this transfer and have now generated clinical supplies of NRX-101 using the expected commercial manufacturing process. In 2022 we initiated a Phase II trial of NRX-101 in patients with bipolar depression with SSIB. As of late October 2022, this study is using these new manufactured clinical supplies. In January of 2023 we announced the initiation of a new Phase IIb/III clinical study under the SPA agreement. On February 13, 2023, we issued a press release announcing the receipt of the written minutes and feedback received from the FDA in a Type B meeting held on January 11, 2023. FDA guided the Company to broaden the overall clinical program of NRX-101 to include safety data that would enable the chronic/intermittent use of NRX-101, in accordance with the ICH requirements. ICH requirements should be 1500 patients in the short term, 300-600 patients for 6 months and at least 100 patients for 12 months. This could enable a pathway for the use of NRX-101 by a broader segment of the approximately 7 million individuals in the U.S. with Bipolar Disorder on a long-term basis. The Company is evaluating the timing and cost of expanding its clinical program to access this larger population, as well as the overall guidance provided by the FDA.

Phase IIb/III Clinical Trial - NRX-101 for the Treatment of Severe Bipolar Depression and Subacute Suicidal Ideation or Behavior

Our Phase IIb/III study was originally aimed at investigating the effects of NRx Pharmaceuticals Sequential Therapy with IV ketamine (NRX-100) following by combined DCS + lurasidone (NRX-101) vs. ketamine-lurasidone alone. This study uses a more rapid titration schedule for DCS than was used in STABIL-B, which permits proposed therapeutic dosing levels to be obtained more rapidly. Otherwise, the study methodology remains similar. The objective of the study is to replicate findings from both the Kantrowitz et al., 2015 study (NMDA Antagonists in Bipolar Depression; NCT01833897) and the STABIL-B trial showing rapid remission of symptoms on initial ketamine treatment, followed by maintained improvement throughout the 6-week NRX-101 treatment period. The primary hypotheses are that NRX-101 will be superior to lurasidone alone in maintenance of remission following initial successful stabilization with ketamine, as reflected both in a significant between-group separation on depression and suicidality scores as rated by the MADRS and C-SSRS scales, and in prevention of clinician-rated relapse. The study is being conducted under a SPA with the FDA, and the treatment has been granted breakthrough status. The study’s targeted enrollment of 72 subjects aged between 18-65 who will be randomized 2:1 to NRX-101 vs. lurasidone. Recruitment was halted in February 2020 due to concerns about COVID-19. Because of this pause, and our upcoming readiness of commercial drug supply, we are in the process of initiating a new study with the

15

Table of Contents

same protocol, though we are now evaluating this based on the latest FDA feedback. (See Item 1. Business/ Company Overview) This study will be using the aforementioned new drug supply manufactured in the U.S.

​

In the recent (January 11, 2023) Type B meeting with the Psychiatric Products Division (PPD) of the FDA, the PPD suggested broadening the recruitment of the study to include “recently suicidal” patients stabilized with ketamine and other standard of care approaches in order to broaden the potential label that might be assigned should NRX-101 demonstrate superiority over lurasidone in maintaining remission from depression and suicidal ideation.

​

Type C Meeting Guidance Received on January 10, 2023 from the FDA on the Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) Aspects of the NRX-101 Program

In response to a request for Type C guidance on the chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) aspects of the NRX-101 program, FDA provided Written Responses on January 10, 2023. As previously announced in October 2022, an updated NRX-101 module 3 was submitted to add the intended commercial manufacturer to the IND. With FDA’s written response, it appears that NRx Pharmaceuticals has reached alignment with the FDA regarding its proposed registration manufacturing and stability monitoring plan. Accordingly, all clinical trials and expanded access programs being conducted with NRX-101 are now being conducted with investigational product manufactured to commercial standards.

Minutes from the Company’s Type B Meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Division of Psychiatry Products Held on January 11, 2023

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss requirements for submission of a New Drug Application for NRX-101. FDA noted in written correspondence that the Special Protocol Agreement (SPA), granted in April 2019 remains in effect. Additionally, the FDA suggested during the meeting that a broadening of the addressable population of the indication (under the SPA or otherwise) to patients with severe bipolar depression and Recent Acute Suicidality regardless of how the initial stabilization was accomplished could represent a more straightforward development program. This broader indication would enable the Company to potentially demonstrate the use of NRX-101 to maintain stabilization from suicidality in patients stabilized either with ketamine or with other standard of care therapeutic approaches. FDA noted that, should the results of such a study be driven primarily by subjects stabilized with ketamine, a New Drug Application for ketamine would also be required.

The FDA further guided the Company to broaden the study of NRX-101 to allow for chronic/intermittent treatment of patients with Bipolar Depression and suicidality. This could enable a pathway for the use of NRX-101 by a broader segment of the approximately 7 million individuals in the U.S. with Bipolar Disorder on a long-term basis. A portion of this population is already being addressed in the Company’s ongoing phase 2 trial, which recently passed its first Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) safety review. Based on this guidance, the Company is considering expanding its current phase 2 clinical trial to a potential registration study now that the manufacture of phase 3/commercial-stage NRX-101 has been completed. The Company previously announced completion of a Type C meeting in which FDA agreed to the Company’s Chemical Manufacturing Control and stability program for drug manufacture.

The FDA further advised the Company that as a chronic, or chronic-intermittent treatment, the safety database requirement under ICH guidelines for NRX-101 should be 1,500 patients short term, 300-600 patients at 6 months and with at least 100 treated for 1 year. The Company is evaluating the timing and cost of this requirement to expand clinical access to this larger population. In addition to its ongoing clinical trials, the Company is planning to augment its safety database via an expanded access program, which could be supported by the availability of its new manufacturing capabilities for NRX-101 and is expected under federal law governing Breakthrough Therapy Designation. The Company will seek cost reimbursement for operating this Expanded Access Program as permitted under current FDA regulations.

In related comments, the FDA accepted the Company’s rationale for deferring pediatric and adolescent studies with NRX-101 until after drug approval and advised the Company to include this rationale in its regulatory filings. The FDA will consider the Company’s submission of an Advice Request to evaluate waiving or deferring chronic carcinogenicity testing as a post-approval commitment. Finally, the FDA’s Controlled Substances Staff advised the Company to closely monitor abuse-related adverse events and possible cases of abuse during clinical trials.

16

Table of Contents

Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) Review of NRX-101 for the Treatment of Severe Bipolar Depression and Subacute Suicidal Ideation or Behavior

Safety

In February 2023, the Company reported the recommendations of an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) which reviewed the safety findings of the first fifty enrolled participants in the Company’s phase II clinical trial of NRX-101 for the treatment of severe bipolar depression and subacute suicidal ideation or behavior (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT NCT03395392). Based on a safety analysis of the first 50 enrolled patients, the DSMB recommended that enrollment in the trial continue as planned and identified no drug-related Serious Adverse Events or other safety issues of concern.

Efficacy

In March 2023, the Company reported the recommendations of the DSMB which reviewed the initial efficacy findings for the enrolled participants in the Company’s phase II clinical trial of NRX-101 for the treatment of severe bipolar depression and subacute suicidal ideation or behavior. The DSMB found no futility signal at this stage of the trial and the DSMB recommended that enrollment in the trial continue as planned.   According to the study's statistical analysis plan, the failure to identify futility requires that a numerical advantage of the investigational drug relative to the comparator treatment must be observed by the DSMB. The DSMB will continue to monitor safety and efficacy in the trial.

Clinical Objectives

Our clinical objective is to offer patients the clinical benefit of rapid reduction in symptoms of depression and suicidal ideation that has been observed with intravenous ketamine, while maintaining that benefit with a daily oral agent that does not have ketamine’s potential for abuse and psychosis, and/or required supervised administration. NRX-101 is designed to offer an oral, rapid-onset and sustained home-use therapy that can significantly extend ketamine’s proven anti-suicidal and antidepressant benefits without the drawbacks of ketamine.

We believe that NRX-101 possesses potential development advantages over competing solutions. These include:

​

17

Table of Contents

Additional indications for NRX-101

Depression and other symptoms of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) affects 13 million Americans and 5 of every 100 adults in the US has PTSD in any given year.^vii PTSD is frequently accompanied by Depression.  However, the hallmark of PTSD is recurrent memories of the traumatic event, often called “flashbacks,” that may lead to avoidance behavior, negative thoughts, hyperarousal, and suicidal ideation.  Although there are several serotonin-targeted medicines that are indicated for use in PTSD, no serotonin-targeted antidepressant has demonstrated an effect in extinction of fear memory in patients. Recently, Sala and coworkers demonstrated the extinction of fear memory in a rodent model of PTSD.^viii The same rodent model was implemented by NRx to study the effects of NRX-101 on fear memory extinction.  

Figure 6: Effect of DCS (dark blue) and NRX-101 (light blue) in extinction of Fear Memory in the WKY rodent model.
Data on File, NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

A small clinical trial was conducted by de Kleine and coworkers in which a low dose of DCS (50 mg/day) demonstrated an augmentation of response to psychotherapy for PTSD.^ix In a related editorial, Krystal suggested, “some provocative findings suggest that when fear extinction takes place during D-cycloserine administration, usual forms of neuroplasticity are enhanced and additional forms of neuroplasticity are recruited that may enhance extinction and protect against reinstatement.^x

Figure 7 Estimated model means for self-reported posttraumatic stress disorder symptom scores (Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Scale—Self Report; PSS-SR) per completed session for the completer subgroups, with errors bars indicating standard errors. DCS, D-cycloserine (source: deKleine, et. al. 2012)

Javitt demonstrated in animal models that for DCS to maximize its effect on fear memory, plasma dosages in excess of 25µg/mL, must be achieved, which represents an oral dose in excess of 500mg/day. As noted in US patent 10881665B2,

18

Table of Contents

low dose DCS did not demonstrate a beneficial effect on fear memory (freezing behavior), while a dose of DCS sufficient to reach this plasma threshold did produce a significant reduction in freezing behavior.

The Company’s 2022 completion of phase 3/commercial-scale NRX-101 manufacturing enables clinical trials of NRX-101 for the treatment of PTSD under FDA Good Clinical Practices.

Potential application to treatment of Chronic Pain

Chronic pain is commonly defined as pain that lasts beyond 3 months and extends past normal tissue healing time. Between 18% and 34% of Americans are believed to suffer from chronic pain.^xi The use of opiates to treat chronic pain has led to a national crisis resulting in widespread addiction and death. Few alternatives to opiates have emerged that both treat chronic pain and potentially decrease craving for opiates among chronic pain sufferers. Recent epidemiologic studies indicate that Chronic Back Pain is the leading cause of disability in the US and the seventh leading cause worldwide.^xii

Various non-clinical studies have suggested that NMDA antagonist drugs may be useful in treating animal pain models. Intravenous ketamine has been widely used off-label to treat chronic pain at doses similar to those used in depression studies. A meta-analysis of 7 studies representing 94 participants demonstrated a consistent improvement in pain score but a consistent finding of nausea and psychomimetic effects associated with ketamine administration.^xiii

A pilot study of D-cycloserine in the treatment of chronic pain was undertaken by Schnitzer and coworkers in patients with chronic low back pain.^xiv The study randomized 41 participants to a placebo-controlled dose-escalation study of 100mg, 200mg, and 400mg (each dose for two weeks) vs. placebo. The primary outcome measure was back pain intensity on a 1-10 numeric rating scale. The study was deemed not to have met its primary endpoint to detect a difference between DCS and placebo over 6 weeks. However, post-hoc analysis demonstrates a significant difference between baseline and six weeks (P<0.01), which is the point in time that the 400mg DCS dose was reached. (see figure 8)

Figure 8: Back pain intensity ratings over a six-week, dose escalating, placebo or DCS treatment in CBP. (a) Across subject averageback pain, assessed on the primary outcome measure of 0–10 numeric rating scale. (b) Within subject change in pain, relative to baseline, using the 0–10 numeric rating scale. Error bars are SEMs. (Source Schnitzer 2016^xiv.)

Although the authors expressed the post-hoc clinical effect in terms of time from baseline, the observation that DCS did not demonstrate an NMDA-antagonist effect until the critical threshold documented in the NRx patent portfolio was reached is consistent with our understanding of the DCS mechanism of action. In 2023 the Company may initiate a pilot study in the treatment of chronic pain using NRX-101 at daily dosages that exceed 500mg/day of DCS. The Company’s 2022 completion of phase 3/commercial-scale NRX-101 manufacturing enables clinical trials of NRX-101 for the treatment of chronic pain under FDA Good Clinical Practices.

NRX-100 (ketamine)

The Company has not initiated large-scale research involving the use of ketamine for rapid induction and has taken advice from FDA regarding the more straightforward development path that can be achieved if the Company pursues the labeling of NRX-101 in “recently suicidal patients following stabilization.”  However, the demonstration that ketamine can achieve

19

Table of Contents

stabilization of those with acute suicidal ideation in bipolar depression provides potentially important insight into the potential value of oral NMDA antagonists in the treatment of this condition.

A randomized controlled trial of ketamine in the treatment of suicidal ideation among patients with bipolar depression was conducted at Columbia University under NIH funding. A statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in suicidal ideation was seen on the Beck’s Scale for Suicidal Ideation within 24 hours of infusion with ketamine, compared to midazolam an active comparator.

Figure 9: Suicidal ideation severity during a randomized trial of sub-anesthetic intravenous ketamine or midazolam control infusion in bipolar depressed participants with clinically significant suicidal thoughts. The figure depicts change in severity measured using the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation (SSI) from baseline to 24 hours after infusion. Error bars represent ± one standard error of the mean (SEM). Source Grunebaum 2017^iv.

A randomized, controlled multicenter trial was conducted at 8 French hospitals by Abbar and coworkers.³ Participants with acute suicidal ideation associated with bipolar depression, major depressive disorder, and other disorders were randomized to receive either ketamine or placebo infusion. Overall, the study demonstrated that 63% of ketamine-infused participants vs. 31% of placebo-infused participants achieved remission from suicidal ideation at day 3 (P<.01). However, the finding was most pronounced for the subset of participants with bipolar depression (85% vs. 28%; P<.001) with an Odds Ratio of 14 for ketamine vs. placebo.

​

Summary of results from multicenter trial of ketamine vs. placebo in hospitalized patients with suicidal depression. The overall odds ratio of 3.7 (P<0.001) was largely driven by the 14 fold increased odds of remission from suicidal ideation seen among the subgroup with bipolar depression (P<.001). Source Abbar 2022.

20

Table of Contents

In addition to providing a basis for developing ketamine as an induction drug for treatment of suicidal ideation in bipolar depression, the above clinical findings provide important clinical support for the use of NMDA-antagonist drugs in the treatment of this condition.

Additional Potential Psychiatry Products

Our intellectual property estate enables us to pursue additional combinations of known molecules, including dextromethorphan, d-methadone, and other named NMDA antagonists. The majority of patients with depression have MDD. Additionally, PTSD is an area of high unmet need for which there are very few pharmacological treatment options. PTSD can also be associated with suicidality and depression, in particular severe PTSD. Whereas episodes of depression in bipolar disorder are episodic and tend to resolve in two to three months, depression is a chronic feature of MDD, and it can also be associated with PTSD. NRX-102, is a potential new product in which we expect to pair a fixed dose combination of DCS with Mirtazapine, a currently approved antidepressant. In the 2013 Phase II study, clinical data demonstrate the potential efficacy of DCS in combination with an SSRI antidepressant versus an SSRI antidepressant alone in treating patients with treatment resistant MDD. We expect to resume the exploratory preclinical development of NRX-102. Further, we have identified additional 5-HT2A antagonists that may be appropriately paired with DCS. We are also further guided by preclinical data disclosed in our patents and publications which demonstrates that DCS may inhibit the akathisia induced by SSRI antidepressants.

Existing clinical data have shown DCS to be a useful initial therapeutic agent with which to target the glycine site on the NMDA receptor. However, DCS has mixed agonist/antagonist effects and its antagonist properties are only manifest at high doses of DCS. We have identified other small molecule NMDA antagonists that are effective at lower doses and may be paired with 5-HT2A antagonists in order to yield a dual-targeted pro-drug. Accordingly, we plan to explore design initiatives to develop candidate prodrugs that will expand on the dual-targeted properties of NRX-101 and NRX-102.

NRX-201/202 will target bipolar depression and MDD/PTSD, respectively, and are anticipated to replace the DCS component of NRX-101/102 with a molecule that is more specifically targeted than DCS at the same glycine site target. Our patent portfolio includes issued and pending claims for many such dual- targeted combinations.

References

​

21

Table of Contents

22

Table of Contents

Summary of NRx Material In-licensing Obligations

​

NRX-100/101

Glytech Development and License Agreement (“Glytech DLA”)

The Company was founded based upon a development agreement with Glytech, a Company founded by Daniel Javitt. The initial Glytech development agreement was signed on August 6, 2015, and subsequently amended on May 2, 2016, October 19, 2016, June 13, 2018, April 16, 2019, December 31, 2020, August 6, 2022, November 6, 2022 and January 31, 2023.

The License

Pursuant to the Glytech DLA, Glytech granted to NeuroRx an irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive (even as to Glytech) royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense, to use the Licensed Technology (as defined below) to develop, manufacture and offer for sale drug products for the treatment of depression and suicide associated with bipolar disorder in humans, including all products containing (a) DCS (including metabolites and structural variants thereof) combined with an antidepressant agent or an antipsychotic agent (including but not limited to lurasidone), or (b) DCS (including metabolites and structural variants thereof) for treatment of all types of bipolar, depressive and/or anxiety disorders and/or symptoms thereof. The key composition of matter patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,583,138) that supports NRx was assigned to us by Glytech in January 2021 and is no longer the subject of a license grant under the Glytech DLA; and (2) Glytech agreed to transfer and assign the remainder of the Licensed Technology and the Excluded Technology (as defined below) which are not essential for the manufacture or sale of NRX-101 to NRx for no additional consideration at any time upon receipt of written notice from us if, on or prior to March 31, 2023, (i) the value of the Glytech equity holdings in NRx (the “Glytech Equity”) has an aggregate value of at least $50 million for twenty (20) consecutive trading days immediately preceding any given date and (ii) there are no legal or contractual restrictions on selling all of the securities represented by the Glytech Equity then applicable to Glytech (or reasonably foreseeable to be applicable to Glytech within the following twenty trading days). The Company is working with Glytech to extend this option.

Glytech also agreed to transfer and assign the Licensed Technology and the Excluded Technology to us for no additional consideration simultaneously with the closing of a merger, acquisition or other transaction involving NRx, where, as a result of such transaction, Glytech receives at the closing thereof, by virtue of its status as a stockholder of NRx, at least $50 million in cash proceeds.

As used in this section of the Glytech DLA, the term “Aggregate Liquidity Value” for any given date means the sum of each trading day’s Daily Liquidity Value during the Eligible Measurement Period applicable for such date, and “Daily Liquidity Value” for any particular trading date means the aggregate proceeds Glytech would receive if it sold that number of shares of Glytech Equity on such trading date equal to 5% of the total number of shares of Common Stock or successor stock sold on such trading date. “Licensed Technology” means the patent rights and know how that disclose, describe or claim subject matter relating to use of DCS in combination with one or more antidepressants or one or more atypical antipsychotics (e.g., lurasidone) that are controlled by Glytech or its affiliates. “Excluded Technology” means any other patent right and knowhow owned by Glytech that does not relate specifically to compositions containing either DCS or lurasidone.

NRx Obligations

The Glytech DLA imposes certain obligations on NRx in connection with maintaining the Glytech License, which include:

23

Table of Contents

Glytech Termination Rights

The term of the Glytech DLA continues for an indefinite period unless terminated by one or both parties in accordance with its terms. Glytech has an independent right to terminate the Glytech DLA in the event that (a) NRx is in material breach of the Glytech DLA, including material breaches of the obligations set forth above, and does not rectify such breach within thirty (30) days of notification (unless such breach is not capable of rectification within such thirty (30) day period and NRx acts diligently in a commercially reasonable manner to correct such breach) or (b) if NRx becomes insolvent or has proceedings in voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy instituted against it.

If Glytech terminates the Glytech DLA, then the Glytech License is withdrawn and NRx is required to transfer and assign all of its assets to Glytech, including without limitation any inventions, patent rights and knowhow developed by NRx from the Licensed Technology and all data and research, in whatever format, relating to the Licensed Technologies and the products.

NRx is currently in compliance with its obligations under the Glytech DLA.

Sarah Herzog Memorial Hospital License Agreement

The initial clinical trial of D-cycloserine was conducted by Drs. Uri Hersco-Levy and Daniel Javitt at the Sarah Herzog Memorial Hospital (SHMH) in Jerusalem and resulted in a patent owned by SHMH in which Heresco-Levy and Javitt share inventorship. NeuroRx entered into an Exclusive License Agreement with SHMH, dated April 16, 2019 (the “SHMH License Agreement”).

The License

The SHMH License Agreement grants NeuroRx an exclusive, worldwide, royalty bearing license to U.S. Patent No. 9,789,093, certain patent applications pending at that time as well as subsequently filed patent applications in the same priority families, and patents issuing therefrom, including corresponding foreign patents and patent applications (together, the “Licensed Patents”), to develop, manufacture, offer for sale and otherwise commercialize drug products for the treatment of depression and suicide associated with bipolar disorder in humans, including certain products containing (a) DCS (including metabolites and structural variants thereof) combined with an antidepressant agent or an antipsychotic agent (including but not limited to lurasidone), or (b) DCS (including metabolites and structural variants thereof) ((a) and (b) collectively the “Licensed Products”) for treatment of all types of bipolar, depressive and/or anxiety disorders and/or symptoms thereof. We have the right to grant sub-licenses, subject to the agreed sub-licensing procedure, but are liable to SHMH for any breaches of a sub-license by a sub-licensee.

24

Table of Contents

We are required to make certain payments in order to maintain the license, including:

Milestone Payments

​

The milestone payments due above may be reduced by 25% in certain circumstances, and by the application of certain sub-license fees.

Royalties

A royalty in an amount equal to: (a) 1% of revenues from the sale of any product incorporating a Licensed Product when at least one Licensed Patent remains in force, if such product is not covered by a Valid Claim (as defined below) in the country or region in which the sale occurs, or (b) 2.5% of revenues from the sale of any Licensed Product that is covered by at least one Valid Claim in the country or region in which such product is manufactured or sold. A “Valid Claim” means any issued claim in the Licensed Patents that remains in force and that has not been finally invalidated or held to be unenforceable. The royalty rates above may be doubled if we commence a legal challenge to the validity, enforceability or scope of any of the Licensed Patents during the term of the SHMH License Agreement and do not prevail in such proceeding.

Royalties shall also apply to any revenues generated by sub-licensees from sale of Licensed Products subject to a cap of 8.5% of the payments received by us from sub-licensees in connection with such sales.

Annual Maintenance Fee

A fixed amount of $100,000 was paid on April 16, 2021 and, thereafter, a fixed amount of $150,000 is due on the anniversary of such date during the term of the SHMH License Agreement.

Costs of Licensed Patents

We are required to reimburse SHMH for any costs incurred in filing and prosecuting the Licensed Patents during the term of the SHMH Agreement. We are also responsible for paying directly any ongoing costs associated with the maintenance of the Licensed Patents.

Other Obligations

The SHMH License Agreement imposes certain other obligations on us, including:

25

Table of Contents

Our exclusive rights under the Licensed Patents are at risk if we fail to fulfill our payment and other obligations under the SHMH License Agreement, including the obligations described above. We are currently in compliance with our obligations under the SHMH License Agreement.

SHMH Termination Rights

The term of the SHMH License Agreement continues until the expiration of the last-to-expire Licensed Patent or a final judgment of invalidity or unenforceability of the last Licensed Patent.

SHMH has the independent right to terminate the SHMH License Agreement in the event that NRx (a) is in material breach and does not rectify such breach within sixty (60) days of written notification of such breach or (b) becomes insolvent, or has proceedings in voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy instituted against and such proceeding is not set aside within sixty (60) days. If we make an application or claim that challenges the validity, enforceability or scope of any of the Licensed Patents, SHMH also has the right to terminate the SHMH License Agreement in respect of the Licensed Patents that are included in such proceeding.

Upon termination of the SHMH License Agreement, the license to use the Licensed Patents will terminate, and all rights included therein shall revert to SHMH.

As of the date hereof, we have not received any notice from SHMH alleging any material breach of the SHMH License Agreement by NRx.

​

26

Table of Contents

27

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

28

Table of Contents

Manufacturing Agreements

As part of our agreement with Relief Therapeutics we have transferred all manufacturing rights and know-how that we acquired for ZYESAMI (aviptadil) to Relief, including our collaborations with Nephron Pharmaceuticals and Alcami as contract manufacturers, and with the Polypeptide Group as a supplier of active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”). The ZYESAMI manufacturing contract with Alcami does not affect our ability to contract with Alcami for other purposes.

The Company has established a manufacturing agreement with Alcami for the manufacturing of NRX-101. This enabled the technology transfer of manufacturing processes previously done in China to the U.S. In October of 2022 the Company submitted a Module 3 IND amendment to the FDA, allowing it to manufacture clinical supplies in the U.S.

Cardinal Health Distribution Agreement

We have entered into an Exclusive Distribution Agreement with Cardinal Health 105, Inc. (“Cardinal Health”), with an effective date of September 25, 2020 (the “CHDA”). Under the CHDA, we appointed Cardinal Health as the exclusive third-party logistics distribution agent, and as an authorized distributor, of certain NRx’s products (the “Products”) in the U.S. and its territories, possessions, and commonwealths. Although this contract was initially signed in connection with the distribution of ZYESAMI, this agreement remains in place, as it could enable our distribution for NRX-101.

The Services

Under the CHDA, Cardinal Health will provide services to us including, without limitation, storage, distribution, returns, customer support, financial support, EDI and system access support (the “CHDA Services”). The CHDA Services are to be provided by Cardinal Health as set forth in one of two operating model guidelines: the Traditional Third-Party Logistics (“3PL”) Operating Guidelines (“OPG”), or the Title Model Operating Guidelines (“TMOPG”). Both the OPG and the TMOPG are attached to and incorporated by reference into the CHDA. NRx and Cardinal Health have not yet decided which of these two operating model guidelines will govern the delivery of the CHDA Services; that decision will be made closer to approval by the FDA of our first commercial product.

The OPG:

Under the OPG, Cardinal Health will accept the Products from us on consignment, with the Products being transported by us or its shipping agent to Cardinal Health’s secured access 3PL warehousing facilities. Cardinal Health has established standard operating procedures for managing all activities at its warehousing facilities, which are approved and controlled by Cardinal Health’s centralized distribution management system. All Cardinal Health warehouse personnel are trained under documented programs that are compliant with applicable federal and state laws and regulations and with cGMP. Our Products are warehoused by Cardinal Health under controlled temperature conditions, with any temperature excursions lasting more than one hour being reported within two business days from the discovery of the excursion. The Products are picked from inventory in Cardinal Health’s warehouse on a “First-to-Expire, First-Out” basis.

Pricing and conditions of sale are set by us. Cardinal Health publishes price lists for the Products to be sold to its customers. Cardinal Health sends invoices via email to customers on the day of shipment, or by mail on the morning following shipment, of the Products. Customers then remit payment to our bank lockbox via EFT, ACH or wire transfer,

29

Table of Contents

and NRx’s bank then forwards information regarding payments to Cardinal Health which then reconciles and applies cash receipts to the accounts receivable.

Most of the logistical provisions in the TMOPG are identical to those of the OPG. The primary material difference between the TMOPG and the OPG is that under the TMOPG, title to and ownership of the Products pass from NRx to Cardinal Health upon purchase of the Products by Cardinal Health from NRx or its manufacturing agent. Cardinal Health handles all sales, shipment/distribution, customer service and AR activities in the same way as outlined for the OPG model, except that Cardinal Health maintains a bank lockbox for receipt of payments of invoices by customers, rather than that lockbox being maintained by NRx.

Pricing and Payment; Forecast and Price List

As compensation for the CHDA Services delivered by Cardinal Health, we are responsible for paying the fees set forth in the CHDA. The fees schedule is confidential to Cardinal Health and cannot be disclosed without permission from Cardinal Health. Fees are subject to adjustment not more than once per contract year (after the first contract year) by 3%, or if Cardinal Health can reasonably demonstrate a material increase in the cost of providing the CHDA Services.

Under the CHDA, we are responsible for providing a forecast of volume of the Products to be handled by Cardinal Health. Any variances from the forecast, and any adjustments that may therefore be needed to the forecast going forward, are handled through good-faith negotiation by the parties. We are also responsible for providing to Cardinal Health a Product price list, setting prices to be charged to customers for the Products sold by or distributed by Cardinal Health. Any change to be implemented in pricing for the Products must be communicated by us to Cardinal Health at least 72 hours prior to the effective date of such price change.

Term and Termination

The CHDA has an initial term of three (3) years following first shipment of an FDA-approved Product to a commercial customer (the “Initial Term”), and automatically renews for additional terms of one (1) year (each, a “Renewal Term”), unless the CHDA is earlier terminated during either the Initial Term or any Renewal Term by a written notice of termination given by either party to the other at least 90 days prior to the end of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term. The CHDA also can be immediately terminated by either party if: (1) the other party files for bankruptcy protection or enters into receivership or trusteeship, and if a bankruptcy or insolvency order is entered such order is not discharged within 30 days; or (2) the other party materially breaches any provision of the CHDA and such breach is not cured within 30 days of receiving notice of breach from the non-breaching party, except that Cardinal Health may terminate the CHDA if NRx fails to timely pay invoices from Cardinal Health within 15 days of having received written notice of non-payment from Cardinal Health. Following termination for any reason, each party’s rights and obligations that accrued prior to the date of termination shall survive the termination, and all Products warehoused at Cardinal Health’s 3PL facilities will be returned to NRx or its designee.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the U.S. and in other countries, at the Federal, state and local level, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import and export, pricing, and government contracting related to pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the U.S. and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Government Regulation

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the FFDCA and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate Federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. 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

30

Table of Contents

applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions or other actions, such as the FDA’s delay in review of or refusal to approve a pending NDA, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold or study termination, issuance of Warning Letters or Untitled Letters, mandated modifications to promotional materials or issuance of corrective information, requests for product recalls, consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow product import or export, total or partial suspension of or restriction of or imposition of other requirements relating to production or distribution, injunctions, fines, debarment from government contracts and refusal of future orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, FDA debarment, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment.

The process required by the FDA before a new drug may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

Additionally, if a drug is considered a controlled substance, prior to the commencement of marketing, the DEA must also determine the controlled substance schedule, taking into account the recommendation of the FDA.

Preclinical Studies and IND Submission

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data and any available clinical data or literature, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. Once the IND is submitted, the sponsor must wait 30 calendar days before initiating any clinical trials. During this time, among other things, the FDA has an opportunity to review the IND for safety to assure that research subjects will not be subjected to unreasonable risk. The FDA may raise concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and place the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Implications for NRX-100/101

We have filed INDs and the FDA has accepted INDs 134025 and 129194 for NRX-100 and NRX-101 respectively. The FDA has advised us that no further preclinical studies are needed for submission of an NDA for NRX-100. The FDA has advised us and we have agreed that a genotoxicity study and a non-clinical maternal/fetal study for potential fetal effects

31

Table of Contents

are required prior to filing of an NDA for NRX-101. Furthermore, drugs that are potentially used chronic or chronic/intermittently do need to show preclinical carcinogenicity studies.  Based on our latest FDA interactions we may be required to do so, even if our initial target indication is for 6 weeks. However, FDA indicated that they would review our request for an exemption, which we intend to submit.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the IND to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with cGCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial, and review and approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the trial procedures, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated, and a statistical analysis plan. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, a central or local IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial, including any changes, while it is being conducted. Information about certain clinical trials, including a description of the study and study results, must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on their clinicaltrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential Phases, which may overlap or be combined. In Phase 1, the drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects or subjects with the target disease or condition and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. In Phase II, the drug typically is administered through well-controlled studies to a limited subject population with the target disease or condition 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. In Phase III, the drug is administered to an expanded subject population, generally at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, in two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to generate enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product for approval, to establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. Furthermore, depending on the expected use of a drug (e.g., acute, intermittent, chronic), regulatory requirements may include a safety database that goes beyond the number of subjects in the efficacy studies.

The manufacture of investigational drugs for the conduct of human clinical trials is subject to cGMP requirements. Investigational drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients imported into the U.S. are also subject to regulation by the FDA relating to their labeling and distribution. Further, the export of investigational drug products outside of the U.S. is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country as well as U.S. export requirements under the FFDCA.

Progress reports and other summary information detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if certain unexpected Serious Adverse Events occur or other significant safety information is found. Phase I, Phase II and Phase III clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or the trial is not being conducted in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements or the protocol. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board (DSMB) or data monitoring committee (DMC). This group regularly reviews accumulated data and advises the study sponsor regarding the continuing safety of trial subjects, potential trial subjects, and the continuing validity and scientific merit of the clinical trial. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

32

Table of Contents

Implications for NRX-100/101

In the case of NRX-100/101, the FDA has agreed with us in writing that the investigational product meets the standards for a 505.b.2 (commonly called drug-repurposing) pathway, whereby the extensive safety literature regarding the individual components of NRX-101 may be cited in lieu of repeating various preclinical and Phase I clinical studies.

Because of examples in recent years where sponsors have received Complete Response Letters based on lack of agreement with the FDA regarding the research path required for NDA submission, we worked collaboratively with the FDA for one year in order to negotiate a Special Protocol Agreement (“SPA”) that would govern the development of NRX-101 and would define the Phase III trial required for the target indication., should the clinical trial be successful. This SPA was issued to us in April 2018 and defines the single clinical trial required for submission of NRX-101 for treatment of bipolar depression with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. In addition to the defined requirements in the SPA, FDA may require additional clinical safety data, especially if the use of the drug could be intermittent or chronic/intermittent as deemed by the FDA. As mentioned before, we recently received written guidance from the FDA that the Company is evaluating.

Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical and clinical studies, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. In most cases, the submission of an NDA is subject to a substantial application user fee. These user fees must be filed at the time of the first submission of the application, even if the application is being submitted on a rolling basis. A waiver from the application user fee may be sought by an applicant. One basis for a waiver of the application user fee is if the applicant employs fewer than 500 employees, including employees of affiliates, the applicant does not have a drug product that has been approved under a human drug application and introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, and the applicant, including its affiliates, is submitting its first human drug application. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has agreed to certain performance goals regarding the timing of its review of an application. The FDA aims to review 90% of all standard review applications within ten months of acceptance for filing and six months of acceptance for filing for priority review applications.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act an NDA or supplement to an NDA for a new active ingredient, indication, dosage form, dosage regimen or 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. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

The FDA may also require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”) program either during the application process or after the approval of the drug to ensure the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks. The REMS plan 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 tracking and minimization tools.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with additional information. The resubmitted application is also 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. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity.

Under the FFDCA, before approving a drug for which no active ingredient (including any ester or salt of active ingredients) has previously been approved by the FDA, the FDA must either refer that drug to an external advisory committee or provide in an action letter, a summary of the reasons why the FDA did not refer the drug to an advisory

33

Table of Contents

committee. The external advisory committee review may also be required for other drugs because of certain other issues, including clinical trial design, safety and effectiveness, and public health questions. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications by the manufacturer and all of its subcontractors and contract manufacturers. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP regulations.

The testing and approval process for an NDA requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and each may take several years to complete. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval. The FDA may not grant approval of an NDA on a timely basis, or at all.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing, or other information, in order for FDA to reconsider the application. The FDA has a review goal of completing its review of 90% of resubmissions within two or six months after receipt, depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this 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 may issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a black boxed warning, require that post-approval studies, including Phase IV clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post- marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, certain circumstances may require FDA notification, review, or approval, as well as further testing. These may include some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, or new safety information.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track designation, accelerated approval, priority review and Breakthrough Therapy (as defined below) designation, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions, and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs or present a significant improvement over existing therapy. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a Fast Track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if the product will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy, safety, or public health factors. If Fast Track designation is obtained, drug sponsors may be eligible for more frequent development meetings and correspondence with the FDA. In addition, the FDA may initiate review of sections of an NDA before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the applicant provides and the FDA approves a schedule for the remaining information.

34

Table of Contents

In some cases, a Fast Track product may be eligible for accelerated approval or priority review.

The FDA may give a priority review designation to drugs that are intended to treat serious conditions and provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. A priority review means that the goal for the FDA is to review an application in six months, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines. These six- and ten-month review periods are measured from the “filing” date rather than the receipt date for NDAs, which typically adds approximately two months to the timeline for review and decision from the date of submission. Products that are eligible for Fast Track designation may also be considered appropriate to receive a priority review.

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses or conditions and that fill an unmet medical need may be eligible for accelerated approval and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoints, and the drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures.

Moreover, under the provisions of the new Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act enacted in 2012, a sponsor can request designation of a product candidate as a “Breakthrough Therapy.” A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as Breakthrough Therapies are eligible for the Fast Track designation features as described above, intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program beginning as early as Phase I trials, and a commitment from the FDA to involve senior managers and experienced review staff in a proactive collaborative, cross-disciplinary review.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Implications for NRX-101

Subsequent to the issuance of the SPA, in November 2018, the FDA also issued a Breakthrough Therapy designation to NRX-101. Breakthrough Therapy designation is awarded to drugs that have demonstrated preliminary evidence of efficacy for the treatment of a serious medical condition for which there is an unmet medical need.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, manufacturing, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion, and reporting of adverse experiences with the product and drug shortages. 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 and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase IV clinical trials and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

35

Table of Contents

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies and list drugs manufactured at their facilities with the FDA. These facilities are further subject to periodic announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other regulatory requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and may require prior approval by the FDA or notification to the FDA before or after 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.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product becomes available in the market.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory 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:

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Although physicians in the practice of medicine may prescribe approved drugs for unapproved indications, pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from marketing or promoting their drug products for uses outside of the approved indications in the approved prescribing information. 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 marketed or promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including criminal and civil penalties under the FFDCA and False Claims Act, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, debarment from government contracts and refusal of future orders under existing contracts, and mandatory compliance programs under corporate integrity agreements or deferred prosecution agreements.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products, including samples, is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”), which, among other things, regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug 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.

Moreover, the recently enacted Drug Quality and Security Act, imposes new obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Among the requirements of this new legislation,

36

Table of Contents

manufacturers will be required to provide certain information regarding drug products to individuals and entities to which product ownership is transferred, label drug products with a product identifier, and keep certain records regarding drug products. The transfer of information to subsequent product owners by manufacturers will eventually be required to be done electronically. Manufacturers will also be required to verify that purchasers of the manufacturers’ products are appropriately licensed. Further, under this new legislation, manufactures will have drug product investigation, quarantine, disposition, and FDA and trading partner notification responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and intentionally adulterated products such that they would result in serious adverse health consequences or death, as well as products that are the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit for distribution such that they would be reasonably likely to result in serious health consequences or death.

Regulation under the Drug Enforcement Administration

We are required to evaluate the abuse potential of our product candidates. If any of our product candidates are considered controlled substances, we will need to comply with additional regulatory requirements. NRX-100 (ketamine) is a controlled substance with high abuse potential. Both components of NRX-101 are approved drugs (DCS and lurasidone) and neither is a controlled substance. We have completed abuse liability studies for DCS and identified no abuse potential.

Certain drug products may be regulated as “controlled substances” as defined in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the DEA’s implementing regulations. The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use, and may not be marketed or sold in the U.S. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. The FDA provides a recommendation to the DEA as to whether a drug should be classified as a controlled substance and the appropriate level of control. If DEA scheduling is required, a drug product may not be marketed until the scheduling process is completed, which could delay the launch of the product.

Depending on the Schedule, drug products may be subject to registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution, importation, exportation, inventory, quota and other requirements administered by the DEA, which are directly applicable to product applicants, contract manufacturers and to distributors, prescribers and dispensers of controlled substances. The DEA regulates the handling of controlled substances through a closed chain of distribution. This control extends to the equipment and raw materials used in their manufacture and packaging in order to prevent loss and diversion into illicit channels of commerce.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized. Similarly, separate registrations are also required for separate facilities.

The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration and on a periodic basis. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports may be required to made to the DEA for the distribution of certain controlled substances. Reports must also be made for thefts or significant losses of any controlled substance. To enforce these requirements, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate administrative proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings or consent decrees. Individual states also independently regulate controlled substances.

Federal and State Healthcare related, Fraud and Abuse and Data Privacy and Security Laws and Regulations

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, federal and state fraud and abuse, and other laws regulations, and requirements restrict business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry. These laws include anti-kickback and false claims laws and regulations, state and federal transparency laws regarding payments or other items of

37

Table of Contents

value provided to health care professionals, as well as data privacy and security laws and regulations and other requirements applicable to the healthcare industry, including pharmaceutical manufacturers. There are also laws, regulations, and requirements applicable to the award and performance of federal contracts and grants.

The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, or order of any item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are narrowly drawn. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not meet the requirements of a statutory or regulatory exception or safe harbor. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the statute has been violated.

The reach of the Anti-Kickback Statute was also broadened by the Affordable Care Act, which, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and certain provisions of the criminal health care fraud statute (discussed below) such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the Affordable Care Act provides that the government may assert that a claim for payment for items or services resulting from a violation of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act. Penalties for violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute include criminal fines, imprisonment, civil penalties and damages, exclusion from participation in Federal healthcare programs and corporate integrity agreements or deferred prosecution agreements. Conviction or civil judgments are also grounds for debarment from government contracts.

The Federal civil False Claims Act prohibits any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the U.S. Government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, including payments under a federal grant. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. Government. The False Claims Act also applies to false submissions that cause the government to be paid less than the amount to which it is entitled, such as a rebate. Intent to deceive is not required to establish liability under the civil False Claims Act. Several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been sued under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill Federal programs for the product. Companies have also been sued for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of products for unapproved, or off-label, uses. In addition, Federal health care programs require drug manufacturers to report drug pricing information, which is used to quantify discounts and establish reimbursement rates. Several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been sued for reporting allegedly false pricing information, which caused the manufacturer to understate rebates owed or, when used to determine reimbursement rates, caused overpayment to providers. Violations of the civil False Claims Act may result in civil penalties and damages as well as exclusion from Federal healthcare programs and corporate integrity agreements or deferred prosecution agreements. The U.S. Government may further prosecute conduct constituting a false claim under the criminal False Claims Act. The criminal False Claims Act prohibits the making or presenting of a claim to the U.S. Government knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent and, unlike the civil False Claims Act, requires proof of intent to submit a false claim. Violations of the criminal False Claims Act can result in criminal fines and/or imprisonment, as well as exclusion from participation in Federal healthcare programs. Conviction or civil judgments and other conduct are also grounds for debarment from U.S. Government contracts and grants.

HIPAA also created Federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits,

38

Table of Contents

items or services. As discussed above, the Affordable Care Act amended the intent standard for certain of HIPAA’s healthcare fraud provisions such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations of HIPAA’s fraud and abuse provisions may result in fines or imprisonment, as well as exclusion from participation in Federal healthcare programs, depending on the conduct in question. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a Federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The Veterans Health Care Act requires manufacturers of covered drugs to offer them for sale on the Federal Supply Schedule, which requires compliance with applicable Federal procurement laws and regulations and subjects us to contractual remedies as well as administrative, civil and criminal sanctions.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased Federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and other health care providers. The Affordable Care Act created new Federal requirements for reporting, by applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, payments and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and other healthcare providers and their immediate family members. Certain states also require implementation of commercial compliance programs and compliance with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the U.S. Government, or otherwise restrict payments or the provision of other items of value that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; impose restrictions on marketing practices; and/or require drug manufacturers to track and report information related to payments, gifts and other items of value to physicians and other healthcare providers.

We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the U.S. Government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by HITECH and its implementing regulations, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Penalties for violating HIPAA include civil penalties, criminal penalties and imprisonment. Among other things, HITECH, through its implementing regulations, makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as a person or organization, other than a member of a covered entity’s workforce, that creates, receives, maintains or transmits protected health information on behalf of a covered entity for a function or activity regulated by HIPAA. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in Federal courts to enforce the Federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing Federal civil actions.

In addition, other Federal and state laws govern the privacy and security of health and other information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same requirements, thus complicating compliance efforts.

To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Coverage and Reimbursement

The commercial success of our product candidates and our ability to commercialize any approved product candidates successfully will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payers provide coverage for and establish adequate reimbursement levels for our therapeutic product candidates. In the U.S., the European Union and other potentially significant markets for our product candidates, government authorities and third-party payers are increasingly imposing additional requirements and restrictions on coverage, attempting to limit reimbursement levels or regulate the price of drugs and other medical products and services, particularly for new and

39

Table of Contents

innovative products and therapies, which often has resulted in average selling prices lower than they would otherwise be. For example, in the U.S., Federal and state governments reimburse covered prescription drugs at varying rates generally below average wholesale price. Federal programs also impose price controls through mandatory ceiling prices on purchases by federal agencies and federally funded hospitals and clinics and mandatory rebates on retail pharmacy prescriptions paid by Medicaid and Tricare. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. Legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce costs under government programs may result in lower reimbursement for our product candidates or exclusion of our product candidates from coverage. Moreover, the Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payers and other governmental payers develop their coverage and reimbursement policies.

In addition, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the U.S. and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the European Union will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement and utilization, which may adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups, competition within therapeutic classes, availability of generic equivalents, judicial decisions and governmental laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare reform, coverage and reimbursement policies and pricing in general. The cost containment measures that healthcare payers and providers are instituting and any healthcare reform implemented in the future could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of any approved product candidates. We cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain and maintain third-party coverage or adequate reimbursement for our product candidates in whole or in part.

Impact of Healthcare Reform on Coverage, Reimbursement, and Pricing

The Medicare Modernization Act imposed new requirements for the distribution and pricing of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription, pharmacy drugs pursuant to federal regulations. Part D plans include both standalone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as a supplement to Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. In general, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors have flexibility regarding coverage of Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class, with certain exceptions. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for any products for which we receive marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our future products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be discounted, thereby lowering the net price realized on our sales to pharmacies. Moreover, while the Medicare Modernization Act applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payers often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from Medicare Part D may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payers.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides funding for the U.S. Government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. A plan for the research will be developed by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the NIH, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures will be made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payers, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of any product, if any such product or the condition that it is intended to treat is the subject of a study. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates. If third-party payers do not consider our product candidates to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our product candidates, once approved, as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

The U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions are considering enacting or have enacted a number of additional legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payers in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare

40

Table of Contents

systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access. In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives, including, most recently, the Affordable Care Act, which became law in March 2010 and substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among other cost containment measures, the Affordable Care Act establishes an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents; a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program; expansion of Medicaid benefits and a new formula that increases the rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; and expansion of the 340B drug discount program that mandates discounts to certain hospitals, community centers and other qualifying providers. In the future, there may continue to be additional proposals relating to the reform of the U.S. healthcare system, some of which could further limit the prices we are able to charge or the amounts of reimbursement available for our product candidates once they are approved.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The FCPA prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the U.S. to comply with accounting provisions requiring us to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. Activities that violate the FCPA, even if they occur wholly outside the U.S., can result in criminal and civil fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, oversight, and debarment from government contracts.

Exclusivity and Approval of Competing Products

Hatch-Waxman Patent Exclusivity

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or a method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) or 505(b)(2) NDA. Generally, an ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths, dosage form and route of administration as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent through in vitro or in vivo testing or otherwise to the listed drug. ANDA applicants are not required to conduct or submit results of preclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product, other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug, and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the reference listed drug. 505(b)(2) NDAs generally are submitted for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form or indication.

The ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant is required to provide a certification to the FDA in the product application concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the applicant is not seeking approval. Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except when the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed patent or if the listed patent is a patented method of use for which approval is not being sought. A certification that the proposed product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed

41

Table of Contents

patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. We may seek Paragraph IV Certification for our product candidates. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or does not indicate that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of notice of the Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant or other period determined by a court.

Hatch-Waxman Non-Patent Exclusivity

Market and data exclusivity provisions under the FFDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications for competing products. The FFDCA provides a five-year period of non- patent data exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity.

A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non- infringement.

The FFDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA or 505(b)(2) NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant, are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application or supplement. Three-year exclusivity may be awarded for changes to a previously approved drug product, such as new indications, dosages, strengths or dosage forms of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and, as a general matter, does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well- controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Pediatric Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the U.S. and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent exclusivity period described above. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or Orange Book listed patent protection that cover the drug are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application owing to regulatory exclusivity or listed patents.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives for the development of drugs intended to treat rare diseases or conditions, which generally are diseases or conditions affecting less than 200,000 individuals annually in the U.S., or affecting more

42

Table of Contents

than 200,000 in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug available in the U.S. will be recovered from U.S. sales.

Additionally, sponsors must present a plausible hypothesis for clinical superiority to obtain orphan drug designation if there is a drug already approved by the FDA that is intended for the same indication and that is considered by the FDA to be the same drug as the already approved drug. This hypothesis must be demonstrated to obtain orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical study costs, tax advantages, and user fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan drug designation, the product is generally entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity.

Foreign Regulation

In order to market any product outside of the U.S., we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of our products. For example, in the European Union, we must obtain authorization of a clinical trial application in each member state in which we intend to conduct a clinical trial. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

European Union Drug Approval Process

To obtain marketing authorization of a drug in the European Union, we may submit MAAs either under the so-called centralized or national authorization procedures.

Centralized procedure

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization following a favorable opinion by the EMA that is valid in all European Union member states, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines produced by specified biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of specified diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions. The centralized procedure is optional for products that represent a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee of Medicinal Products for Human Use (the “CHMP”). Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is of 150 days, excluding stop-clocks.

National authorization procedures

There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several European Union countries, which are available for investigational medicinal products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

43

Table of Contents

In the European Union, new products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic marketing authorization in the European Union during a period of eight years from the data on which the reference product was first authorized in the European Union. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic applicant from commercializing its product in the European Union until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the European Union. The ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

​

​

44

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

• We do not intend to pay dividends on our Common Stock for the foreseeable future.

​

46

Table of Contents

Risks Related to an Early-Stage Company

We are an early-stage company with a history of losses. We have not been profitable historically and may not achieve or maintain profitability in the future.

We experienced net losses in each year since inception, including net losses of $93.1 million and $39.8 million for the years ended, December 31, 2021, and 2022, respectively. We believe we will continue to incur operating losses and negative cash flow in the near-term as we continue to invest significantly in our business, in particular across our research and development efforts, clinical trial programs and future sales and marketing efforts.

These investments may not result in revenue or growth in our business. In addition, as a newly- public company, we incur significant additional legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. These increased expenditures may make it harder for us to achieve and maintain future profitability. Until we have a product candidate approved by the FDA, which could take several years, revenue growth will not be possible, and we are unlikely to achieve or maintain profitability. Further, there can be no assurance that the products under development by us will be approved for sales in the U.S. or elsewhere.

We expect a substantial portion of our revenue going forward to be generated from the sale and distribution of our product candidates, but until one of our product candidates is approved for sale, it is difficult for us to predict our future operating results. Even if we succeed in developing and commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we expect to incur substantial net losses and negative cash flows for the foreseeable future due in part to increasing research and development expenses, including clinical trials, and increasing expenses from leasing additional facilities and hiring additional personnel. As a result, we will need to generate significant revenues in order to achieve and maintain profitability. We may not be able to generate these revenues or achieve profitability in the future. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability.

We may incur significant losses in the future for a number of reasons, and we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications and delays and other unknown events. As a result, our losses may be larger than anticipated, we may incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we may not achieve profitability when expected, or at all, and even if we do, we may not be able to maintain or increase profitability. Furthermore, if our future growth and operating performance fail to meet investor or analyst expectations, or if we have future negative cash flow or losses resulting from our investment in acquiring customers or expanding our operations, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our operating results and financial condition may fluctuate from period to period.

If and when any of product candidates are successfully commercialized, we anticipate that our operating results and financial condition will fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year due to a number of factors, many of which will not be within our control. Both our business and the pharmaceutical industry are changing and evolving rapidly, and our operating results in any given year may not be useful in predicting our future operating results. If our operating results do not meet the guidance that we provide to the marketplace or the expectations of securities analysts or investors, the market price of our Common Stock will likely decline. Fluctuations in our future operating results and financial condition may be due to a number of factors, including:

47

Table of Contents

We have a limited operating history upon which to base an investment decision.

Our limited operating history may hinder your ability to evaluate our prospects due to a lack of historical financial data and our unproven potential to generate profits. You should evaluate the likelihood of financial and operational success in light of the risks, uncertainties, expenses and difficulties associated with an early-stage business, many of which may be beyond our control, including:

Our operations have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, acquiring, developing and securing our proprietary technology and intellectual property and undertaking preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials of our principal product candidates. These operations provide a limited basis for you to assess our ability to commercialize our product candidates. Further, the pro forma condensed combined financial information included in this registration statement may not be a good prediction of our future results of operations and financial condition.

We need to raise additional capital to operate our business. If we fail to obtain the capital necessary to fund our operations, we will be unable to continue or complete our product development and we may not be able to continue as a going concern.

We are a company focused on product development and have not generated any product revenues to date. Until, and if, we receive approval from the FDA and other regulatory authorities for our product candidates, we cannot sell our drugs and will not have product revenues. We had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $20.1 million as of December 31, 2022, and the Company raised an additional $2.9 million, before fees and other costs, through an offering in March 2023. However, we will need to continue to seek capital from time to time to continue the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates, including any expansion of our clinical programs to facilitate a larger safety database for the use of NRX-101 as a chronic, or chronic-intermittent, treatment as advised by FDA in our recent Type B meeting, and to acquire and develop other product candidates. Accordingly, we believe that we will need to raise substantial additional capital to fund our continuing operations and the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates during calendar year 2023. We may raise capital through future share offerings, the issuance of debt instruments and grant monies. Our actual capital requirements will depend on many factors. For instance, our business or operations may change in a manner that would consume available funds more rapidly than anticipated and substantial additional funding may be required to maintain operations, fund expansion, develop new or enhanced products, acquire complementary products, business or technologies or otherwise respond to competitive pressures and opportunities, such as a change in the regulatory environment or a change

48

Table of Contents

in preferred depression treatment. If we experience unanticipated cash requirements, we may need to seek additional sources of financing, which may not be available on favorable terms, if at all.

We may not be able to secure funding when we need it or on favorable terms. If we cannot raise adequate funds to satisfy our capital requirements, we will have to delay, scale-back or eliminate our research and development activities, clinical studies or future operations and we may be unable to complete planned nonclinical studies and clinical trials or obtain approval of our product candidates from the FDA and other regulatory authorities. In addition, we could be forced to discontinue product development, reduce or forego sales and marketing efforts and attractive business opportunities, reduce overhead, or be unable to continue as a going concern. We may also be required to obtain funds through arrangements with collaborators, which arrangements may require us to relinquish rights to certain technologies or products that we otherwise would not consider relinquishing, including rights to future product candidates or certain major geographic markets. We may further have to license our technology to others. This could result in sharing revenues which we might otherwise retain for ourselves. Any of these actions may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The amount of capital we may need depends on many factors, including the progress, timing and scope of our product development programs; the progress, timing and scope of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials; the time and cost necessary to obtain regulatory approvals; the time and cost necessary to further develop manufacturing processes and arrange for contract manufacturing; our ability to enter into and maintain collaborative, licensing and other commercial relationships; and our partners’ commitment of time and resources to the development and commercialization of our products.

We may be unable to access the capital markets and even if we can raise additional funding, we may be required to do so on terms that are dilutive.

The capital markets have been unpredictable in the recent past for unprofitable companies such as ours. In addition, it is generally difficult for companies to raise capital under current market conditions. The amount of capital that a company such as ours is able to raise often depends on variables that are beyond our control. As a result, we cannot assure you that we will be able to secure financing on terms attractive to us, or at all. If we are able to consummate a financing arrangement, the amount raised may not be sufficient to meet our future needs. If adequate funds are not available on acceptable terms, or at all, our business, results of operations, financial condition and our continued viability will be materially adversely affected.

We will have broad discretion in using the proceeds of shares sold to investors, and we may not spend the proceeds in an effective manner.

We are not limited in the use of proceeds of shares sold to investors. We may use such proceeds for working capital and general corporate purposes to support our growth, to pay dividends on our outstanding securities, or for acquisitions or other strategic investments. We have not allocated such funds to any particular purpose, and our management will have the discretion to allocate the proceeds as it determines. We may not apply the proceeds effectively.

​

49

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

NRX-101 is still in Phase II/III of clinical testing.

NRX-101 is in Phase IIb/III of clinical testing with Breakthrough Therapy designation, a Biomarker Letter and a Special Protocol Agreement issued by the FDA on April 20, 2018.  A Special Protocol Agreement is a mechanism by which the FDA indicates that the proposed clinical trial, if successful, will be adequate to support an application for drug approval. FDA approval requires that a drug candidate complete a Phase III study program, which tests the safety and efficacy of the drug candidate on a large sample of patients. We are conducting a new registrational study of NRX-101 for severe bipolar depression in patients with ASIB after initial stabilization with NRX-100 (ketamine). We are using newly-manufactured material that was manufactured using the expected commercial process. In addition, we have initiated a Phase II clinical study for bipolar depression with sub-acute suicidal ideation and behavior. This population is significantly larger than the Bipolar Depression population with ASIB, and does not require initial stabilization with NRX-100. On January 3, 2023, the Company announced that its first clinical trial site had been contracted for a Phase 3 clinical trial of NRX-101 for the treatment of Severe Bipolar Depression in patients with Acute Suicidal Ideation and Behavior, a potentially lethal condition that currently takes the lives of thousands of Americans each year. Because NRX-101 is a Breakthrough Therapy, we anticipate being able to file a New Drug Application (“NDA”) based upon a single, successful Phase III trial. While we cannot predict with any certainty if or when we might submit an NDA for regulatory approval of NRX-101, we aim to submit an NDA to the FDA on a rolling basis for the regulatory approval and commercialization of NRX-101 in the U.S. in 2023.

Our product candidates are newly-formulated and we have not yet scaled manufacturing to levels that will be required for sustained sales.

NRX-101 has been formulated under cGMP and long-term stability (i.e., five years) has been achieved for our solid dose formulation of NRX-101. Although the Company completed a Type C meeting in which FDA agreed to the Company's Chemical Manufacturing Control and stability program for drug manufacture, and production of NRx-101 has been transferred to a commercial scale cGMP manufacturing facility in South Carolina, we have yet to attempt large scale manufacturing.

The outcome of any current or future disputes, claims, arbitration and litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are currently involved in a dispute with GEM Yield Bahamas Limited and GEM Global Yield LLC SCS (collectively, “GEM”). On August 12, 2022, the Company received a demand for arbitration (the “Demand”) from GEM. The Demand claims that the Company’s subsidiary, NeuroRx, Inc. (“NeuroRx”), failed to satisfy its obligation to pay GEM a commitment fee in the amount of HK$ 15,000,000 (approximately US$[1,914,087] at current exchange rates) pursuant to a Share Subscription Facility Agreement, executed on October 18, 2019, by and among NeuroRx and GEM. NeuroRx expects to vigorously defend its position that payment of the commitment fee is neither due nor owing under the terms of the Agreement. In the event of an adverse ruling, there can be no assurance that we would not be required to pay damages in an amount that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

If we fail to obtain or maintain FDA and other regulatory clearances for our products, or if such clearances are delayed, we will be unable to commercially distribute and market our products.

Our products are subject to rigorous regulation by national regulators around in the world, and by the FDA in the U.S. The process of seeking regulatory clearance or approval to market a drug product is expensive and time consuming and, notwithstanding the effort and expense incurred, clearance or approval is never guaranteed. If we are not successful in obtaining timely clearance or approval of our products from the FDA, we may never be able to generate significant revenue in the U.S. and may be forced to focus on international markets where we currently do not have a presence or an established partnership, which will limit the revenue potential of our products.

50

Table of Contents

In the U.S., the FDA permits commercial distribution of a new drug product only after the product has received approval of an NDA filed with the FDA, seeking permission to market the product in interstate commerce in the U.S. The NDA process is costly, lengthy and uncertain. Any NDA application filed by us will have to be supported by extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, nonclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labelling data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and efficacy of the product for its intended use.

Obtaining clearances or approvals from the FDA and from the regulatory agencies in other countries could result in unexpected and significant costs for us and consume management’s time and other resources. The FDA and other agencies could ask us to supplement our submissions, collect non-clinical data, conduct additional clinical trials or engage in other time-consuming actions, or they could simply deny our applications. In addition, even if we obtain an NDA approval or pre-market approvals in other countries, the approval could be revoked or other restrictions imposed if post-market data demonstrates safety issues or lack of effectiveness. We cannot predict with certainty how, or when, the FDA will act. If we are unable to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals, our financial condition and cash flow may be adversely affected, and our ability to grow domestically and internationally may be limited. Additionally, even if cleared or approved, our products may not be approved for the specific indications that are most necessary or desirable for successful commercialization or profitability.

Our revenue stream will depend upon third-party reimbursement.

Once our product candidates are cleared or approved by the regulatory authorities, the commercial success of our products in both domestic and international markets will be substantially dependent on whether third-party coverage and reimbursement is available for patients that use our products. However, the availability of insurance coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs is uncertain, and therefore, third-party coverage may be particularly difficult to obtain even if our products are approved by national regulatory authorities as safe and efficacious. Many patients using existing approved therapies are generally reimbursed all or part of the product cost by governmental and non-governmental insurance plans. Such payors are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement of new drugs, and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for these products. Submission of applications for reimbursement approval generally does not occur prior to the filing of an NDA for that product and may not be granted for as long as many months after NDA approval. In order to obtain reimbursement arrangements for these products, we or our commercialization partners may have to agree to a net sales price lower than the net sales price we might charge in other sales channels. The continuing efforts of government and third-party payors to contain or reduce the costs of healthcare may limit our revenue. Initial dependence on the commercial success of our products may make our revenues particularly susceptible to any cost containment or reduction efforts.

We may have conflicts with our partners that could delay or prevent the development or commercialization of our product candidates.

We are not aware of any material commercial conflicts that could delay or prevent development or commercialization. However, commercial conflicts such as the interpretation of contractual obligations, payments for services, development obligations or the ownership of intellectual property could arise in any joint development activity. If any conflicts arise with any of our partners, such partner may act in a manner that is adverse to our best interests. Any such disagreement could result in one or more of the following, each of which could delay or prevent the development or commercialization of our product candidates, and in turn prevent us from generating revenues: unwillingness on the part of a partner to pay us a share in profits that we believe are due to us under a collaboration; uncertainty regarding ownership of intellectual property rights arising from our collaborative activities, which could prevent us from entering into additional collaborations; unwillingness on the part of a partner to keep us informed regarding the progress of its development and commercialization activities or to permit public disclosure of the results of those activities; initiating of litigation or alternative dispute resolution options by either party to resolve the dispute; or attempts by either party to terminate the agreement.

51

Table of Contents

Our products will face significant competition in the markets for such products, and if they are unable to compete successfully, our business will suffer.

Our product candidates face, and will continue to face, intense competition from large pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology 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 R&D initiatives. Our competitors also have greater development capabilities than we do and have substantially greater experience in undertaking non-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. Our chief competitors in the psychiatry area include companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sage Therapeutics, Axsome, and Relmada, among others.

We are faced with intense competition and rapid technological change, which may make it more difficult for us to achieve significant market penetration. If we cannot compete successfully for market share against other drug companies, we may not achieve sufficient product revenues and our business will suffer.

The market for our product candidates is characterized by intense competition and rapid technological advances. If our product candidates receive regulatory approval in any jurisdiction, they will compete with a number of existing and future drugs and therapies developed, manufactured and marketed by others. If our competitors’ existing products or new products are more effective than or considered superior to our future products, the commercial opportunity for our product candidates will be reduced or eliminated. Existing or future competing products may provide greater therapeutic convenience or clinical or other benefits for a specific indication than our products, or may offer comparable performance at a lower cost. We face competition from fully integrated pharmaceutical companies and smaller companies that are collaborating with larger pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations. If we are successful in penetrating the relevant markets for treatment with our product candidates, other companies may be attracted to the market. Many of our competitors have products already approved or in development. In addition, many of these competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, are larger than we are and have substantially greater financial, technical, research, marketing, sales, distribution and other resources than we do. Our competitors may develop or market products that are more effective or commercially attractive than any that we are developing or marketing. Our competitors may obtain regulatory approvals, and introduce and commercialize products before we do. These developments could have a significant negative effect on our financial condition. Even if we are able to compete successfully, we may not be able to do so in a profitable manner.

Future products may never achieve market acceptance.

Future products that we may develop may never gain market acceptance among physicians, patients and the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our products will depend on a number of factors, including the actual and perceived effectiveness and reliability of our products; the results of any long-term clinical trials relating to use of our products; the availability, relative cost and perceived advantages and disadvantages of alternative technologies; the degree to which treatments using our products are approved for reimbursement by public and private insurers; the strength of our marketing and distribution infrastructure; and the level of education and awareness among physicians and hospitals concerning our products. The failure of any of our products to significantly penetrate current or new markets would negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

52

Table of Contents

To be commercially successful, physicians must be persuaded that using our products are effective alternatives to existing therapies and treatments.

We believe that doctors and other physicians will not widely adopt our products unless they determine, based on experience, clinical data, and published peer reviewed journal articles, that the use of our products provides an effective alternative to other therapies and treatments. Patient studies or clinical experience may indicate that treatment with our products does not provide patients with sufficient benefits and/or improvement in quality of life. We believe that recommendations and support for the use of our products from medical societies and / or influential physicians will be essential for widespread market acceptance. Our products are still in the development stage and it is premature to attempt to gain support from physicians at this time. We can provide no assurance that such support will ever be obtained. If our products do not receive such support from these physicians and from long-term data, physicians may not use or continue to use, and hospitals may not purchase or continue to purchase, our products.

We may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our products in response to product liability lawsuits.

The testing and marketing of medical products entails an inherent risk of product liability. We may be held liable if serious adverse reactions from the use of our product candidates occur. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of pharmaceutical products we develop, alone or with corporate collaborators. We currently carry clinical trials liability insurance, but we do not currently carry product liability insurance.

While we plan to obtain product liability insurance as we near commercialization, we, or any corporate collaborators, may not be able to obtain insurance at a reasonable cost, if at all. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate if any claim arises.

We may not be able to obtain Hatch-Waxman Act marketing exclusivity or equivalent regulatory data exclusivity protection in other jurisdictions for our products.

Should we not obtain or fail to maintain patent protection on our products, we intend to rely, in part, on Hatch-Waxman exclusivity for the commercialization of our products in the U.S. The Hatch- Waxman Act provides marketing exclusivity to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA under specific provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”) for a product using an active ingredient that the FDA has not previously approved (i.e., five years) or for a new dosage form, route or indication (i.e., three years). This market exclusivity will not prevent the FDA from approving a competitor’s NDA if the competitor’s NDA is based on studies it has performed and not on our studies. However, there can be no assurance that we will obtain Hatch-Waxman exclusivity for our products or that such exclusivity, if obtained, will protect us from direct competition.

Similarly, in the European Union, new products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization, which, if obtained, would prevent generic applicants from relying on our preclinical and clinical trial data. However, there can be no assurance that European authorities will grant data exclusivity for our products. Even if European data exclusivity is granted for our products, that may not protect us from direct competition. A competitor with a generic version of our products may be able to obtain approval of their product during our product’s period of data exclusivity by submitting a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) with a less than full package of nonclinical and clinical data.

53

Table of Contents

In the future, we may undertake international operations, which would subject us to risks inherent with operations outside of the U.S.

Although we do not have any foreign manufacturing or distribution operations at this time, we may seek to obtain market clearances in foreign markets that we deem could generate significant opportunities. However, even with the cooperation of a commercialization partner, conducting drug development in foreign countries involves inherent risks, including, but not limited to: difficulties in staffing, funding and managing foreign operations; unexpected changes in regulatory requirements; export restrictions; tariffs and other trade barriers; difficulties in protecting, acquiring, enforcing and litigating intellectual property rights; fluctuations in currency exchange rates; and potentially adverse tax consequences.

We would need to obtain approvals from the appropriate regulatory, pricing and reimbursement authorities to market any of our proposed products internationally, and we may be unable to obtain foreign regulatory approvals. Pursuing foreign regulatory approvals would be time-consuming and expensive. The regulations can vary among countries and foreign regulatory authorities may require different or additional clinical trials than the trials we conducted to obtain FDA approval for our product candidates. In addition, adverse clinical trial results in such countries, such as death or injury due to side effects, could jeopardize not only regulatory approval, but if approval is granted, may also lead to marketing restrictions. Our product candidates may also face foreign regulatory requirements applicable to controlled substances.

If we were to experience any of the difficulties listed above, or any other difficulties, any international development activities and our overall financial condition may suffer and cause us to reduce or discontinue our international development and registration efforts.

International commercialization of our product candidates requires successful collaborations.

We plan to commercialize some of our products internationally through collaborative relationships with foreign partners. We have limited foreign regulatory, clinical and commercial resources. Future partners are critical to our international success. However, we may not be able to enter into collaboration agreements with appropriate partners for important foreign markets on acceptable terms, or at all. Future collaborations with foreign partners may not be effective or profitable for us.

Our business activities could face further disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We are continuing to monitor the latest developments regarding the COVID-19 pandemic on our business, operations and financial condition and results, and have made certain assumptions regarding the pandemic for purposes of our operational planning and financial projections, including assumptions regarding the duration and severity of the pandemic and the global macroeconomic impact of the pandemic. Despite careful tracking and planning, however, we are unable to accurately predict the extent of the impact of the pandemic on our business, operations and financial condition and results due to the uncertainty of future developments. If there is a resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the research and development of our products will be delayed and we may be unable to perform fully on our contracts, which will likely result in increases in costs and reduction in revenue. These cost increases may not be fully recoverable or adequately covered by insurance. The long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic to the global economy and to us continue to be difficult to assess or predict and may include a decline in the market prices of our products, risks to employee health and safety, risks for the deployment of our products and services and reduced sales in geographic locations impacted. Any prolonged restrictive measures put in place to control a resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic or other adverse public health developments in any of our targeted markets may have a material and adverse effect on our business operations and results of operations.

For additional information on how the COVID-19 pandemic has already impacted our business, operations and financial condition and results, see our historical consolidated financial statements, presented elsewhere in this annual report.

54

Table of Contents

Global economic, political and social conditions, armed conflicts and uncertainties in the market that we serve may adversely impact our business.

Our performance depends on the financial health and strength of our customers, which in turn is dependent on the economic conditions of the markets in which we and our customers operate. The recent declines in the global economy, difficulties in the financial services sector and credit markets, continuing geopolitical uncertainties and other macroeconomic factors all affect the spending behavior of potential customers. The economic uncertainty in Europe, the U.S., India, China and other countries may cause end-users to further delay or reduce technology purchases.

We also face risks from financial difficulties or other uncertainties experienced by our suppliers, distributors or other third parties on which we rely. If third parties are unable to supply us with required materials or components or otherwise assist us in operating our business, our business could be harmed.

For example, the possibility of trade disputes and tariffs between countries with whom we are engaged may impact the cost of raw materials, finished products or components used in our products and our ability to sell our products in various markets. Other changes in U.S. social, political, regulatory and economic conditions or in laws and policies governing foreign trade, manufacturing, development and investment could also adversely affect our business.

Our business, financial condition, and results of operations may be materially adversely affected by the negative impact on the global economy and capital markets resulting from new international conflicts or any other geopolitical tensions.

U.S. and global markets generally experience volatility and disruption as a result of geopolitical tensions and military conflicts, including significant volatility in commodity prices, credit and capital markets, as well as supply chain disruptions.

Additionally, international sanctions and other penalties can disrupt payment systems and imports/exports and lead to instability and lack of liquidity in capital markets, potentially making it more difficult for us to obtain additional funds. Any such disruptions may also magnify the impact of other risks described in this annual report.

We may not be successful in hiring and retaining key employees and contractors.

Our future operations and successes depend in large part upon the continued service of key members of our senior management team whom we are highly dependent upon to manage our business, including our Chief Executive Officer. If he terminates his relationship with us, such a departure could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our future success also depends on our ability to identify, attract, hire or engage, retain and motivate other well-qualified managerial, technical, clinical and regulatory personnel. We will need to hire additional qualified personnel with expertise in nonclinical pharmacology and toxicology, pharmaceutical development, clinical research, regulatory affairs, manufacturing, sales and marketing. We compete for qualified individuals with numerous biopharmaceutical companies, universities and other research institutions. Competition for such individuals, particularly in the U.S., is intense, and we may not be able to hire sufficient personnel to support our efforts. There can be no assurance that these professionals will be available in the market, or that we will be able to retain existing professionals or to meet or to continue to meet their compensation requirements. Furthermore, the cost base in relation to such compensation, which may include equity compensation, may increase significantly, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Failure to establish and maintain an effective management team and work force could adversely affect our ability to operate, grow and manage our business.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to:

55

Table of Contents

In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a Business Code of Conduct and Anti-Corruption Policy, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Our relationships with customers and payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, transparency, and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose use to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens.

Healthcare providers, physicians and payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. Our arrangements with payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations may affect our ability to operate, including:

56

Table of Contents