UNITED STATES FORM 10-K [ ] Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
[X] Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
OR
For the transition period from
to .
Commission File Number 000-23186
BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
incorporation or organization)
identification no.)
2190 Parkway Lake Drive; Birmingham, Alabama 35244
(Address of
principal executive offices)
(205) 444-4600
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Title of each class
Common Stock, $.01 Par Value
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
PART I
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
Overview
Our Business Strategy
|
Select and License Promising Enzyme Targets for the Development of Small-Molecule Pharmaceuticals. We use our technical expertise and network of academic and industry contacts to evaluate and select promising enzyme targets to license for the development of small-molecule pharmaceuticals. We choose enzyme targets that meet as many of the following criteria as possible: |
|
serve important functions in disease pathways; |
|
have known animal or cell-based models that would be indicative of results in humans; |
|
address large potential markets and significant unmet medical needs, including pursuing niche markets where the results have potential application to broader markets and needs; |
|
have multiple potential clinical applications; and |
|
offer rapid development and commercialization opportunities. |
|
Focus on High Value-Added Structure-Based Drug Design Technologies. We focus our drug discovery activities and expenditures on applications of structure-based drug design technologies to design and develop drug candidates. Structure-based drug design is a process by which we design a drug candidate through detailed analysis of the enzyme target, which the drug candidate must inhibit in order to stop the progression of the disease or disorder. We believe that structure-based drug design is a powerful tool for efficient development of small-molecule drug candidates that have the potential to be safe, effective and relatively inexpensive to manufacture. Our structure-based drug design technologies typically allow us to design and synthesize multiple drug candidates that inhibit the same enzyme target. We believe this strategy can lead to broad patent protection and enhance the competitive advantages of our compounds. |
|
Develop or License Inhibitors that are Promising Candidates for Commercialization. We test multiple compounds to identify those that are most promising for clinical development. We base our selection of promising development candidates on desirable product characteristics, such as initial indications of safety and efficacy. We believe that this focused strategy allows us to eliminate unpromising candidates from consideration sooner without incurring substantial clinical costs. In addition, we select drug candidates on the basis of their potential for relatively efficient Phase I and Phase II clinical trials that require fewer patients to initially indicate safety and efficacy. We will consider, however, more complex candidates with longer development cycles if we believe that they offer promising commercial opportunities. |
1
|
Entering Into Relationships with Academic Institutions and Biotechnology Companies. Many academic institutions and biotechnology companies perform extensive research on the molecular and structural biology of potential drug development targets. By entering into relationships with these institutions, we believe we can significantly reduce the time, cost and risks involved in drug development. Our collaborative relationships with such organizations may lead to the licensing of one or more drug targets or compounds. Upon licensing a drug target or promising compound from one of these institutions, the scientists from the institution typically become working partners as members of our structure-based drug design teams. We believe this makes us a more attractive development partner to these scientists. In addition, we collaborate with outside experts in a number of areas, including crystallography, molecular modeling, combinatorial chemistry, biology, pharmacology, oncology, cardiology, immunology and infectious diseases. These collaborations enable us to complement our internal capabilities without adding costly overhead. We believe this strategy allows us to save valuable time and expense, and further diversify and strengthen our portfolio of drug candidates. An example of such a collaborative relationship is the arrangement that we have with The University of Alabama at Birmingham, or UAB, which has resulted in the initiation of several of our early drug development programs. |
|
Developing Drug Development Candidates or Licensing Them to Other Parties. We generally plan to advance drug candidates through initial and/or early-stage drug development. For larger disease indications requiring complex clinical trials, our strategy is to license drug candidates to pharmaceutical or biotechnology partners for final development and global marketing. We believe partnerships are a good source of development payments, license fees, milestone payments and royalties. They also reduce the costs and risks, and increase the effectiveness, of late-stage product development, regulatory approval, manufacturing and marketing. We believe that focusing on discovery and early-stage drug development while benefiting from our partners proven development and commercialization expertise will reduce our internal expenses and allow us to have a larger number of drug candidates progress to late-stage drug development. However, after establishing a lead product candidate, we are willing to license that candidate during any stage of the development process we determine to be beneficial to the company and to the ultimate development and commercialization of that drug candidate. For some smaller niche disease indications markets, we may choose to complete development, manufacture, and where appropriate market and distribute any approved drugs ourselves, such as BCX-1777 for T-cell leukemias. |
Products in Development
| Program and Candidate Disease Category/Indication |
|
Delivery Form |
|
Development Stage |
|
Worldwide Rights |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PNP Inhibitor
(BCX-1777) Oncology / T-cell cancers |
Intravenous Oral |
Phase I Phase I |
BioCryst BioCryst |
|||||||||||
PNP Inhibitor
(BCX-4208) Autoimmune diseases / Psoriasis |
Oral |
Preclinical |
BioCryst |
|||||||||||
Tissue Factor/Factor
VIIa Inhibitors |
Oral |
Lead
Optimization |
BioCryst |
|||||||||||
Cardiovascular /
Coagulation, inflammation |
||||||||||||||
Oncology /
Angiogenesis |
||||||||||||||
Hepatitis C Polymerase
Inhibitors |
Oral |
Lead
Optimization |
BioCryst |
|||||||||||
Viral / Hepatitis C |
||||||||||||||
2
T-cell Related Diseases
Our PNP Inhibitor(s)
PNP Inhibitor (BCX-1777)
Overview
3
which are among the most difficult cancers to treat by current therapies. Because of the clinical results seen to this point and some additional testing by our colleagues at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, we started three additional trials in 2003 for refractory patients with other types of hematologic malignancies, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and solid tumors. Preclinical studies at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center indicate that BCX-1777 induces the same biochemical changes in various other types of leukemia cells that are responsible for the inhibition of T-leukemia cells, which suggest that BCX-1777 may be even more broadly applicable than originally expected. Initial Phase I clinical results in patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia have been encouraging, and we plan to pursue additional B-cell leukemia clinical studies during 2004.
Current Development Strategy
PNP Inhibitor (BCX-4208)
Overview
Current Development Strategy
Tissue Factor/Factor VIIa
Overview
4
stent insertions, because any type of damage to arteries and blood vessels exposes tissue factor, which then triggers clot formation. Myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and restenosis during and following angioplasty procedures are all potential treatment targets. In addition, tissue factor is involved in angiogenesis, or new blood vessel growth, and inhibitors of the TF/FVIIa complex are believed to have potential as anti-angiogenesis agents for use in oncology.
Current Development Strategy
Hepatitis C
Overview
Current Development Strategy
Structure-Based Drug Design
5
Research and Development
Collaborative Relationships
Corporate Alliances
Academic Alliances
6
candidate from this collaboration is BCX-1777. We have the rights to develop and ultimately distribute this, or any other, drug candidate that might arise from research on these inhibitors. For example, in 2003 we obtained the rights to another compound from this series, BCX-4208, which is currently in preclinical development. We have agreed to pay certain milestone payments for future development of these inhibitors, pay certain royalties on sales of any resulting product, and to share in future payments received from other third-party collaborators, if any. We can terminate this agreement at any time by giving 60 days advance notice.
Patents and Proprietary Information
Marketing and Sales
7
Competition
Government Regulation
|
delays; |
|
warning letters; |
|
fines; |
|
product recalls or seizures; |
|
injunctions; |
|
penalties; |
|
refusal of the FDA to review pending market approval applications or supplements to approval applications; |
|
total or partial suspension of production; |
|
civil penalties; |
|
withdrawals of previously approved marketing applications; and |
|
criminal prosecutions. |
8
|
the size of the patient population we intend to treat; |
|
the availability of patients; |
|
the willingness of patients to participate; and |
|
the patient meeting the eligibility criteria. |
Human Resources
9
Scientific Advisory Board and Consultants
| Name |
Position |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Albert F.
LoBuglio, M.D. (Chairman) |
Professor of Medicine and the Director of The University Of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center. |
|||||
Gordon N.
Gill, M.D. |
Professor of Medicine and Chair of the Faculty of Basic Biomedical Sciences at the University of California, San Diego School of
Medicine. |
|||||
Lorraine J.
Gudas, Ph.D. |
Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pharmacology of Cornell Medical College and the Revlon Pharmaceutical Professor of Pharmacology
and Toxicology. |
|||||
Herbert A.
Hauptman, Ph.D. |
President of the Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute, Inc. (formerly the Medical Foundation (Buffalo), Inc.), and Research Professor
in Biophysical Sciences at the State University of New York (Buffalo). Recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1985). |
|||||
Hamilton O.
Smith, M.D. |
Professor, Molecular Biology and Genetics Department at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, retired, and Scientific Director of
The Institute for Bioenergy Alternatives. Recipient of the Nobel Prize in Medicine (1978). |
|||||
10
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
PART II
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY
AND RELATED
STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
| 2003 |
2002 |
||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low |
High |
Low |
High |
||||||||||||||||
First
quarter |
$ | .82 | $ | 2.00 | $ | 3.68 | $ | 6.10 | |||||||||||
Second
quarter |
1.23 | 4.51 | .60 | 4.82 | |||||||||||||||
Third
quarter |
2.88 | 7.37 | .71 | 1.53 | |||||||||||||||
Fourth
quarter |
6.00 | 9.41 | .85 | 1.30 | |||||||||||||||
11
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
| Years Ended December 31, (Dollars in thousands, except per share) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
2002 |
2001 |
2000 |
1999 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statement
of Operations Data: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
revenues (See attached financial statements and notes) |
$ | 1,634 | $ | 1,774 | $ | 11,158 | $ | 7,661 | $ | 5,329 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Research and
development expenses |
11,522 | 15,473 | 13,091 | 9,590 | 7,683 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loss before
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle |
(12,700 | ) | (16,929 | ) | (4,986 | ) | (5,490 | ) | (5,298 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cumulative
effect of change in accounting principle |
0 | 0 | 0 | (6,088 | ) | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
loss |
$ | (12,700 | ) | $ | (16,929 | ) | $ | (4,986 | ) | $ | (11,578 | ) | $ | (5,298 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amounts per
common share: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loss before
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle |
$ | (.72 | ) | $ | (.96 | ) | $ | (.28 | ) | $ | (.31 | ) | $ | (.34 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cumulative
effect of change in accounting principle |
.00 | .00 | .00 | (.35 | ) | .00 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net loss per
share |
$ | (.72 | ) | $ | (.96 | ) | $ | (.28 | ) | $ | (.66 | ) | $ | (.34 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Weighted
average shares outstanding (in thousands) |
17,703 | 17,643 | 17,560 | 17,467 | 15,380 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| December 31, (Dollars in thousands) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
Sheet Data: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash, cash
equivalents and securities |
$ | 25,732 | $ | 36,163 | $ | 52,941 | $ | 65,583 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||