1
INVESTOR PRESENTATION
December 2019
2
Forward-Looking StatementsThis presentation contains certain “forward-looking” statements that are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements, other than statements of historical or present facts, are forward-looking statements, including statements regarding our future financial condition, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, business strategy, and plans and objectives of management for future operations, including our plans to submit for regulatory filings. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “believe,” “will,” “may,” “might,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “target,” “project,” “model,” “should,” “would,” “plan,” “expect,” “predict,” “could,” “seek,” “goal”, “potential,” or the negative of these terms or other similar terms or expressions that concern our expectations, strategy, plans, or intentions. These statements are based on our intentions, beliefs, projections, outlook, analyses, or current expectations using currently available information, are not guarantees of future performance, and involve certain risks and uncertainties. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot assure you that our expectations will prove to be correct. Therefore, actual outcomes and results could materially differ from what is expressed, implied, or forecast in these statements. Any differences could be caused by a number of factors including but not limited to: our expectations regarding the timing, costs, conduct, and outcome of our clinical trials, including statements regarding the timing of the initiation and availability of data from such trials; the timing and likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals for our product candidates; whether regulatory authorities determine that additional trials or data are necessary in order to obtain approval; our ability to obtain funding for our operations, including funding necessary to complete further development and commercialization of our product candidates; our plans to research, develop, and commercialize our product candidates; the commercialization of our product candidates, if approved; the rate and degree of market acceptance of our product candidates; our expectations regarding the potential market size and the size of the patient populations for our product candidates, if approved for commercial use, and the potential market opportunities for commercializing our product candidates; the success of competing therapies that are or may become available; our expectations regarding our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our product candidates; the ability to license additional intellectual property relating to our product candidates and the comply with our existing license agreements; our ability to maintain and establish relationships with third parties, such as contract research organizations, suppliers, and distributors; our ability to maintain and establish collaborators with development, regulatory, and commercialization expertise; our ability to attract and retain key scientific or management personnel; our ability to grow our organization and increase the size of our facilities to meet our anticipated growth; the accuracy of our estimates regarding expenses, future revenue, capital requirements, and needs for additional financing; our expectations related to the use of our available cash; our ability to develop, acquire, and advance product candidates into, and successfully complete, clinical trials; the initiation, timing, progress, and results of future preclinical studies and developments and projections relating to our competitors and our industry.
Additional factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from our expectations can be found in our Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risk factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for our management to predict all risk factors, nor can we assess the effects of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in, or implied by, any forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements included in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by these cautionary statements. The forward-looking statements speak only as of the date made and, other than as required by law, we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
Bardoxolone methyl and omaveloxolone are investigational drugs, and their safety and efficacy have not been established by any agency.
3
Reata at a Glance
Global Opportunity
• Reata possesses WW commercial rights to all pipeline assets*
• Few or no effective therapies currently approved for lead indications
Bardoxolone in Rare Forms of CKD
• Positive pivotal data in Alport
syndrome
• Pipeline in rare forms of CKD
• Pivotal ADPKD study ongoing
• Positive proof-of-concept data in
FSGS, IgAN, and T1D-CKD
Omaveloxolone in Neurology
• Positive pivotal data in FA
• Proof-of-concept in other
neurological diseases
• Plan to study Omav in additional
indications
*ex-Asia for Bardoxolone
4
DISCOVERY PRECLINICAL PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PIVOTAL NDA
CKD Caused by Alport Syndrome | Bard
Friedreich’s Ataxia | Omav
IgA Nephropathy | Bard
Type 1 Diabetic CKD | Bard
Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis | Bard
Neurological Indications | RTA 901
Autoimmune Indications | RTA 1701
Connective Tissue Disease-Associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension | Bard
Deep Pipeline With Two Pre-Registration Programs and
Two Pivotal Studies Ongoing
Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease | Bard
5
BardoxoloneChronic Kidney Disease
6
Bard Development for Rare Forms of CKD
CARDINAL Phase 3 study in Alport syndrome met its primary and key secondary endpoints
Significant opportunity in rare forms of CKD‒ We estimate aggregate prevalence exceeds
700,000 patients in the US
‒ Few or no effective therapies currently approved
FALCON Phase 3 study in ADPKD‒ FALCON design and endpoints similar to
CARDINAL Phase 3 study
‒ Initiated in May 2019
Positive data from PHOENIX in IgAN, FSGS and T1D CKD; planning to pursue commercially
US Rare CKD Patients
ADPKD 5
T1D CKD 4
FSGS2
IgAN 3
Alport
Syndrome1
~400,000
~160,000
~120,000
~40,000
~30,000-
60,000
1Alport Syndrome Foundation; Estimated based on Persson Clin Nephrol (2005); USRDS Report; Hasstedt Am J Hum Genet. (1983); Temme, Kidney Int. (2012); 2Wetmore (2016), Sim (2016); 3Berthoux (2011), Wetmore (2016), Sim (2016); 4American Diabetes Association, Garofolo (2018), Ohta (2010); 5PKD Foundation
7
Alport Syndrome is a Severe, Inherited Form of CKD
Estimated Prevalence5
Alport syndrome is the second most common
inherited cause of kidney failure1,2
Collagen mutations drive mitochondrial dysfunction,
inflammation, and fibrosis3,4
In most severe forms of disease, median age for
kidney failure is 25 years1
Progressive loss of kidney function leads to need for
dialysis or kidney transplant
1Jais et al., JASN (2000); 2Kashtan et al., Kidney Int (2018); 3Suh et al., Nat Rev Nephrol (2013); 4Gomez et al., JCI (2015); 5Alport Syndrome Foundation; Estimated based on Persson Clin Nephrol (2005); USRDS Report; Hasstedt Am J Hum Genet. (1983); Temme, Kidney Int. (2012)
30,000-60,000
in US
32,000-64,000
in the EU5
Very severe form of CKD with no approved therapies
8
CARDINAL Phase 3: Pivotal Study Design
International, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, registrational trial
Largest interventional study in patients with AS
Enrolled a wide and representative range of patients with AS‒ eGFR: 30 to 90 ml/min
‒ Age: 12 to 70 years
Endpoints: eGFR Improvement on and off treatment‒ Primary: change from baseline in eGFR versus placebo at Week 48
‒ Key Secondary: change from baseline in eGFR versus placebo at Week 52 after withdrawal of drug for 4 weeks
After 52 weeks, patients restart study drug with original treatment assignments and continue for the second year
FDA guided Reata that retained eGFR benefit versus placebo at one year of treatment may support accelerated approval and after two years may support full approval
R
Bard
Placebo
Bard
Placebo
Year 1 On-Treatment Year 2 On-TreatmentW/D W/D
Off
Study
Drug
Off
Study
Drug
1:1
9
CARDINAL Met the Primary Endpoint
Bard treatment significantly improved on-treatment eGFR at Week 48 by 9.50 ml/min relative to placebo (p<0.0001)
Placebo patients had significant kidney function loss versus baseline (p=0.0002)*
Bard significantly improved eGFR (p=0.0004)* versus baseline
-4.78
4.72
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
Me
an
±S
E e
GF
R C
ha
ng
e (
ml/
min
)
Placebo (n=80) Bardoxolone Methyl (n=77)
p<0.0001
Primary Endpoint:
eGFR Change at Week 48
*p-value estimated comparing the mean changes to zero.
10
CARDINAL Met Key Secondary Endpoint
Bard treatment significantly improved off-treatment eGFR at Week 52 by 5.14 ml/min relative to placebo (p=0.0012)
Placebo patients had significant kidney function loss relative to baseline (p<0.0001)*
Bard patients had a slight, non-significant decline relative to baseline (p=0.45)*
Similar efficacy observed across multiple subgroups, including males versus females, pediatric population, and baseline ACR
-6.11
-0.96
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Me
an
±S
E e
GF
R C
ha
ng
e (
ml/
min
)
Placebo (n=80) Bardoxolone Methyl (n=77)
p=0.0012
Key Secondary Endpoint:
eGFR Change at Week 52
*p-value estimated comparing the mean changes to zero.
ANCOVA analyses include off-treatment eGFR values
from patients that discontinued treatment early
11
Bard Treatment Produced Benefit Across All Quartiles
of Response
Week 48 eGFR Change
Mean ± SD
Week 52 eGFR Change
Mean ± SD
∆eGFR
QuartilePlacebo Bard Placebo Bard
1 4.2 ± 2.4 20.9 ± 11.5 5.0 ± 4.2 12.9 ± 8.1
2 -1.3 ± 1.4 9.2 ± 2.4 -2.5 ± 1.4 2.5 ± 1.6
3 -5.7 ± 1.5 1.7 ± 2.2 -7.4 ± 2.3 -3.2 ± 1.7
4 -16.1 ± 6.4 -10.5 ± 6.4 -17.3 ± 5.0 -12.7 ± 5.6
eGFR change measured as mL/min
12
Summary of Safety
Fewer SAEs reported in Bard patients
No fluid overload or major adverse cardiac events in patients treated with Bard
Blood pressure decreased relative to baseline in the Bard group but was not significantly different between groups
Overall low rate of cardiac and vascular AEs that was reduced in the Bard arm
Most common AEs included muscle spasms and increased ALT or AST
Albuminuria increased with Bard at Week 48 but was unchanged when adjusted for eGFR and unchanged from baseline at Week 52
No individual AE contributed to more than two discontinuations in either group
Placebo
(n=80)
Bard
(n=77)
Number of Patients with AE 73 (91%) 75 (97%)
Number of Patients with SAE 10 (13%) 4 (5%)
Number of Patients with AE
Leading to Permanent
Treatment Discontinuation
4 (5%) 9 (12%)
13
FALCON Phase 3 Trial of Bard for ADPKD
Pivotal Phase 3 will enroll approximately 300 patients‒ Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled international study
‒ Two-year total treatment duration
‒ Planning to enroll patients across approximately 60 sites in the US, Europe, and Australia
Broad eligibility criteria‒ eGFR 30-90 ml/min
‒ Age 18-70 years old
Retained eGFR benefit endpoints support approval‒ Potential accelerated approval on retained eGFR after one year of treatment and drug withdrawal
‒ Potential full approval on retained eGFR after two years of treatment and drug withdrawal
Trial initiated in May 2019
Week12 Week 48 Week 52
Off
Study Drug
Week 100
Baseline UACR ≤ 300 mg/g
Baseline UACR > 300 mg/g
Week 104
Off
Study Drug
Day 1
W/D
Placebo Placebo
Bard: 5 mg
Bard: 5 mg 10 mg
10 mg 20 mg 30 mg
20 mg
Bard: 30 mg
Bard: 20 mg
R
Screen Dose-Titration Period Maintenance W/D Maintenance
14
All PHOENIX Cohorts: Bard Significantly Improved
eGFR
Bard significantly increased eGFR by 7.8 ml/min at Week 12
High consistency of response – eGFR increased in 88% of patients at Week 12
Improvements across multiple forms of CKD suggest that Bard is addressing a common, final pathway of progression in CKD
1Defined as proportion of patients reaching Week 12 with eGFR values above baseline at Week 12
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 4 8 12
Mean
±S
E e
GF
R C
han
ge (
mL
/min
)
Study Week
All PHOENIX Cohorts (n=103)
+7.8 ml/min
p<0.00001
Cohort
Week 12
∆eGFR
(ml/min)
ADPKD 9.3 (p<0.0001)
IgAN 8.0 (p<0.0001)
T1D CKD 5.5 (p=0.02)
FSGS 7.8 (p=0.003)
All 7.8 (p<0.00001)
15
CKD Program: Summary and Next Steps
The Phase 3 portion of CARDINAL met its primary endpoint (p<0.0001)
The Phase 3 portion of CARDINAL met its precedented, registrational key secondary endpoint (p=0.0012)
Planning to meet with FDA and other regulatory agencies to discuss marketing application submission plans
Beginning to plan for ex-US launch as a result of recent reacquisition of global rights
Pivotal study in ADPKD (FALCON) launched in May 2019
Pivotal study in diabetic kidney disease (AYAME) ongoing in Japan and being conducted by Kyowa Kirin Co, Reata’s licensee
16
OmaveloxoloneFriedreich’s Ataxia
17
Friedreich’s Ataxia Overview
1 Parkinson MH, et al., J Neurochem. 2013; 52Santos R, et al., Antioxid Redox Signal. 2010; 3Klockgether T, et al., Brain. 1998
Estimated Prevalence
~5,000
in US
~22,000
Globally
Friedreich’s ataxia (FA) is a rare, debilitating, life-
shortening, neuromuscular disorder
Most patients diagnosed as children and survive
into their mid-30s1-3
Numerous failed trials and no approved therapies
Patients typically become wheelchair-dependent
10 to 15 years after diagnosis and eventually lose
independence
18
MOXIe Design and Results
International, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, registrational trial
Largest global interventional study in patients with FA
Enrolled a wide and representative range of patients with FA‒ Baseline mFARS: 20 to 80
‒ Age: 16 to 40 years
Patients randomized 1:1 to receive 150 mg Omav or placebo for 48 weeks
Primary endpoint: change from baseline in mFARS at Week 48
IMPROVEDNeurological Function
WORSENEDNeurological FunctionPlacebo
Omav
Difference=2.40
(p=0.014)
Primary Endpoint: Change in mFARS at Week 48
-1.55pt
+0.85pt
19
mFARS Improved Over Time
Worsened
Improved
-1.55 pts
+0.85 pts
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
0 12 24 36 48
Ch
an
ge
fro
m B
as
eli
ne
in
mFA
RS
Study Week
Placebo (n=42) Omav (n=40)
20
Omav Improved Several Secondary Endpoints
Improvements observed in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
‒ Primary analysis population (n=82; p=0.125)
‒ All randomized population (n=103; p=0.028)
‒ Patient-reported PGIC correlated with physician-assessed changes in mFARS (p<0.001)
Activities of Daily Living score achieved nominal significance versus placebo (n=82; p=0.042)
65% reduction in frequency of falls
Activities of Daily Living
SectionImproved with
Omav1
Speech ✓
Swallowing ✓
Cutting Food and Handling Utensils ✓
Dressing ✓
Personal Hygiene ✓
Falling ✓
Walking ✓
Quality of Sitting Position ✓
Bladder Function ✓
Total✓
(p=0.042)
1 All sections demonstrated numerical improvements relative to placebo
21
MOXIe Summary of Safety
AEs generally mild to moderate in intensity‒ 4 (8%) Omav patients and 2 (4%) placebo
patients discontinued study due to AEs
‒ ALT and AST increases are a pharmacological effect of Omav1
• Not associated with liver injury
• Coincide with decreases in total bilirubin
• May reflect improvements in mitochondrial metabolism
Low rate of serious AEs (SAEs)‒ SAEs reported in 3 (6%) Omav patients and 3
(6%) placebo patients while receiving study drug
‒ Two additional Omav patients reported SAEs approximately 2 weeks after receiving final dose
Ninety-eight percent of patients chose to enroll in the long-term extension study
1Miller et al., ASN 2010
Summary of Adverse Events*
*AEs reported in >20% of patients
Preferred TermPlacebo
(n=52)
Omav
(n=51)
Contusion 19 (37%) 17 (33%)
Headache 13 (25%) 19 (37%)
Upper respiratory
tract infection15 (29%) 14 (28%)
Excoriation 12 (23%) 13 (26%)
Nausea 7 (14%) 17 (33%)
ALT increased 1 (2%) 19 (37%)
Fatigue 7 (14%) 11 (22%)
Abdominal pain 3 (6%) 11 (22%)
AST increased 1 (2%) 11 (22%)
22
Omav Pharmacology May Be Applicable to Broad Set of
Neurodegenerative Diseases
MOXIe results provide proof of concept for use of Omav in other neurodegenerative diseases
Mitochondrial dysfunction and neuroinflammation are common features of FA and other neurodegenerative diseases
Omav and analogs have demonstrated broad activity in neurodegenerative models
‒ Huntington’s Disease
‒ ALS
‒ Parkinson’s Disease
‒ Alzheimer’s Disease
‒ Epilepsy
Yang et al., PLoS One (2009); Neymotin et al., Free Rad Bio (2011); Dinkova-Kostova et al., (2015)Stack et al., Free Rad Biol Med 49 (2010); Dumont et al., J Neurochem (2009); Kim et al., Cells (2019); Shekh-Ahmad, et al., Brain (2018); Wei et al., Sci Rep (2017)
23
BardoxoloneCTD-PAH
24
Bard in Development for Connective Tissue Disease-
Associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
CTD-PAH is an autoimmune form of PAH‒ Affects 10% to 15% of scleroderma and lupus
patients and is their leading cause of death
‒ Estimated prevalence: 12,000 in US; 50,000 worldwide; 30% of all PAH
Despite available therapies, large unmet need‒ Vasodilators are the only current treatment option
and have lower benefit in CTD-PAH versus idiopathic PAH
‒ Vasodilators produce side effects that include syncope, headache, flushing, and jaw pain
‒ Poor risk-benefit for vasodilators in CTD-PAH given minimal treatment effect and adverse events resulting from systemic vasodilation
25
CATALYST is a Global Pivotal Trial of Bard for
Treatment of CTD-PAH
Phase 3 enrollment is complete at 202 patients‒ Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled international study
‒ 24-week treatment duration
Broad eligibility criteria‒ 6MWD ≥ 150 meters
‒ Age 18-75 years old
‒ WHO Functional Class II and III on up to two background therapies
6MWD endpoint supports approval‒ Potential full approval on 6MWD after 24 weeks of treatment
‒ Conservatively powered
Data expected mid-2020
Placebo
Bard: 10 mg
R
Day 1 Week24
Bard: 5 mg
Screen Dose-Titration Maintenance
26
LARIAT Phase 2 Results: Large Increase in 6MWD
Enrolled idiopathic PAH and CTD-PAH patients and treated for 16 weeks‒ PAH patients required to be on 1 to 2 background therapies
‒ Assessed safety and change in 6MWD
Primary efficacy analysis of initial cohorts presented at CHEST 2015 showed a placebo-corrected 6MWD of 21 m (p=0.037) at doses of 2.5, 5, and 10 mg
Subset of patients with CTD-PAH demonstrated largest responses‒ Clinically meaningful improvement of 28.4 m observed across all patients
‒ Patients without anemia demonstrated a larger placebo-corrected difference of 48.5 m
‒ Patients with anemia at baseline demonstrated larger variability and are excluded in CATALYST
Dataset Treatment N
Week 16 Δ6MWD (m)
Change from
Baseline
Placebo-
corrected
All
Placebo 79.8
p=0.44-
Bard 1538.2
p<0.001
28.4
p=0.07
Without
Anemia
Placebo 5-5.8
p=0.68-
Bard 1442.7
p<0.001
48.5
p=0.005
27
Recent Highlights and Key Upcoming Milestones
Bard in Alport syndrome
Positive, one-year pivotal data reported
Omav in Neurology
Positive pivotal data reported in Friedreich’s ataxia
Next neurological indications to be determined
Bard in ADPKD
Pivotal Phase 3 trial in ADPKD initiated in May 2019
Bard in CTD-PAH
Phase 3 CATALYST pivotal data available in mid-2020
Partner Program: Bard in diabetic CKD
Phase 3 AYAME trial fully enrolled, data available in 1H22
Sponsored by Kyowa Kirin Co, Reata’s licensee in Asia
28
APPENDIX
29
BARDOXOLONE METHYL OMAVELOXOLONE
Reata Patent Portfolio
Morphic form patent US 8,088,824 claims commercial (amorphous) forms of Bard
Claims granted in US, EU, Japan, Canada, China, Mexico, Eurasia, and 10 other territories with applications pending in 7 other countries
Anticipated protection to 2034 in US and 2033 in rest of world with term extensions
Composition of matter patent (US 8,993,640) claims Omav and several solid forms
Granted in US, Europe, Japan, China, Eurasia, 14 other territories and pending in 13 other countries
Anticipated protection to 2035 in US and 2036 in EU and Japan with term extensions
Genus patent (US 8,124,799) claims granted in 17 foreign territories & pending in 1 more
30
Tolvaptan Also Only Slows the Rate of eGFR Decline
-3.61 -2.34
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Mean
±S
E e
GF
R C
han
ge (
ml/
min
)
Placebo Tolvaptan
1.27 mL/min
Tolvaptan in ADPKD
Retained eGFR Benefit1Tolvaptan recently approved for ADPKD using eGFR change after withdrawal of drug, the retained eGFR benefit
Same registrational endpoint as CARDINAL Phase 3 study
In its registrational REPRISE study, tolvaptan slowed, but did not stop eGFR decline
‒ eGFR in both tolvaptan and placebo groups declined
‒ The tolvaptan group eGFR declined by 2.34 mL/min
‒ The placebo group eGFR declined by 3.61 mL/min
Tolvaptan was approved based on the 1.27 mL/min improvement compared to placebo
1Torres, NEJM (2017)
31
Alport Syndrome Patients Rapidly Progress to ESKD
-1.8 -2.0-2.3
-6.1
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Av
era
ge K
idn
ey F
un
cti
on
De
clin
e(m
l/m
in/1
.73m
2/y
ear)
Diabetic
CKD1
Hypertensive
CKD2 ADPKD3
Alport4
Syndrome
Average Annual Kidney Function Decline
on Standard of Care
1Perkovic et al. 2018 CANVAS; 2Wright et al. 2002 AASK; 3Torres et al. 2017 REPRISE; 4CARDINAL Phase 3 placebo arm5Assuming baseline eGFR=60 mL/min and ESKD occurs at 15 mL/min
Estimated Years
to ESKD5 25 23 19 7
32
CARDINAL Phase 2 Results: Urinary Protein Not
Significantly Changed at Weeks 48 or 52
Injury due to hyperfiltration would cause UACR to increase over time
UACR not significantly different from baseline at Weeks 48 or 52‒ Initial increase in UACR explained by increase in GFR
‒ After initial eGFR-based increase, UACR trends down through Week 48
‒ Mean changes clinically insignificant
Patients with baseline UACR > 300 mg/g (n=9) had 10% reduction at Week 48 and 28% reduction at Week 52
1Uses log-transformation methodology adopted by NKF/FDA/EMA Scientific Working Group to compute changes in albuminuria2KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) 2013 classification of albuminuria
A1: Normal (<30)
UACR Categories2
A2: Microalbuminuria (30-300)
A3: Macroalbuminuria (>300)
Nephrotic (>3,500)UACR Over Time1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56
Geo
metr
ic M
ean
U
AC
R (
mg
/g)
Study Week
All Patients (n=25)
Baseline UACR>300 mg/g (n=9)
W/D
33
Retained eGFR Benefit is an Accepted Approvable
Endpoint in Rare CKD Trials
Withdrawal of drug after long-term treatment provides evidence whether an intervention protected or harmed the kidney during treatment
For pivotal trials, FDA has accepted or required retained benefit analyses in ADPKD, Alport syndrome, IgAN, and FSGS
The duration of withdrawal does vary by drug and is based on its PK/PD profile‒ Time required for the drug to reach sub-therapeutic concentrations
‒ Time needed for reversal of PD markers
‒ Dosing duration required for maximal effect
Trial Company Drug Disease Phase
REPRISE Otsuka Tolvaptan ADPKD Approved
FALCON Reata Bardoxolone ADPKD Phase 3
CARDINAL Reata Bardoxolone Alport syndrome Phase 3
PROTECT Retrophin Sparsentan IgA Nephropathy Phase 3
ARTEMIS-IGAN Omeros OMS721 IgA Nephropathy Phase 3
DUPLEX Retrophin Sparsentan FSGS Phase 3
34
Four Week Off-Treatment Duration is Sufficient to
Assess Retained Benefit with Bard
Bard’s maximal effect on eGFR after initiation of dosing occurs within 2-4 weeks after the last increase in dose
Bard is eliminated within 2 weeks after cessation of dosing‒ 4-week withdrawal represents approximately 17 half-lives of drug
‒ Sub-therapeutic concentrations are achieved with no active metabolites
‒ Pharmacodynamic markers of Nrf2 activation, which are monitored in all patients, are not significantly different from baseline after 4-week withdrawal
Post-treatment eGFR values stabilize by Week 4 in T2D CKD patients
BEACON: eGFR Changes are Maximal 4 Weeks
After the Last Increase in Dose
Mean Baseline and Change in
eGFR (mL/min)Placebo Bard
Baseline 22.5 22.4
Change 4 weeks post-last dose 2.1
Change 8 weeks post-last dose 2.4
BEACON: Post-treatment eGFR Relatively Stable
through 8 Weeks Following Cessation of Bard Treatment
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Mean
eG
FR
±S
E (
ml/
min
/1.7
3 m
2)
Treatment Week
PBO
BARD
35
List of Abbreviations
6MWD Six-minute walk distance
ADPKD Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease
ACEi Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor
ALS Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
ARB Angiotensin receptor blocker
AS Alport syndrome
ATP Adenosine triphosphate
Bard Bardoxolone methyl
CKD Chronic kidney disease
CTD-PAH Connective tissue disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension
eGFR Estimated glomerular filtration rate
EOP2 End-of-Phase 2 meeting
ESKD End-stage kidney disease
FA Friedreich’s Ataxia
FDA US Food and Drug Administration
FSGS Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis
GBM Glomerular basement membrane
GFR Glomerular filtration rate
IgAN IgA nephropathy
KHK Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co. Ltd.
mFARS Modified Friedreich’s ataxia rating scale
mL/min mL/min/1.73 m2
NDA New drug application
Nrf2 Nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-related factor 2
Omav Omaveloxolone
PAH Pulmonary arterial hypertension
PBO Placebo
PK/PD Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics
SOC Standard of Care
T1D CKD Type 1 diabetic chronic kidney disease
T2D CKD Type 2 diabetic chronic kidney disease
UACR Urinary albumin to creatinine ratio
W/D Withdrawal