Slides
Page 1
Phase 2 BESTOW Clinical Trial Results November 7, 2025
Page 2
Forward-Looking Statements This presentation contains forward‐looking statements that involves substantial risks and uncertainties. Any statements about the company’s future expectations, plans and prospects, including statements about its strategy, future operations, development of its product candidates, and other statements containing the words “believes,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “expects,” “estimates,” “intends,” “predicts,” “projects,” “targets,” “could,” “may,” and similar expressions, constitute forward‐looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, although not all forward‐looking statements include such identifying words. Forward‐looking statements include, but are not limited to statements regarding: expectations regarding the timing for the commencement and completion of product development or clinical trials; the rate and degree of market acceptance and clinical utility of the company’s products; the company’s commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and strategy; the company’s intellectual property position and strategy; the company’s ability to identify additional products or product candidates with significant commercial potential; the company’s estimates regarding expenses, future revenue, capital requirements and needs for additional financing; developments relating to the company’s competitors and industry; and the impact of government laws and regulations. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by such forward‐looking statements as a result of various important factors, including: the ability to develop commercially viable product formulations; the sufficiency of the company’s cash resources; the ability to obtain necessary regulatory and ethics approvals to commence additional clinical trials; whether data from early clinical trials will be indicative of the data that will be obtained from future clinical trials; whether the results of clinical trials will warrant submission for regulatory approval of any investigational product; whether any such submission will receive approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration or equivalent foreign regulatory agencies and, if we are able to obtain such approval for an investigational product, whether it will be successfully distributed and marketed. These risks and uncertainties, as well as other risks and uncertainties that could cause the company’s actual results to differ significantly from the forward‐looking statements contained herein, are discussed in our annual report on Form 10‐K for the year ended December 31, 2024, and other filings with the SEC which can be found at www.sec.gov. Any forward‐looking statements contained in this presentation speak only as of the date hereof and not of any future date, and the company expressly disclaims any intent to update any forward‐looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Photo: Gertrude “Trudy” Elion, inventor of azathioprine and recipient of Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1988. 2
Page 3
Tegoprubart is a Pipeline in a Product Opportunity Note: As of November 7, 2025. Development plans and timelines may change, including based on U.S. and global regulatory inter actions. INDICATIONS DEVELOPMENT STAGE NOTESPRE-CLINICAL Early Human Trials/ PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 ALLOTRANSPLANTATION Kidney • Phase 2 BESTOW completed. Phase 1b & Long-Term Extension trials ongoing Islet Cell • U. Chicago investigator sponsored trial • Received U.S. FDA Orphan Drug Designation Islet Cell in Patients with Impaired Renal Function • Multi-site investigator sponsored trial Kidney Tolerance • Mass. General Hospital investigator sponsored trial Liver • IND-ready XENOTRANSPLANTATION Kidney • eGenesis sponsored Phase 1/2/3 study Adult Heart • Performed under U.S. FDA Expanded Access Protocol (EAP) Pediatric Heart Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis • Plan to seek future non-equity dilutive financing to advance program to Phase 3 3
Page 4
Life-long Maintenance Immunosuppression is Necessary to Protect Transplanted Organs Without immunosuppression, the host sees donor kidney as “foreign” and attacks (i.e., rejects) it Chronic, maintenance immunosuppression must then be taken for life or the organ will be rejected even years after the transplant Source: U.S. NIH Research Matters, 2012. 4 Induction immunosuppression (e.g. ATG) is given at the time of transplant to rapidly suppress the graft recipient’s immune system
Page 5
Unmet Need in Kidney Transplantation 5 CNI, calcineurin inhibitor. 1. Poggio E et al. Am J Transplantation 2021;21:2824–32. 2. Fitzsimmons WE, Naesens M. Transplantation 2024;108:593–7. 3. Leas BF et al. Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 166. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2016
Page 6
BESTOW Overview 6
Page 7
BESTOW Trial Overview • BESTOW is the first-ever clinical trial comparing head-to-head tacrolimus to CD40L antibody (tegoprubart) in de novo kidney transplantation recipients • A prospective, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized, open-label Phase 2 trial • Aim: to determine the efficacy and safety of tegoprubart as the core immunosuppressant regimen in de novo kidney transplant recipients b.i.d., twice daily; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate (CKD -EPI creatinine criterion); HLA, human leukocyte antigen; i. v., intravenous; M, month; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MPS, mycophenolate sodium; rATG, rabbit anti -thymocyte globulin; WBT, whole blood trough concentration 7 Optional long-term, open-label extension Open-label, 12-month study Primary endpoint: eGFR at M12 Immunosuppression regimen (both arms) • rATG: (up to 4.5 mg/kg within 5-10 Days) • Corticosteroid: tapered to 5mg by Day 28 • MMF 1000mg or MPS 720mg (b.i.d.) Deceased donor for first 10 patients enrolled; living or deceased donor thereafter Tegoprubart infusion (1h IV) on Days 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, then every 21±3 days thereafter (to M12) Tegoprubart 20 mg/kg Tacrolimus 6-12 ng/mL WBT (to M6) 6-8 ng/mL WBT (to M12) Screening (Days -28 to 0) ~120 participants undergoing de novo kidney transplantation Randomized 1:1 Australia, Brazil, Canada, EU and U.S. Transplant (Day 0) Stratified by donor: type, age (<60, ≥60), HLA mismatch Tacrolimus initiated within 48h of transplant or when serum creatinine ≤ 4mg/dL (whichever comes first) End of Treatment (Day 364 / M12)
Page 8
BESTOW Key Efficacy Endpoints Note: n = 4,868 patients. eGFR estimated using MDRD 4 -variable GFR Equation. US FDA, United States Food & Drug Administration.. Source: Kosinski et al. Clin Transl Sci. 2023 Nov; 00:1–11. 8 Historical Mean eGFR of ~53 mL/min/1.73m2 After 12 Months Using CNIs Primary Endpoint of eGFR as a Proxy of Potential Long-Term Graft Function Secondary Endpoints Include Historical Approvable Endpoint of Non-Inferiority • Since the 1990’s the primary US FDA approvable endpoint has been non-inferiority based on a composite of efficacy failure using: – Biopsy Proven Acute Rejection – Graft Loss – Death – Loss to follow-up • All transplant immunosuppressants are approved for “prophylaxis of organ rejection” • Acute rejection is generally treatable and not predictive of long-term graft survival
Page 9
BESTOW Conclusions 9 1. Observed composite endpoint (death, graft loss, BPAR, LTFU) failure rate in BESTOW was within the range reported in previous late-phase trials of approved immunosuppressive agents and demonstrated non-inferiority for tegoprubart vs. tacrolimus, using a 20% non- inferiority margin 2. Tegoprubart demonstrated excellent graft function. Kidney graft function, as assessed by eGFR, stabilized after the first month and remained higher on tegoprubart across all timepoints, in the range of ~69 mL/min/1.73 m2 through month 12, vs. ~66 mL/min/1.73 m2 on tacrolimus 3. Tegoprubart demonstrated a favorable safety profile with significant reductions observed in prominent side effects associated with tacrolimus including new onset diabetes, tremor, hypertension, and delayed graft function 4. Results support advancement into Phase 3 and position tegoprubart as the potential next- generation cornerstone of kidney transplant immunosuppression Note: BPAR, Biopsy Proven Acute Rejection. LTFU, Loss to Follow Up..
Page 10
Participant Flow astudy completion includes discontinuation of randomized treatment and completing follow up period. CMV, cytomegalovirus; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; KDPI, kidney donor profile index; M, months; SD, standard deviation. Enrolled in BESTOW (n=127) 10 Randomized, received transplant and study treatment (n=63; 100%) Early study discontinuation (n=2; 3.2%) • Death (n=1; 1.6%) • Withdrawn consent (n=1; 1.6%) Completed 12M on studya (n=61; 96.8%) Discontinued treatment (n=10; 15.9%) • Adverse event (n=5; 7.9%) • Protocol non-compliance (n=2; 3.2%) • Graft failure (n=1; 1.6%) • Other (n=2; 3.2%) Completed 12M on tegoprubart (n=51; 81.0%) Tegoprubart Tacrolimus Randomized, received transplant and study treatment (n=64; 100%) Early study discontinuation (n=4; 6.3%) • Death (n=1; 1.6%) • Withdrawn consent (n=3; 4.7%) Completed 12M on studya (n=60; 93.8%) Discontinued treatment (n=4; 6.3%) • Adverse event (n=2; 3.1%) • Protocol non-compliance (n=2; 3.1%) Completed 12M on tacrolimus (n=56; 87.5%)
Page 11
11 Mean (SD), unless stated otherwise T E G O N = 6 3 TAC N = 6 4 Recipient age, years 50.1 (14.0) 48.3 (12.8) Recipient sex, n (%) Male Female 42 (66.7) 21 (33.3) 44 (68.8) 20 (31.3) ESRD, n (%)a Diabetes Hypertension Glomerulonephritis 16 (25.4) 41 (65.1) 24 (38.1) 20 (31.3) 32 (50.0) 13 (20.3) Dialysis Yes at screening, n (%) Duration in months 46 (73.0) 36.8 (33.4) 54 (84.4) 45.0 (41.5) cPRA score, n (%) 0% >0%, ≤20% >20%, ≤80% >80% 44 (69.8) 7 (11.1) 11 (17.5) 1 (1.6) 43 (67.2) 8 (12.5) 11 (17.2) 1 (1.6) aparticipants can be counted in more than one category. cPRA, calculated panel reactive antibody; CMV, cytomegalovirus; ESRD, end stage renal disease; h, hours; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; KDPI, kidney donor profile index; MPA, mycophenolic acid; rATG, rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin; SD, standard deviation. Mean (SD), unless stated otherwise T E G O N = 6 3 TAC N = 6 4 Days on treatment 324.8 (98.5) 331.8 (91.1) Total mg/kg rATG at induction, median (min, max) 4.3 (2.9, 8.7) 4.2 (2.0, 6.0) Percentage of days on-treatment with full dose MPA 59.4 (35.3) 54.3 (37.22) Days to first MPA reduction below full dose 92.2 (72.49) 91.9 (86.9) Corticosteroids Total induction bolus, mg Days to stable 5mg dose Corticosteroid discontinuation, n (%) 758.3 (313.8) 23.1 (13.5) 3 (4.8) 848.9 (320.1) 31.5 (41.6) 5 (7.8) Mean (SD), unless stated otherwise T E G O N = 6 3 TAC N = 6 4 Donor age, years 43.5 (15.3) 43.0 (14.64) Donor type Living, n (%) Deceased, n (%) KDPI score KDPI <35, n (%) KDPI ≥35, n (%) 18 (28.6) 45 (71.4) 44.0 (24.3) 17 (37.8) 27 (60.0) 17 (26.6) 47 (73.4) 35.2 (25.5) 27 (57.4) 20 (42.6) Cold ischemia time, (h) 13.4 (8.5) 12.6 (8.1) HLA mismatches, n (%) ≤3 >3 29 (46.0) 34 (54.0) 20 (31.3) 44 (68.8) CMV risk, n (%) High Intermediate Low 16 (25.4) 33 (52.4) 13 (20.6) 13 (20.3) 43 (67.2) 8 (12.5) Donor Characteristics Recipient Characteristics Additional Immunosuppression
Page 12
BESTOW Efficacy 12
Page 13
Mean eGFR Over 52 Weeks in Patients Who Completed Treatment 13 Note: Patients who completed treatment were those patients who completed 52 weeks of the study and received all planned doses of the randomized study drug. CI, confidence interval; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; SEM, standard error of the mean.
Page 14
Subgroup Analysis of eGFR at 12 Month in Patients Who Completed Treatment 14 Mean Difference (Tego-Tac) in eGFR(mL/min/1.73m2)±SE Overall Donor Type Deceased KDPI<35 KDPI≥35 Living Donor Age D<60 D≥60 Recipient Age R<60 R≥60 HLA Mismatch ≤3 >3 Tegoprubart 69 (2.8) 68 (3.3) 78 (5.8) 62 (2.9) 72 (5.6) 70 (3.1) 58 (5.2) 73 (3.2) 58 (4.8) 69 (3.5) 69 (4.5) Tacrolimus 66 (3.1) 68 (3.8) 80 (4.0) 53 (5.0) 62 (5.7) 69 (3.4) 54 (7.7) 69 (3.5) 54 (5.4) 64 (5.8) 67 (3.8) -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Favors TegoprubartFavors Tacrolimus Mean (SE)
Page 15
Mean eGFR by Donor Type in Patients Who Completed Treatment 15 Note: Patients who completed treatment were those patients who completed 52 weeks of the study and received all planned doses of the randomized study drug. Rejection was determined by BPAR. BPAR, Biopsy Proven Acute Rejection; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; SEM, standard error of t he mean.
Page 16
Mean eGFR by KDPI Score in Deceased Donor Recipients Who Completed Treatment 16 Note: Patients who completed treatment were those patients who completed 52 weeks of the study and received all planned doses of the randomized study drug. Rejection was determined by BPAR. BPAR, Biopsy Proven Acute Rejection; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; SEM, standard error of t he mean.
Page 17
Mean eGFR at 12-months for Subjects Who Received a Living Donor Kidney or a Deceased Donor Kidney With KDPI ≥ 35 17Note: Patients who completed treatment were those patients who completed 52 weeks of the study and received all planned doses of the randomized study drug.
Page 18
Comparative Abbreviated iBox Scores at 12 Months 18 CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; ITT, intent to treat; mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin; mTOR, mTORi, mammalian target of rapam ycin inhibitor; OT, on treatment. 1. Klein A et al. Am J Transplant 2023;23:1496–506. 2. European Medicines Agency (EMA) Scientific Opinion -Qualification. Briefing Dossier. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/qualification-opinion-applicant-revised-briefing-book-ibox-scoring-system-composite-biomarker-panel_en.pdf (Accessed 24 Jul 2025) 3. Aubert O et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e052138
Page 19
BPAR Based on ALL BIOPSIES Through 12 Months Acute Parameters Tegoprubart 20 mg/kg (N=63) n (%) Tacrolimus (N=64) n (%) Total biopsies 58 (92.1) 51 (79.7) Acute Rejection 13 (20.6) 9 (14.1) Acute AMR 2 (3.2) 1 (1.6) Acute TCMR 13 (20.6) 8 (12.5) Acute TCMR IA 2 (3.2) 5 (7.8) IB 5 (7.9) 2 (3.1) IIA 4 (6.3) 1 (1.6) IIB 2 (3.2) 0 III 0 0 BPAR-Free Time on-Treatment 19 Tegoprubart (n=63) 63 59 52 47 45 45 Tacrolimus (n=64) 63 60 58 54 51 51 Treatment Group: Tegoprubart (n=63) Tacrolimus (n=64) D1 M1 M3 M6 M9 M12 Time 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Survival Probability Note: All biopsies centrally reviewed by a blinded reference pathologist (Banff criteria). ‘All cause’ includes acute TCMR ≥ 1A and/or active AMR, and uses data from all biopsies. dParticipants with TCMR and AMR were only counted once in BPAR calculation. AMR, antibody mediated rejection; BPAR, biopsy proven acute rejection; CI, confidence interval; M, months; Tac, tacrolimus; TCMR, T cell -mediated rejection; Tego, tegoprubart.
Page 20
Mean eGFR by Tegoprubart Treatment Completion in Patients Who Experienced Rejection 20 Note: Patients who completed treatment were those patients who completed 52 weeks of the study and received all planned doses of the randomized study drug. Rejection was determined by BPAR (biopsy proven acute rejection); Comp., completed tegoprubart treatment; Disc., discontinued tegoprubart t reatment; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; SEM, standard error of the mean
Page 21
Composite Efficacy Failure & Donor-Specific Antibodies All biopsy, aAMR+aTCMR Tegoprubart (N=63) n (%) Tacrolimus (N=64) n (%) Difference (Tegoprubart – Tacrolimus) % (95% CI) BPAR 13 (20.6) 9 (14.1) 6.6 (-7.0, 20.3) Graft loss 1 (1.6) 1 (1.6) 0 Death 1 (1.6) 1 (1.6) 0 LTFU 0 0 0 EF rate through 12 months 14 (22.2) 11 (17.2) 5.0 (-9.5, 19.4) BPAR is defined as acute TCMR or acute AMR rejection while on randomized treatment as assessed by central pathologist. BPAR, Graft Loss, Death and LTFU are not all mutually exclusive; participants are counted within each category that applies. BPAR: biopsy proven acute rejection; EF: Efficacy failure; LTFU: Lost of follow -up. Composite efficacy failure defined as graft loss, BPAR, death and LTFU 21 At end of treatment, 1 tegoprubart subject and 2 tacrolimus subjects were positive for Donor-Specific Antibodies
Page 22
BESTOW Safety 22
Page 23
Overall Summary of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events Tegoprubart (N=63) n (%) Tacrolimus (N=64) n (%) Risk Difference (95% CI)1 Any AE 61 (96.8) 64 (100) -3.2 (-11.1, 2.9) AE by Max Severity2 G1: Mild 5 (7.9) 8 (12.5) G2: Moderate 20 (31.7) 23 (35.9) G3: Severe 31 (49.2) 28 (43.8) G4: Life-threatening 4 (6.3) 4 (6.3) G5: Death 1 (1.6) 1 (1.6) Related AEs 32 (50.8) 35 (54.7) -3.9 (-21.4, 14.2) Serious AEs (SAE) 33 (52.4) 36 (56.3) -3.9 (21.3, 13.9) Related SAEs 11 (17.5) 8 (12.5) 5.0 (-7.9, 18.3) AE of Special Interest 47 (74.6) 49 (76.6) -2.0 (-17.3. 13.4) AE leading to study drug withdrawal 4 (6.3) 3 (4.7) 1.7 (-7.9, 11.4) 1Tegoprubart rate to Tacrolimus rate 2Participants are counted only once at their highest grade of AE, so risk difference is not presented. On-treatment: first dose through last dose + 30 days (includes early discontinuations). 23
Page 24
AEs ≥5% with ≥2 Times Risk Observed with a Therapy 24Note: Excludes select non-specific AEs (e.g., abdominal pain). Tegoprubart (N=63) n (%) Tacrolimus (N=64) n (%) Relative Difference Opportunistic Infections Bacteremia 1 (1.6) 7 (10.9) 6.8x Sepsis 2 (3.2) 5 (7.8) 2.4x Renal Proteinuria 10 (15.9) 1 (1.6) 9.9x Metabolic Hyperglycemia 6 (9.5) 14 (21.9) 2.3x New Onset Diabetes (NODAT) 1 (1.6) 7 (10.9) 6.8x Hyperkalemia 7 (11.1) 17 (26.6) 2.4x CNS Tremors 1 (1.6) 16 (25.0) 15.6x Muscle Spasms 3 (4.8) 10 (15.6) 3.3x Pruritis 2 (3.2) 6 (9.4) 2.9x Cardiovascular Hypertensive Crisis 1 (1.6) 5 (7.8) 4.9x Blood Lymphopenia 4 (6.3) 10 (15.6) 2.5x 2.5x 4.9x 2.9x 3.3x 15.6x 2.4x 6.8x 2.3x 2.4x 6.8x 0 5 10 15 20 9.9x 05101520
Page 25
Opportunistic Infections Tegoprubart (N=63) n (%) Tacrolimus (N=64) n (%) Risk Difference (95% CI)1 Opportunistic Infections 43 (68.3) 44 (68.8) -0.5 (-17.2, 15.8) Viral Infections 33 (52.4) 31 (48.4) 3.9 (-13.8, 21.6) CMV 25 (39.7) 23 (35.9) 3.7 (-13.3, 20.7) CMV disease 1 (1.6) 3 (4.7) -3.1 (-11.7, 4.7) CMV DNA-emia 24 (38.1) 20 (31.3) 6.8 (-9.9, 23.5) BKV (Polyomavirus) 14 (22.2) 13 (20.3) 1.9 (-12.7, 16.7) Polyomavirus-associated nephropathy 2 (3.2) 3 (4.7) 1.6 (−5.7, 9.6) Polyomavirus DNA-emia 14 (22.2) 13 (20.3) 1.9 (-12.7, 16.7) EBV DNA-emia 1 (1.6) 1 (1.6) 0.0 (-7.1, 7.2) Sepsis and Bacteremia 3 (4.8) 11 (17.2) -12.4 (-24.9, -1.4) Bacteremia 1 (1.6) 7 (10.9) -9.4 (-20.0, -0.7) Sepsis 2 (3.2) 5 (7.8) -4.6 (-14.5, 4.3) Fungal Infections 2 (3.2) 2 (3.1) 0.0 (-8.1, 8.3) Other Opportunistic Infections 22 (34.9) 26 (40.6) -5.7 (-22.6, 11.4) PML 0 0 0.0 25 1 Tegoprubart rate to Tacrolimus rate. Note: Excludes select non-specific AEs.
Page 26
AEs ≥5%: Renal & Metabolic Tegoprubart (N=63) n (%) Tacrolimus (N=64) n (%) Risk Difference (95% CI)1 Renal Delayed Graft Function 9 (14.3) 16 (25.0) -10.7 (-25.0, 3.4) Mean Days on Dialysis for DGF (SD) 4.6 (4.19) 6.1 (7.71) Oliguria 0 5 (7.8) -7.8 (-17.3, -1.4) Proteinuria 10 (15.9) 1 (1.6) 14.3 (4.7, 25.9) Metabolic Hyperglycemia 6 (9.5) 14 (21.9) -12.4 (-25.7, 0.6) New Onset Diabetes (NODAT) 1 (1.6) 7 (10.9) -9.4 (-20.0, -0.7) Hyperkalemia 7 (11.1) 17 (26.6) -15.5 (-29.4, -1.4) Hypokalemia 7 (11.1) 6 (9.4) 1.7 (-9.6, 13.5) Hypophosphatemia 19 (30.2) 10 (15.6) 14.5 (-0.4, 29.4) Metabolic Acidosis 10 (15.9) 6 (9.4) 6.5 (-5.6, 19.0) 26 Difference in DGF occurrence and time on dialysis correspond to an estimated ~115 additional days on dialysis per 100 deceased donor recipients on tacrolimus vs. tegoprubart 1 Tegoprubart rate to Tacrolimus rate. Note: Excludes select non-specific AEs.
Page 27
AEs ≥5%: CNS and Cardiovascular Tegoprubart (N=63) n (%) Tacrolimus (N=64) n (%) Risk Difference (95% CI)1 CNS Tremors 1 (1.6) 16 (25.0) -23.4 (-35.8, -11.5) Muscle Spasms 3 (4.8) 10 (15.6) -10.9 (-22.7, 0.1) Neurocognitive & Psychiatric Disorders 14 (22.2) 22 (34.4) -12.2 (-27.9, 3.8) Headache 7 (11.1) 14 (21.9) -10.8 (-24.4, 2.5) Dizziness 3 (4.8) 6 (9.4) -4.6 (-15.3, 5.1) Fatigue 7 (11.1) 5 (7.8) 3.3 (-7.9, 14.8) Insomnia 6 (9.5) 11 (17.2) -7.7 (-20.3, 4.8) Pruritus 2 (3.2) 6 (9.4) -6.2 (-16.6, 3.2) Cardiovascular Heart Failure 0 (0.0) 3 (4.7) -4.7 (-13.1, 1.6) Hypertension 10 (15.9) 16 (25.0) -9.1 (-23.5, 5.3) Hypertensive Crisis 1 (1.6) 5 (7.8) -6.2 (-15.8, 1.8) Hypotension 8 (12.7) 7 (10.9) 1.8 (-10.2, 14.2) Peripheral Edema 10 (15.9) 7 (10.9) 4.9 (-7.8, 17.6) Thromboembolic Events 6 (9.5) 4 (6.3) 3.3 (-7.0, 14.2) 27 1 Tegoprubart rate to Tacrolimus rate. Note: Excludes select non-specific AEs.
Page 28
AEs ≥5%: Blood, Cancer & Gastro-Intestinal Tegoprubart (N=63) n (%) Tacrolimus (N=64) n (%) Risk Difference (95% CI)1 Blood Anemia 20 (31.7) 19 (29.7) 2.1 (-14.2, 18.8) Leukopenia 26 (41.3) 15 (23.4) 17.8 (1.4, 33.9) Lymphopenia 4 (6.3) 10 (15.6) -9.3 (-21.4, 2.0) Neutropenia 9 (14.3) 10 (15.6) -1.3 (-14.3, 11.8) Cancer Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer 3 (4.8) 1 (1.6) 3.2 (-4.3, 12.0) PTLD 0 0 Gastro-Intestinal Constipation 19 (30.2) 16 (25.0) 5.2 (-11.1, 20.9) Diarrhea 14 (22.2) 22 (34.4) -12.2 (-27.9, 3.8) Dyspepsia 4 (6.3) 7 (10.9) -4.6 (-15.7, 6.4) 28 1 Tegoprubart rate to Tacrolimus rate. Note: Excludes select non-specific AEs.
Page 29
Conclusion 29COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. MAY CONTAIN TRADE SECRETS. DO NOT DUPLICATE, DETAIL, DISTRIBUTE, TRANSMIT, FORWARD, OR USE IN ANY PROMOTIONAL MANNER.
Page 30
BESTOW Conclusions 30 1. Observed composite endpoint (death, graft loss, BPAR, LTFU) failure rate in BESTOW was within the range reported in previous late-phase trials of approved immunosuppressive agents and demonstrated non-inferiority for tegoprubart vs. tacrolimus, using a 20% non- inferiority margin 2. Tegoprubart demonstrated excellent graft function. Kidney graft function, as assessed by eGFR, stabilized after the first month and remained higher on tegoprubart across all timepoints, in the range of ~69 mL/min/1.73 m2 through month 12, vs. ~66 mL/min/1.73 m2 on tacrolimus 3. Tegoprubart demonstrated a favorable safety profile with significant reductions observed in prominent side effects associated with tacrolimus including new onset diabetes, tremor, hypertension, and delayed graft function 4. Results support advancement into Phase 3 and position tegoprubart as the potential next- generation cornerstone of kidney transplant immunosuppression Note: BPAR, Biopsy Proven Acute Rejection. LTFU, Loss to Follow Up..
Page 31
• Guidance from FDA on Phase 3 design / path to market for kidney transplantation • Long Term data in kidney transplantation • Launch of Phase 3 in Kidney Transplantation in late 2026 • Enroll an additional 3 patients in investigator sponsored Phase 2 trial in islet cell transplantation for Type 1 diabetes by year end 2025, and report on initial 9 patients of data in 1H2026 • Launch Phase 2 islet cell transplant in patients with kidney dysfunction study as well as transplant tolerance study • Guidance from FDA on Phase 3 design / path to market for islet cell transplantation & xenotransplantation • $93.4M* in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments as of September 30, 2025 • Forecasted sufficient to fund operations to late 2026 Eledon Financial Profile and Expected Milestones Strong Financial Profile Expected 12 Month Milestones * Preliminary, unaudited financial information as of September 30, 2025. The unaudited, preliminary cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments figure is based on current expectations and remains subject to the completion of financial closing procedures and internal reviews. 31
Page 32
Eledon Pharmaceuticals 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 250 Irvine, California 92612, USA info@eledon.com +1 949-238-8090 32