`B
`
`
`../"—"— TV
`
`:HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARY
`
`University of Wisconsin
`
`
`/
`
`we 0 3.4889 7
`
`1305 Linden fir.
`Madison, Wis. 53766.
`
`I A PUBLICATION OF THE SOCIETY OF BIOLOGICAL. PSYCHIATRY
`‘ VOLUME 26, NUMBER 4
`AUGUST 1989
`
`I ,,,,,_
`
`BIPCBF 26(4)1989 ‘
`ISSN 0006-3223
`
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 15
`
`

`

`m. trial,”-
`
`\\T1\
`
`
`
`l
`'é
`
`Biological Psychiatry is cited in Beck Mcdical Information, Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, Curre/nt Contents, Excerpta Medica,
`Index Medicus, Mental Health Abstracts, Psychological Abstracts, Referativnyi Zhurnal, Science Citation Index, and Selected List of Tables
`
`of Contents ofPsychiatric Periodicals. '
`
`Biological Psychiatry is published in two xfdlumes mailed monthly and biweekly in January, February, March, and April
`by Elsevier Science Publishing Co, Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010. Institutional subscriptions:
`$448.00; individual subscriptions: $218.00 and $135.00 for renewals; special in—training rate to residents, fellows, interns,
`and students: $64.00; society subscriptions: $25 .00., Subscribers outside of the United States add $56.00 for surface postage
`and handling. Subscriptions outside of the United States arerrsent by air.
`
`Claims for missing issues ‘can be honored only up to three menths from date of issue. Duplicate copies will not be sent
`to replace ones undelivered through failure to notify'Elsevier of change of address.
`'
`
`Single copy and back volume information available upon request. Please direct orders for the journal, changes of address.
`and claims for missing issues to: Journals Fulfillment Department, Elsevier Science Publishing Co.. Inc., 655 Avenue 0f
`the Americas, New York, NY 10010.
`'
`
`Please direct inquiries regarding the placement of advertising in this journal to: Synergistic Media Sales, 50 East 42nd
`Street, Suite 504, New York, NY 10017. (212) 682-2200.
`
`No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher or by the Society of Biological Psychiatry for any injury and/or damage to
`persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methodss
`products,
`instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. No suggested test or procedure should be carried 0k“
`unless, in the reader’s judgment, its risk is justified. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, we recommfifld...
`that the independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made. Discussions, views and recommendation5 "M...
`as to medical procedures, choice of drugs and drug dosages are the responsibility of the authors.
`'
`
`,
`
`,
`
`=,
`
`© 1989 Society of Biological Psychiatry. This journal has been registered with the Copyright Clearance Center, 1110‘
`Consent is given for copying of articles for personal or intemal use, or for the personal or internal use of specific clientsr
`This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as for general distribution, resale, advertising and promotional
`3
`purposes, or for creating new collective works. For such purposes, consent will. be given on the condition that the COP‘?
`pay through the Center the per-copy fee stated in the code on the first page of each article for copying beyond that pennifiedlew i
`by the U.S. Copyright Law. If no code appears on an article, the author has not given broad consent to copy and pennisSiOI} 7777 7
`1.
`to copy must be obtained directly from the author.
`,
`
`}
`
`Second—class postage paid at New York, NY and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: send address changes to Biolvgiwl
`Psychiatry, Elsevier Science PubliShing Co., Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010.
`
`a,
`
`Manufactured in the U.S.A.
`
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

`This material may be protected by Copyright law (Title 17 US. Code)
`
`M ,
`
`-
`
`«
`
`I” 1
`
`.
`
`331
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1989;26:331—343
`,
`
`
`
`Efficacy of Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate versus
`Placebo in Treating Narcolepsy—Cataplexy:
`Double-Blind Subjective Measures
`,
`1
`,
`
`i
`
`$5 t
`
`._.:_._‘1.
`
`u..~_._..._
`..1...“.x’"
`
`‘ L.La'wrence Scrima, Paul G. Hartman, Frank H. Johnson, Jr., and
`
`F Charles Hiller
`
`‘
`
`The efficacy of gamma-hydroxybutyrate' (GHB) versus’ placebo for treating narcolepsy
`' was evaluated in 20 patients with narcolepsy. 10 men and 10 women, using a double—
`blind counterbalanced crossover design. Each patient completed a daily sleep—wake log
`and questionnaire during a 14-day baseline, a 29-day placebo period, a 29-day GHB
`period {50 mg GHB/kg/night. given.25 mg/kg h.s. and 25 mg/kg 3 hrxlater), and a 6-day
`washout period after each treatment. Cataplexy frequency was significantly lower during
`GHB treatment than during placebo treatment (p = 0.022). Compared to baseline values,
`the number of cataplexy attacks per day declined by 52 %. and 69% during GHB treatment
`weeks I and 4, respectively. The number of subjective arousals from sleep was less with
`GHB than with placebo (p—— 0.035) and the number ofsleep attacks was not significantly
`difi’erent during GHB versus placebo treatment. GHB did not have a significant efi‘ect
`on subjective estimates of sleep onset latency, total sleep time, Stanford Sleepiness Scale
`ratings at morning wake-up, methylphenidate usage, or the number of naps per day. The
`results indicate thatGHB is efficacious for reducing the frequency of cataplexy attacks
`and subjective nocturnal arousals in patients with narcolepsy within the first 4 weeks of
`treatment.
`'
`1
`
`_
`
`_.“
`13111;
`3‘11.
`i
`:11
`
`
`
`
`1,
`. I;
`1
`.
`
`j“
`1
`
`1
`‘
`
`”WW—Am,..
`
`i i
`
`i
`
`,
`
`i i
`
`
`
`Narcolepsy isa chronic, incurable disorder characterized by intermittent excessive daytime
`sleepiness and abnormal rapid eye movement(REM) sleep manifestations such as sleep-
`' onset REM periods, cataplexy, sleep paralysis, and/or hypnagogic hallucinations (Associ—
`ation of Sleep Disorders Centers 1979) Cataplexy1s a sudden loss of muscle tone that occurs
`primarily during emotional arousal; sleep paralysis is an inability to move upon first-lying
`.down or upon Waking; and hypnagogic hallucinations are dream—like hallucinations that
`occur at sleep onset. Most patients with narcolepsy also have disrupted nocturnal sleep
`(Montplaisir 1976). Narcolepsy is generally treated with a central nervous system stimulant
`
`
`
`From the Sleep Disorders Center, Pulmonary Division, Department of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences,
`Little Rock, AR.
`Supported1.11 part by Orphan Products Grant FD—R—000115 from the Food and Drug Administration.
`Address reprint requests to Dr. L. Scrima, Sleep Disorders Cener, Slot 594, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences,
`4301 West MarkhamStreet, Little Rock, AR 72205.
`.
`Received July 29, 1988; revised December 14 1988.
`
`© 1989 Society of Biological Psychiatry
`
`‘ 0006-3223/89/$03.50
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of us. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`w 17‘1“”
`
`332
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1989;26:331—3513 ‘
`
`q
`
`a
`
`L. Scrima et 81
`
`.
`
`it]
`
`i l
`
`i
`
`ll
`
`.
`"
`
`1
`
`(eg., amphetamine, methylphenidate, orpemoline) to reduce excessive daytime SleepinesS
`(EDS) (Parkes 1976) and an antidepressant (e g. imipfamihe or protriptyline) to control
`cataplexy and other REM sleep-related symptoms (Takahashi 19:76). Stimulants, however,
`do not fully control EDS in most narcolepsy patients (Parkes 1976) and can have undesirable
`side effects on the Cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and central nervous systems (Gilman et -
`al. 1985). Treatment of Cataplexy with antidepressants has been reported to be successful in
`most cases (Takahashi 1976; Billiard et al. 1983), but these drugs have adverse effeCtS,
`including (1) prolonged cardiac conduction times that may promote dangerous ventricular
`arrhythmias; (2) postural hypotension; (3) anticholinergic effects, such asblurred vision,
`dry mouth, andimpotence (Gilman et al. 1985); (4) suppression of REM sleep (Zung 1969;
`Cadilhac 1976); and (5) increased nocturnal myoclonus (Guilleminault et a1. 1976). The
`anticholinergic side effects often result in patient self-withdrawal from antidepressants, which
`-is usually followed by an increase in the frequency and severity of cataplexy events (Scrima
`1981; Scharf and Fletcher 1988) Both stimulants and anticataplexy drugs may become less
`effective as toleranceincreases (Parkes 1976; Broughton and Mamelak 1979)
`Garmna-hydroxybutyrate (GHB)1s a four-carbon fatty acid that occurs naturally1n the
`mammalian central nervous system (Muyard and Laborit 1977) and has been termed a
`“putative neurotransmitter” (Mandel et al. 1987). GHB_ was‘reported to induce anesthesia
`at 60—70 mg/kg (Vickers 1969), but the report does not make it clear Whether the doses
`were given orally or intravenously. Lower oral doses of GHB were reported to induce
`sleep in psychiatric patients (Mamelalé etal. 1977), but the minimum GHB dose that
`will induce sleep hasnot been systematically determined; Unlike other hypnotics, GHB
`given orally induces and maintains sleep without'suppressing REM or delta stages of
`sleep (Mamelak et al. 1977). It was first reported in 1976 (Broughton and Mamelak) that
`GHB , given orally h.s. and two to three additional times during the sleep period, improved
`nighttime sleep and reduced cataplexy and sleep attacks in patients with narcolepsy.
`Subsequent studies confirmed that most narcolepsy patients had moderate to large re—
`ductions in cataplexy frequency and daytime sleepiness, as well as reduced sleep dis—
`ruption, hypnagogic hallucinations, and sleep paralysis after taking GHB in divided (1056.
`Le, a dose h.s. and one to two additional times during the night (Broughton and Marnelak
`1979, 1980; Scharf et al. 1985). Polysornnographic recordings indicated that narcolepsy
`patients taking a divided dose of GHB had increased sleep continuity, decreased REM
`fragmentation, and increased amounts of delta sleep (Broughton and Mamelak 1980;
`Scharf et al. 1985). However,
`1 month of oral administration of a single h.s. dose of
`GHB improved daytime sleepiness in only 39% of patients with narcolepsy,
`though '
`cataplexy frequency was reduced1n 83% of the patients (Montplaisir and Godbout 1936)
`Tolerance to GHB has not been found to develop, even after daily use by patients with
`narcolepsy for as long as 9 years (Mamelak et al 1986). Adverse side effects have beanie
`infrequent, mild, and have occurred mainly during the first few days of treatment (Brough'
`ton and Mamelak 1979; Scharf et al. 1985; Mamelak et al. 1986).
`This report describes the results of the first double—blind study of the effects OEGHB; A
`. on subjective symptoms of narcolepsy as compared to those of a placebo.
`
`Methods
`
`Subjects
`
`Ten women and 10 men with narcolepsy, diagnosed at the accredited Sleep Disfflders
`Center (SDC) of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), partiCIPated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,. I
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of US. Patent NO. 7,668,730
`Page4 of 15
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`4:. Efficacy of G
`
`a—Hydroxybutyrate '
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1989;26:331—343'
`
`333
`
`in the study; All patients were interviewed by an accredited clinical polysomnographer, I
`were given a physical examination by a physician, and had sleep discrders diagnostic
`tests» (Guilleminault 1982). The diagnostic tests included an overnight polysomnogram
`(PSG) and an evaluation of their daytime sleepiness with the multiple sleep latency test
`(MSLT). The criteria for inclusion in this study were: (1) a history of excessive daytime
`sleepiness and cataplexy, (2) >2 REM onsets on the MSLT, (3) a sleepiness index of
`275 on the MSLT, (4) at least 10 cataplexy attacks subjectively reported onva daily log
`during a 2—week baseline period, and (5) age between 16 and 65 years. Patients were
`excluded if they had other major health prOblems; were fertile Women Who were not
`practicing birth control; were nursing mothers; or had previously taken GHB or had other
`sleep disorders, with the exception of those commonly associated with narcolepsy, such
`as sleep paralysis, mild to moderate sleep apnea (arterial oxygen saturation 280%), and
`nocturnal myoclonus.
`’
`_
`, The age mean : standard error was 45 .9» it 4.6 years (range 16—64) for the women
`and 49.1 i 4.0 (21—64) for the men. Weight (kg) mean 1 SE was 85L: 5.2 (range
`57—113) for women and 80.4 i 3.6 (54—90) for men. Body mass index was 31.8 i
`' 2.5 (17.6—45.4) for women and 26.2 i 0.9 (20.3~29.1) for men. Prior to the study, 7
`patients were on stimulants alone (methylpheuidate, ‘pemoline, or dextroamphetamine),
`11 were on a combination of stimulants and anticataplexy medications (imiprarnine or
`protriptyline), ' and 2 patients were not taking stimulants or anticataplexy medications.
`Patients who we're taking stimulants other than methylphenidate switched to methyl—
`phenidate (S30 mg/day) for the duration of the study. Seven patients were 'withdrawn
`from anticataplexy medications at least 2 ”Weeks before the baseline period, and the
`remaining 4 patients on anticataplexy medications were withdrawn from imipramine 6,
`6, 5, and 3 days "prior to baseline, respectively. Only the patient who stopped imipramine
`5 days prior to. baseline appeared to‘hav’e elevated amounts of cataplexy events during
`the first 2 days of the baseline (18 and 12>events, respectively; mean and SD for the rest
`of the baseline period: 5.7 t 3.5 events); these 2'days were excluded from the analysis.
`One patient continued taking propranolol to control hypertension throughout the study at
`a dose (40 mg/day) that was half the lowest dose of propranolol (80—480’mg/day) reported
`to reduce narcolepsy symptoms for some patients (Kales et a1. 1979; Meier—Ewen et a1.
`1985). This patient was included in the analysis of results, but analysis of the data with
`this patient excluded yielded the same pattern of statistically significant results.
`
`Procedures
`
`A double—blind, crossover design, ‘with order of treatment counterbalanced and randomly
`
`assigned, was utilized. Thus, each subject provided data for all phases of the study:
`baseline (14 days), first treatment (29 days), first washout (6 days), second treatment (29
`days), and second washout~(6 days). Order of treatment was randomly assigned by the
`VUAMS pharmacy, so that half of the men and half of the women received GHB in the
`first treatment period and placebo in the second, whereas the remaining subjects received
`placebo first and‘GHB second. All SDC staff were blind to the order of treatment for
`subjects. During GHB treatment, subjects received 58 bottles prepared by the pharmacy,
`each containing 25 mg GHB/kg body weight, mixed with distilled water and syrup of
`orange. During the placebo treatment, subjects received 58 identical bottles with an
`equivalent amount of fluid, consisting of syrup of orange in distilled water. During each
`treatment period, subjects were instructed orally and in writing to (1) refrigerate, but not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

` i
`
`-
`
`334
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`_
`1989;26:331—343
`‘
`
`L. Scrim
`, aet 2.1,
`
`,
`
`freeze, the bottles, (2) put two bottles by their bedside when they went to bed, (3)Ingest
`one entire bottle immediately before going to bed, and (4) ingest the second entire bottle
`3 hr later. Subjects were told to set an alarm to insure that they woke up 3 hr after bedtime
`to take their second placebo or GHB dose. Subjects were also instructed not to use
`alcohol, sleeping pills or other central nervous system depressants during the experiment
`and to avoid drinking caffeinated beverages late in the day. Subjects were permitted to
`. use methylphenidate (up to 30 mg/day) to counter excessive daytime sleepiness, but were
`instructed not to take methylphenidate after 6:00 PM.
`Subjects were required to complete a sleep (log and questionnaire for each day Of the
`experiment. The sleep 10g consisted ofa grid on which subjects noted the time periods
`when they were awake, lying down, sleeping, and when they took methylphenidate. on
`the questionnaire, subjects recorded dailysubjective reports of (1) sleep onset latency for
`nighttime sleep, (2) number of arousals from sleep, (3) total sleep time, excluding naps,
`(4) Stanford Sleepiness Scale rating upon morning awakening, (5) number of “sleep
`attacks,” i.e., periods when they experienced an irresistible urge to sleep, (6) number of-
`cataplexy events, (7) number of naps, and (8) amount of methylphenidate taken. Patients
`reported icomplying with instructions for taking GHB. and placebo, and most patients
`completed their daily sleep logs and questionnaires thoroughly.
`Each subject had an 8.0:hr PSG performed onthe last night of baseline and the first
`and last nights of both treatment periods, with an MSLT performed the day following
`each PSG (5 PSGs and 5 MSLTs); these results will be reported following statistical
`analysis of the data.
`Patients were encouraged to call the SDC staff to report adverse reactions during the
`experiment. Patients were asked about the possible occurrence of adverse reactions in
`interviews by phone 2 weeks into each treatment period and by in-person interviews at
`the end of each treatment. a
`i
`'
`
`Data Analysis .
`A mixed-design Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used with two between-subject
`factors—gender and order of treatment—and two within-subjectfactors—treatment (GHB
`versus placebo) and week of treatment (first versus fourth week). For each daily dependent
`measure (number of cataplexy events, sleep attacks, etc.), means were computed for the
`baseline and each week of both treatments. The units of analysis for each subject were
`the change scores, 1. e., the differences between the baseline mean and the means for
`weeks 1 and 4 of GHB treatment and weeks 1 and 4 of placebo treatment. Placebo effects
`were evaluated by contrasts of the baseline mean versus the means on placebo weeks 1
`and 4 The data were also analyzed with a modification of the nonparametricWilcoxon
`test (Koch 1972), as the superiority of parametric versus nonparametric statistics has not
`been demonstrated for this design Results of the nonparametric tests will be reported
`only when they are not in agreement with the parametric statistics.’ ‘
`Washout effects, i.e., carryover or rebound effects during 5 days following cessatiofi
`of treatment, were also tested with a mixed--design ANOVA. Separate mixed-(1651311
`ANOVAs were used to contrast each day of the GHB washout with the corresponding
`day of placebo washout, and to contrast each day of both washout periods with the
`baseline period. Each washout period consisted of at least 6 nights and days, but only
`the data from the first 5 days were analyzed, as subjectsspent the sixth day in transit to
`the sleep laboratory and being prepared for their fourth overnight PSG.
`
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`‘
`
`M
`
`of Gamma-H drox b
`y
`y um
`
`ate
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1989;26:331—343
`
`335
`
`
`
`
`
`-<>UINTI'U(D—lZl'fl<l11-<><n'll'"U>-I>C
`
`
`
`—e._— PLACEBO TREATMENT‘
`
`-E!— GHB TREATMENT
`
`
`
`N
`
`1
`
`
`
`0 L'—
`
`I
`BASELINE
`
`_L
`l—
`_L
`3'
`.
`2
`_
`'
`1
`TREATMENT WEEK.
`
`l—
`4
`
`\
`
`
`
` ,
`
`Efficacy
`
`l
`
`&-_._
`
`“mm"
`
`”GHB vs Placebo: p <_ .01
`
`Figure 1. Cataplexy events per day during baseline, placebo, and GHB treatment. For each patient, " *5
`the mean number of cataplexy events per day was calculated for the baseline and for each week
`of both treatments. The 'figure shows the means and standard errors of patients’ baseline and weekly
`means for cataplexy.
`'
`
`Results
`
`.
`
`Cataplexy Frequency '
`Figure 1 shows the means and standard errors for cataplexy events during baseline,
`placebo, and GHB treatment periods. GHB treatment caused a significantly greater decline
`in cataplexy frequency .than did placebo treatment (F = 6.58; df '=. 1,15; p = 0.022).
`Compared to cataplexy events per day during baseline (mean : standard error 3.1 i
`0.5), cataplexy events per day declined during GHB weeks 1y(1.5 : 0.2) and 4'(0.9 :
`0.2) by 52% and 69%, respectively, and declined during placebo weeks 1 (1.7 i 0.3)
`and 4 (2.0 i 0.3) by 43% and 33%, respectively. Placebo effects versus baseline were
`significant during placebo week 1 (F =0 10.36; df = 1,15; p = 0.006) and were nearly
`significant for placebo week 4 (F = 4.01; df = 1,15; p = 0064).. Sex of the patients
`did not have a significant interaction with the effect of GHB on cataplexy frequency.
`Of 19 patients with log entries for cataplexy during baseline, placebo, and GHB
`treatments, 16 (84%) had fewer cataplexy events per day during the fourth week of GHB
`versus the fourth week of placebo. Nine (47%) had at least 1 less cataplexy attack per
`day, and 7 (37%) had 0.1—0.99 fewer cataplexy attacks per day with GHB. Four patients
`(21%) had no cataplexy attacks during the fourth week of GHB treatment, whereas 1
`patient (5%) had no cataplexy attacks during the fourth week of placebo treatment. Seven
`patients (37%) continued to have at least 1 cataplexy attack per day during the fourth
`week of GHB treatment. The daily logs of one patient (“p”) were collected but subse-
`quently lost, and therefore, this patient could not be includedin the statistics. Like all
`
`,
`
`,
`
`
`
`i
`
`{
`
`t
`E
`
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`
`
`336
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1989;26:331—343
`»
`
`L. Scri
`
`Ina er a1.
`
`
`a“
`
`'9' Placebo Treatment
`
`‘E-GHB Treatment
`
`1
`
`00
`
`l
`
`'N
`
`,
`
`>
`
`‘2.
`.:
`
`
`l
`
`(
`
`M
`
`
`,1
`12‘
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2. Catapl’exy events per day during baseline and washout periods Means and standard
`errors of the patients’ baseline means and cata‘plexy events per day during washout periods are
`shown
`
`/
`
`6‘
`
`:9
`
`participants, patient p was interviewed at the end _of the patient’ s participation in the
`study, with experimenters and patient still blind to treatment order The patient indicated
`that cataplexy frequency was 10/day during baseline, 2. 5/day during treatment 1 (GHB),
`and lO/day during treatment 2 (placebo)
`There was a significant interaction between the effects of treatment and the week of
`
`treatment on cataplexy frequency (F = 7.45; df = '1,15; p = 0.016). Therefore, cataplexy
`frequency was analyzed with week held constant and with treatment held constant, re-
`spectively. At week 1 of each treatment, the number of cataplexy attacks per day was
`not significantly different with GHB than with placebo treatment. At week 4, cataplcxy
`frequency was significantly less with GHB than with placebo (F= 10.50; df = 1,15;
`p = 0006) Post hoc analysis of the Second and third weeks of treatment indicated that
`V ’
`cataplexy frequency was significantly less with GHB than placebo during the third treat-
`ment week (F' = 10.02; df = 1,15; p = 0.006), but not during the second week-r»
`Analyses with treatment held constant indicated that cataplexy attacks declined signifi—
`cantly from week 1 to week 4 of GHB treatment (F = 15.10; df = 1,15; p = 0.002)
`<
`Post hoc trend analysis of all 4 weeks of GHB treatment indicated that there wasga,
`'7" '
`significant linear component to the decline in cataplexy frequency during GHB treatrrlent
`(F—— 18. 81; df = 1,15; p— 0.0006) There was no significant change in cataplex)’ "
`frequency from week 1 to week 4 of placebo treatment
`Figure 2 shows the means and standard errors for cataplexy events during each day
`of the washout periods following placebo and GHSB treatment, respectively. Fewer Ca‘
`taplexy events tended to occur during GHB washout than placebo washout (p = 0 091)
`Analysis of each day of the washouts separately indicated that although the number 01
`
`-
`
`,
`
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`‘ (
`
`l
`
`g
`’
`1,
`l
`i
`
`t
`
`
`
`.w.._.r__.....In.W
`
`
`
`
`
`<>Ummvmazm<m<xmrn>4>o
`
`P
`2'
`
`1—
`
`.
`
`I
`WEEK 4
`
`.
`-
`_
`' GHB vs Placebo: p < 0.02
`"GHB vs Placebo. p < 0.01
`
`I
`
`r
`
`L
`
`2
`.
`WASHOUT DAY
`r
`.
`
`,
`
`r—
`.
`
`._L J
`BASELINETREATMENT
`1
`'
`2
`32
`I.
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`o
`
`BASELINE
`
`3
`2
`~
`1
`TREATMENT WEEK
`Figure 3. Sleep attacks per day during baseline, placebo, and GHB treatment. Means and standard
`errors shown were derived as in Figure 1.
`r
`
`.
`
`4
`
`cataplexy events was lower on each day of the GHB washoutvcrsus the corresponding
`,day of the placebo washout, this difference was significant on only the first day of the
`washout periods (p = 0.010) :- Compared to the baseline period, cataplexy frequency was
`significantly lower during GHB washout days 1—5 (p < 0.05 for each comparison) and .
`during placebo Washout days 1, 2, and 4 (p < 0.05 for each comparison), and tended
`to be lower during placebo washout days 3 and 5 (0.05 < p < 0.10).. Although treatment
`effects extended into the washout Week, the main treatment effect of GHB versus placebo
`on cataplexy was not influenced by carryover effects, i.e., the interaction between treat— .
`ment and order of treatment was not significant (p = ”0.679).
`
`Daytime Sleepiness
`Figure 3 shows the means and standard errorsfor sleep attacks during baseline, placebo,
`and GHB treatment periods. Compared to 'sleep attacks per day during baseline (mean
`t SE 3.3 i 0.4), sleep attacks per day declined during GHB weeks 1 (1.8 i 0.2) and
`4 (2.1 i 0.3) by 47% and 38%, respectively, and declined during placebo weeks 1 (2.1
`i 0.3) and 4 (2.0 i 0.2) by 37% and 41%, respectiVely. There were no significant
`differences between GHB and placebo effects on sleep attacks. Contrasts between each
`i, condition and baseline indicated that the number of sleep attacks declined significantly
`during placebo week 1 (F = 23.37; df = 1,13; p = 0.0003), placebo week 4 (F =
`21.37; df = 1,13;p = 0.0005), GHB week 1 (F = 24.93;,df = 1,13;p = 0.0002),
`and GHB week 4 (F = 7.71; df = 1,13; p .=>0.016). The frequency of sleep attacks
`declined to < l/day in only 1 patient (6%) during placebo week 4 and in 3 patients (16%)
`during GHB week 4.
`,
`There was a statistical tendency for sleep attacks to occur less frequently during placebo
`’ "washout than during GHB washout (p = 0.0996), but differences between GHB and
`
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 9 of 15
`
`Efficacy of Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate
`
`1989;26:331—343
`BIOL PSYCHATRY
`
`337
`
`
`
`l
`
`l
`
`3
`
`2n
`
`
`
`1*
`
`.
`
`A'PLACEBO‘TREATMENT
`
`'ET'GH'B TREATMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`E
`E
`
`E P
`
`,.
`
`TTA
`
`.
`C
`
`KS ER
`
`DAY
`
`j l J
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`338
`
`'
`
`'
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`:
`f
`'
`1.
`‘1‘
`
`
`i
`‘
`
`
`
`_
`if
`
`
`
`5r— 410-2111111mr>mc011>
`
`
`.‘A‘PLACEBOTREATMENT
`-El-GHBTREATMENT
`'
`ll
`
`L
`
`t
`4 ~
`
`' BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1989;26:331—343
`
`
`
`
`
`t
`
`0;?
`2
`
`I
`BASELINE
`
`. J— _
`l
`J_;
`'1
`2
`3 ,
`TREATMENT WEEK
`Figure 4. Subjective arousals per night during the baseline, placebo, and GI-[B treatment. Means
`and standard errors shown were derived as in Figure 1. The Overall GHB versus placebo treatment
`effect was significant (p =- 0.035). The treatment-by—week interaction was not significant, so GHB
`versus placebo comparisons were not made for each week separately.
`
`placebo washout conditions were slight, ranging from 0.0 to 0.4 sleep attacks per washout
`day. Analysis—(of each day separately indicated that no placebo washout day was signif-
`icantly different from the corresponding GHB washout day for sleep attacks; Compared
`to sleep attacks during the baseline period (mean t SE 3.3 i 0.4), the number of sleep
`attacks was significantly lower (p < 0.05) during placebo washout days 3, 4, and 5 (2.0
`i- 0.2, 1.8 i 0.3, and 2.0 1- 0.2, respectively) and during GHB washout days -2—5
`(2.3 i 0.4 and 2.5:O.3~,respectively). The main comparison of GHB versus placebo
`effects on sleep attacks was not affected by carryovereffects, i.e., the interaction between
`treatment and order of treatment was not significant for sleep attacks (p = 0.599).
`Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS) ratings at morning wake-up time, methylphenidate
`_
`usage, and the number of daytime naps were not significantly different during GHB Versus
`placebo treatment or placebo versus baseline. SSS ratings (means t SE) at baseline were; ,
`3.0 i 0.3; at placebo weeks 1 and 4 were 2.7 i 0.2 and 2.7 i 0.2, respectively; and "”1“" ’1
`at GHB weeks 1 and 4 were 2.7 i 0.2 and 2.5 i 0.2, respectively. The number 015,17
`;
`mg methylphenidate tablets taken per day-(means t SE) at baseline was 2.7 i 0.6; at
`x
`placebo weeks 1 and 4 was 3.1' 1- 0.5 and 2.9 i 0.5, respectively, and at GHB weeks
`1 and 4 was 3.0 i 0.6 and 2.8 i 0.6, respectively. The number of daytime naps (meflfi .
`i SE) at baseline. was 1.3 i 0.3; at placebo weeks 1 and 4, 1.2 t 0.2 and 1.1 : 0L2;"’—“
`and at GHB weeks 1 and 4, 1.1 -|_- 0.2 and 1.1 i- 0.3.
`‘
`,,
`
`,i
`
`i
`
`Subjective Nocturnal Sleep
`
`Figure 4 shoWs the means and standard errors for subjective nocturnal arousals during
`baseline, placebo, and GHB treatment periods. Compared to subjective necturnal arousalS
`at baseline (3.6 . i 0.8), subjective arousals from sleep declined during GHB weeks Lrrrrr7
`
`I
`
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 10 of15
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`198926331443
`
`3
`
`39
`
`1
`’
`
`_
`
` '
`
`t
`b
`-
`'
`Efficacy of Gamma Hydroxy utyra e
`
`,_
`.
`V “'
`'l
`i v.
`,.
`
`,.
`
`.__,
`
`'
`
`(2.5 i 0.4) and 4 (2.4 i 0.3) by 32% and 33%, respectively, and increased during
`both placebo weeks 1 (3.8 i 0.8) and 4 (3.8 i 1.1) by 4%. The difference between
`GHB versus placebo treatment effects on arousals from sleep wassignificant (F = 5.43;
`df = 1,14; p = 0.035). Neither sex nor order of treatment interacted significantly with
`the effect of treatment on subjective arousals from sleep. 0f 18. patients with log entries
`for nocturnal arousals during baseline, placebo, and GHB treatments, 11 (61%) had fewer
`subjective arousals on GHB than on placebo. Placebo, effects were not significant for
`subjective arousals.
`'
`'
`'
`The difference between nocturnal arousals during placebo washout versus GHB wash-
`out was not significant overall or for any single washout day. There were no significant
`differences in nocturnal arousals during any placebo or GHB washout day compared to
`baseline, but there was a trend (p = 0.091) for fewer nocturnal arousals to occur on
`GHB washout day 1 compared to baseline.
`‘
`Subjective sleep onset latency, and total .sleep time were not significantly different for
`GI-IB versus placebo treatment‘or placebo versus baseline. Subjective sleep onset latency
`(means t SE) at baseline was 13.9 i‘ 4.8 min; at placebo weeks 1 and 4, 14.1 i 4.2
`min and 13.1 i 4.1 min, respectively; and at GHB weeks ‘1 and 4, 9.1 t 1.5 min and
`7.8 i 1.2 min. Total sleep time (means :- SE) at baseline was 6.7 i 0.4 hr; at placebo
`weeksl and 4, 6.9 i 0.3 hr and 7.1 i 0.3 hr, respectively; and at GHB weeks 1 and
`\
`4, 7.1 i 0.2hrand7.1 : 0.2hr.
`'
`
`_
`
`I
`
`_.,~-_M_.....
`
`
`
`1
`
`i i
`
`1
`
`1
`i
`.1.
`“
`
`
`
`i
`1“
`
`Hypnagogic Hallucinations and Sleep Paralysis
`Ten narcolepsy patients (5 women and 5 men) rated the severity of hypnagogic hallu—
`cinations and sleep paralysis (1—10 rating scale with 10 being most severe) at the end of
`each treatment period. Of’scven patients who reported hypnago’gic hallucinations during .
`placebo treatment (median'severity rating 4.5, range 3—8), only one also reported hyp-
`nagogic hallucinations during'GHB treatment. This patient rated hypnagogic hallucina-
`tions to be slightly‘less severe during GHB treatment than during placebo treatment. No
`other patients reported hypnagogic hallucinations during GHB treatment. The effect of _
`GHB versus placebo treatment on hypnagogic hallucinations was significant (sign test,
`' p = 0.008).
`.
`"
`'
`'
`Only 3 of 10 patients reported having sleep paralysis during either treatment. Two
`patients had sleep paralysis during placebo but not GHB treatment, and the third had
`sleep paralysis durinngHB treatment only.
`'
`,
`
`.
`
`Side Eflects
`
`‘
`
`_
`
`.
`
`Physicalsymptomsandproblemsreportedbypatients'duringGHBtreatment,butnet
`
`during placebo treatment or baseline, were as follows (number of patients in parentheses):
`upset stomach (3); upset stomach with vomiting during the first week of GHB treatment
`(l); sluggishness and stiffness upon morning awakening (2); dizziness after the second
`GHB dose of the night (1); urinary urgency (l); occurrence of cataplexy during physical
`exertion, which had not occurred prior to GHB treatment (1); general weakness and
`fatigue (1); one episode of dizziness during the day (1). The total number of adverse
`reactions reported during GHB treatment was less than during placebo treatment.
`Two episodes that occurred in the sleep laboratory were noteworthy. One woman
`fainted for a few seconds before taking the GHB doseonthe evening of her final'night
`of GHB treatment; she did not faint at any other time in the study. Secondly; a technician _
`
`H
`
`PAR1032
`
`CBM of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page11of15
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

`.340
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1989;26:331-343
`
`
`
`L. Scrima et a1.
`,
`
`%
`
`I
`
`Ia
`
`”flu—4-..”.......
`
`
`
`mistakenly allowed one man to get out ofbed and smoke a cigarette immediately following
`the second GHB dose on the first