`
`
`
`
`‘
`‘
`,
`gA PUBLICATION OF THE SOCIETY OF BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
`VOLUME 26, NUMBER 4
`.
`AUGUST 1989
`i
`BIPCBF 26(4)1989
`
`fl
`
`HEALTH SCIENCFS LIBRARY
`
`Universitv of Wisconsin
`
`ISSN 0006-3223
`PAR1032
`
`IPR of US. Patent No. 7, 668, 730
`Page 1 of 15
`
` 34989 A
`
`1305 Linden 0r.
`Madison, Wis. 53766
`
`g g
`
` PAR1032
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
` Page 1 of 15
`
`

`

`'
`
`
`
`Biological Psychiatry is cited in Beck Medical Information, Biological Abstracts, Chemicol Abstracts, Curre/nt Contents, Excerpta Medica.
`Index Medicus, Mental Health Abstracts, Psychological Abstracts, Referativnyi Zhnrnal. Science Citation Index, and Selected List of Tables
`
`of Contents of Psychiatric Periodicals. -
`
`Biological Psychiatry is published in two y’dlumes 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-Lraining 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 arersent by air.
`
`Claims for missing issues *can be honored only up to three mOnrhs from date of issue. Duplicate copies will not be sent
`to replace ones undelivered through failure to notinylsevier 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 of
`the Americas, New York, NY 10010.
`
`H111
`
`}
`
`,
`‘
`
`b
`-,
`
`‘
`[I
`
`3
`
`l
`;
`
`"
`:‘
`
`Please direct inquiries regarding the placement of advertising in this journal to: Synergistic Media Sales, 50 East 42nd
`Street, Suite 504, New York, NY 100l7. (212) 682-2200.
`2
`
`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 methods:
`products,
`instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. No suggested test or procedure should be carried 01![
`unless, in the reader’s judgment, its risk is justified. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, we recommend
`that the independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made. Discussions, views and recommendationsvwrw .
`""‘7’
`as to medical procedures, choice of drugs and drug dosages are the responsibility of the authors.
`
`.
`
`(C 1989 Society of Biological Psychiatry. This journal has been registered with the Copyright Clearance Center, Iflcr
`Consent is given for copying of articles for personal or internal use, or for the personal or internal use of specific clients
`This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as for general distribution, resale, advertising and promotional
`purposes, or for creating new collective works. For such purposes, consent will. be given on the condition that the £091,571,
`pay through the Center the per—copy fee stated in the code on the first page of each article for copying beyond that perrnitFed”“"‘
`by the U.S. Copyright Law. If no code appears on an article, the author has not given broad consent to copy and permiSSlOE 7 7,
`to copy must be obtained directly from the author.
`
`Secondeclass postage paid at New York, NY and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: send address changes to Biological
`Psychiatry, Elsevier Science Publishing Co, Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010.
`Manufactured in the U.S.A,
`
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`IPR of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
` PAR1032
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
` Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

`This material may be protected by Copyright law (Title 17 US. Code)
`
`at
`
`.
`
`»
`
`$7 t
`..;0...“;
`
`3101. PSYCHIATRY
`1989;263331—343
`,
`
`331
`
`
`
`Nu...—.
`
`Efficacy of Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate versus
`wPlacebo in Treating Narcolepsy—Cataplexy:
`Double-Blind Subjective Measures
`,
`p
`
`i
`
`i 1.1,awrence 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 narcolepsyy 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. given25 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 ofcataplex'y attacks per day declined by 52%. and 69% during GHB treatment
`weeks 1 and 4 respectively. The number of subjective arousalsfiom sleep was less with
`GHB than with placebo (p0 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 that GHB is efi‘icacious for reducing the frequency of cfataplexy attacks
`and subjective nocturnal arousals in patients with narcolepsy within the first 4 weeks of
`treatment.
`I
`V
`
`'
`
`' Introduction
`
`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). CataplexyIS 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.
`Supportedin part by Orphan Products Grant FD-R—000115 from the Food and Drug Administration.
`Address reprint requests to Dr L. Scrima, Sleep Disorders Caner, Slot 594, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences,
`4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205.
`.
`Received July 29, 1988; revised December 14 1988
`-
`-
`
`© 1989 Society of Biological Psychiatry
`
`‘ 0006-3223/89/$03 .50
`
`_._&_.A~,w__.dm~.1..wfw;num1y-“
`
`l ll l l
`
`
`
`'
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`IPR of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 3 of 15
`
`‘1
`‘
`
`‘
`
`1311‘
`3‘11.
`
`if.»
`a
`l
`1:
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` PAR1032
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
` Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`
`
`332
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1989;26:331e3f13 ’
`
`r.
`
`L. SCl‘ima et al
`
`.
`
`(e. g. , amphetamine, methylphenidate, or pemoline) to reduce excessive daytime sleepiness
`(EDS) (Parkes 1976) and an antidepressant (e.g., imipramine or protriptyline) to comm]
`cataplexy and other REM sleep-related symptoms (Takahashi 1936). 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 -
`a1. 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, and impotence (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 tolerance increases (Parkes 1976; Broughton and Mamelak 1979).
`Garmna—hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is a four-carbon fatty acid that occurs naturally in the
`mammalian central nervous system (Muyard and Laborit 1977) and. has been termed a
`“putative neurotransmitter” (Mandel et a1. 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 (Mamelak 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 dose,
`i.e. , a dose h. s. and one to two additional times during the night (Broughton and Marnclak
`1979, 1980; Scharf et al. 1985). Polysomnographic recordings indicated that narcolepsy
`patients taking a divided dose of; Gl-[B 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 reduced in 83% of the patients (Montplaisir and Godbout 1986} ..
`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'beefl *7
`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 01161713
`. 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 DiSOIders
`Center (SDC) of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), partiCiPated
`
`
`
`
`
`..1,..._m.___..___,.L____..__vr‘.__.WWWm
`
`n,
`
`'1,
`
`.
`
`PAR1032
`
`IPR of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 4 of 15
`
` PAR1032
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
` Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`Efficacy of Gamma—Hydroxybutyrate '
`
`1989;262'331A343’
`3101. PSYCHIATRY
`
`333
`
`in the study; All patients were interviewed by an accredited clinical p'olysomnographer,
`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 0f 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) 22 REM onsets on the MSLT, (3) a sleepiness index of
`275 on the MSLT, (4) at least 10 cataplexy attacks subjectively reported on a 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 i 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 851: 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 (methylphenidate, ‘pemoline, or dextroamphetarnine),
`11 were on a combination of stimulants and anticataplexy medications (imipramine or
`protriptyline),and 2 patients were not taking stimulants 0r anticataplexy medications.
`Patients who were taking stimulants other than methylphenidate switched to methyl—
`phenidate (S30 nag/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 imiprarnine
`5 days prior to baseline appeared to have 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 i 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 'ing/day) reported
`to reduce narcolepsy symptoms for some patients (Kales et a1. 1979; Meier-Ewert 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), firstrwashout (6 days), second treatment (29
`days), and second washout~(6 days). Order of treatment was randomly assigned by the
`UAMS 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
`
`
`
`
`
`1 .~
`
`W-____.._.;_.___..._._.r_/\._.._.__.r.~.__,--u._,-
`
`
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`IPR of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 5 of 15
`
` PAR1032
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
` Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

`
`
`334
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`-
`1989;26:331—343
`'
`
`
`
`et 31,
`
`L. Scrima
`,
`
`-
`
`.
`
`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 late1n 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 log consisted of a 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,” 1. 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 .complying 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 by1n—person interviews at
`the end of each treatment.
`
`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,
`i. 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 nonparametric Wilcoxen
`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 cessation
`of treatment, were also tested with a mixed--design ANOVA. Separate mixed—design
`ANOVAs were used to contrast each day of the GHB washout with the corresponding
`day of placebo washout, and to contrast each day (if both washout periods with the
`baseline period Each washout period consisted of at least 6 nights and days, but oniy
`the data from the first 5 days were analyzed, as subjects'spent the sixth dayin transit to
`the sleep laboratory and being prepared for their fourth overnight PSG.
`
`
`
`PAR1032
`
`IPR of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 6 of 15
`
` PAR1032
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
` Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`of Gamma—H drox b tvrate
`y
`y u “
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1989;26:331—343
`
`335
`
` ,
`
`Efficacy
`
`
`
`'ér PLACEBD TREATMENT '
`
`-E!- GHB TREATMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`-<>U17111110)—lZl'fl<l'T1-<><r|'ll"U>-I>O
`
`M
`
`I
`
`
`
`o 1.—
`
`l
`BASELINE
`
`_L
`l—
`_|
`3'
`.
`2
`_
`1
`TREATMENT WEEK
`
`l
`4
`
`\
`
`“GHB vs Placebo: p <_
`
`.01
`
`Figure 1. Cataplexy events per day during baseline, placebo, and GHB treatment. For each patient, "\‘I
`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.
`
`1
`
`Results
`
`”,2..._.,~
`
`"mamgxfia....
`
`l
`
`l 1
`
`4
`1
`
`l
`{
`I
`l
`g
`
`1
`‘
`
`‘
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`0
`
`.
`
`,
`;
`
`‘
`
`\
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`~
`
`.
`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 eyents per day during baseline (mean i standard error 3.1 i
`0.5), cataplexy events per day declined during GHB weeks 1 (1.5 i 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 = 10.36; df = 1,15; p = 0.006) and were nearly
`significant for placebo week 4’ (F = 4.01; df = 1,15; p = 0.064).. 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—
`
`i '
`
`quentlylost,andtherefore,thispatientcouldnotbeincluded‘inthestatistics.Likeall
`
`7m
`
`PAR1032
`
`IPR of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 7 of 15
`
` PAR1032
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
` Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`
`
`336
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1989;26:331—343
`>
`
`L. Scrim
`
`a C[ a]
`
`I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4‘
`
`+Placebo Treatment
`
`"E'GHB Treatment
`
`co
`
`'N
`
`.4.
`
`1
`
`l
`
`.J
`
`
`
`<>Urmpwazm<m<xmru>4>o
`
`BASELIINE
`
`,TREATMENT
`‘
`I
`‘
`WEEK 4
`
`«inO
`3
`"
`' GHB vs Placebo: p < 0.02
`“GHB vs Placebo: p < 0.01
`
`'
`
`‘4
`
`I
`I
`I
`3
`2
`1
`WASHOUT‘ DAYV '
`.
`.
`
`T
`4
`
`Figure 2. Catapl'exy events per day during baseline and washout periods. Means and standard
`errors of the patients’ baseline means and cataplexy events per day during washout periods are
`shown.
`'
`
`/
`
`'
`
`u 99
`
`A
`
`participants, patient p was interviewed at the endof 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 10/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, cataplexy
`frequency was significantly less with GHB than with placebo (F = 10.50; df = 1,15;
`,
`p = 0.006). Post hoc analysis of the second and third weeks of treatment indicated that
`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 weekm
`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; [2 = 0.002)
`Post hoc trend analysis of all 4 weeks of GHB treatment indicated that there waS,;,a, m,
`
`psigni’icaut linear component to the decline in cataplexy frequency during GHB treatment
`(F = 18.81; df =_ 1,15; p = 0.0006). There was no significant change in cataplexy '7"
`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 GHB 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 0f
`
`
`
`"_......anfiww“
`
`l
`
`
`
`..4........__.../-1..
`
`g
`:
`
`11
`1l
`.
`
`,
`
`g P
`
`AR1032
`
`IPR of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 8 of 15
`
`‘,
`1'
`
`‘.
`l"
`‘
`
`..
`1‘»
`1;
`
`‘
`
`,
`
`,
`
` PAR1032
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
` Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`’
`r“
`Efficacy 0
`
`t
`b
`f Garnrn -H dr
`a
`y oxy utyrae
`
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`1939;25:331—343
`
`337
`
`4 ———————f‘———‘————_—_
`
`.
`
`.
`
`‘
`ii
`‘
`
`i
`
`i“
`Q
`ii
`c
`3
`
`cataplexy events was lower on each day of the GHB washout versus 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 04), sleep attacks «per day declined during GHB weeks 1 (1.8 i 0.2) and
`4 (2.1 t 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
`condition and baseline indicated that the number of sleep attacks declined significantly
`during placebo week 1 (F = 23.37; df = 1,13; 17 = 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 <1/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
`
`’
`
`PAR1032
`
`IPR of US. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 9 of 15
`
`l
`
`{ i,
`
`I
`
`1 l J
`
`
`
`
`
`-<>UNWT!mXO>-l-1>'UITIITII‘U)
`
`M _‘
`
`0
`
`“AI-PLACEBO‘ TREATMENT
`
`'ET’GHB TREATMENT
`
`
`
`i
`
`_L
`BASELlNE
`
`I
`
`J___ __1_‘ Q '
`x
`i _L
`3
`‘
`.
`4
`2
`1
`TREATMENT WEEK
`Figure 3. Sleep attacks per day during baseline, placebo, and GHB treatmept. Means and standard
`errors shown were derived as in Fighre ,1.
`'
`r
`
`
`'washout than during GHB washout (p = 0.0996), but differences between GHB and
`
` PAR1032
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
` Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`> 338
`
`~ BIOL PSYCl-HATRY
`1989;26:331—343
`.
`
`L.
`
`.
`501mm et a1.
`
`5
`
`
`
`.-é-PLAC’EBo TREATMENT
`
`e-GHBTREATMENT
`
`.
`
`41'
`
`3L
`
`2—
`
`1L
`
`.
`
`3o
`
`U f
`
`L
`
`8 p S
`
`Ta
`
`T
`
`o‘—..
`‘
`
`g
`BASELINE
`
`I
`_ 4— '
`,_"
`1
`2
`3'
`TREATMENT WEtEK
`Figure 4. Subjective arousals per night during the baseline, placebo, and GHB 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 treatrnent—by—week interaction was not significant, so GHB
`versus placebo comparisons were not made for each week separately.
`
`
`
`
`L
`
`.
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`placebo washout conditions were slight, ranging from 0.0 to 0.4 sleep attacks per washout
`day. Analysisxof 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 25:03, respectively). The main comparison of GHB versus placebo
`effects on sleep attacks was not affected by carryover'effects, i.e., the interaction between
`treatment and order of treatment was not significant for sleep attacks (p = 0599).
`Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS) ratings at morning wake—up time, methylphcm’date
`usage, and the number of daytime naps were not significantly different during GHB versus
`.y
`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; 811d "F
`at GHB weeks 1 and 4 were 2.7 i 0.2 and 2.5 t 0.2, respectively. The number of,5:,i
`mg methylphenidate tablets, taken per day-(means : SE) at baseline was 2.7 i 0.6; at
`placebo weeks 1 and 4 was 3.1 i- 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 (1116732315,...
`t SE) at baseline was 1.3 i 0.3; at placebo weeks 1 and 4, 1.2 i 0.2 and 1.1 i 0.2?
`and at GHB weeks 1 and 4,1.1 i- O.2 and 1.1 i- 0.3.
`'
`
`7.
`
`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 nocturnal arousals
`at baseline (3.6. i 0.8), subjective arousals from sleep declined during GHB weeks L.....7
`
`PAR1032
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
`Page 10 of 15
`
` PAR1032
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,668,730
` Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`
`
`Efficacy of Gamma—Hydroxybutyrate
`
`.
`
`1989;26:331—343
`BIOL PSYCHIATRY
`
`339
`
`
`
`(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 1': 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. Of 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
`GHB 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 i 1.5 min and
`7.8 i 1.2 min. Total sleep time (means t SE) at baseline was 6.7 i 0.4 hr; at placebo
`weeks .1 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 0.2hrand 7.1 i 0.2 hr.
`4
`
`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 seven patients who reported hypnago’gic hallucinations during .
`placebo treatment (median'severity rating 4.5 , range 3—8), only one also reported hyp—
`nagogi'c 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 treatrnent. 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 during GHB treatment only.
`‘
`
`Side Efiects
`
`Physical symptoms and problems reported by patients during GHB treatment, but nOt
`during placebo treatmen