Explore WAKIX efficacy data in excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) from clinical studies including adult patients with narcolepsy type 1 and narcolepsy type 2
(Post Hoc Analysis)Severe EDS
WAKIX significantly reduced EDS versus placebo in Study 1
- Primary endpoint: The final mean ESS score* with WAKIX was 12.4 versus 15.5 with placebo (3.1-point difference, P=0.022)1,†
- WAKIX demonstrated a 6-point mean reduction in ESS score from baseline versus 2.9 points with placebo1,‡
Patient population
- Baseline mean ESS scores reflected severe EDS2,§
- Placebo: 18.9
- WAKIX: 17.8
- 61% of all WAKIX-treated patients reached a stable dosage of 35.6 mg once daily
- ~80% of patients had a history of cataplexy
CI, confidence interval; ESS, Epworth Sleepiness Scale; LS, least squares.
*Primary endpoint: LS mean final ESS score compared with placebo. Final values shown as LS mean of the final 2 weeks (Week 7 and Week 8).1
†Placebo-subtracted difference (95% CI: -5.73, -0.46).
‡LS mean change in ESS score from baseline to the mean of final 2 weeks (Week 7 and Week 8); adjusted mean ESS score at baseline was 18.4.1
§Baseline values shown as raw mean values.
Study 1 design
WAKIX Resulted in Significantly Fewer Cataplexy Attacks Versus Placebo in Adult Patients With Narcolepsy
Explore WAKIX efficacy data in cataplexy from clinical studies in adult patients with narcolepsy type 1
(Post Hoc Analysis)Severe Cataplexy
WAKIX resulted in significantly fewer weekly cataplexy attacks versus placebo in
- WAKIX resulted in approximately half the number of mean weekly cataplexy attacks during the 4-week stable dosing period compared with placebo*
- WAKIX reduced the number of weekly cataplexy attacks
Patient population
- All patients had ≥3 cataplexy attacks per week at baseline
- 65% of all WAKIX-treated patients reached a stable dosage of 35.6 mg once daily
CI, confidence interval.
*Primary endpoint: Final mean weekly rate of cataplexy over the 4-week stable dosing period compared with placebo (adjusted for baseline differences).1 Rate ratio 0.51 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.60); results were statistically significant.1
†Statistical comparison of geometric mean values was not conducted.
Study 3 design