Assessment of once-daily eprosartan, an angiotensin II antagonist, in patients with systemic hypertension. Eprosartan Study Group.

A multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of once-daily eprosartan, a nonbiphenyl, nontetrazole angiotensin II-receptor antagonist, in 243 patients with mild-to-moderate systemic hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [SitDBP], 95-114 mm Hg). After a 3-to 5-week single-masked placebo run-in period to obtain baseline values, patients were randomly allocated to receive 600 mg eprosartan once daily or placebo for 8 weeks. All clinic blood pressure measurements were made 24 hours +/-90 minutes after dosing. Eprosartan produced statistically and clinically significant reductions in SitDBP(-7.5+/-0.8 mm Hg) and sitting systolic blood pressure (SitSBP) (-6.0+/-1.3 mm Hg) compared with placebo (SitDBP -1.9+/-0.7 mm Hg; SitSBP 0.8+/-1.2 mm Hg). The 95% confidence intervals for the difference from placebo were -8.1 to 4.1 for SitDBP and -11.0 to -4.0 for SitSBP (both, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients responding (SitDBP was <90 mm Hg or had decreased by > or =10 mm Hg from baseline at study end point) to eprosartan was significantly higher than the proportion of those responding to placebo (42% vs. 21%, respectively; P = 0.0003). Similar results were obtained in a subgroup analysis comparing patients aged <65 years with those aged > or =65 years. The total number of adverse events was similar in the eprosartan and placebo groups. Eprosartan 600 mg once daily was both well tolerated and effective, providing significant blood pressure reduction 24 hours after dosing in patients with mild-to-moderate systemic hypertension, regardless of age.

Rapid healing of venous ulcers and lack of clinical rejection with an allogeneic cultured human skin equivalent. Human Skin Equivalent Investigators Group.

OBJECTIVE: To test the safety, efficacy, and immunological impact of a cultured allogeneic human skin equivalent (HSE) in the treatment of venous ulcers. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Multicenter study in the outpatient setting. INTERVENTION: Each patient with a venous ulcer received either compression therapy alone or compression therapy and treatment with HSE. The patients were evaluated for HSE safety, complete (100%) ulcer healing, time to wound closure, wound recurrence, and immune response to the HSE. OUTCOME: The study was completed as planned in 293 randomized patients. RESULTS: Treatment with HSE was more effective than compression therapy in the percentage of patients healed by 6 months (63% vs 49%; P=.02, Fisher exact test, 2-tailed) and the median time to complete wound closure (61 days vs 181 days; P=.003, log-rank test). Treatment with HSE was superior to compression therapy in healing larger (> 1000 mm2; P=.02) and deeper ulcers (P=.003) and ulcers of more than 6 months' duration (P=.001). Occurrence of adverse events was similar in both groups. No symptoms or signs of rejection occurred in response to treatment with HSE, and no HSE-specific immune responses were detected in vitro to bovine collagen or to alloantigens expressed on keratinocytes or fibroblasts. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with HSE healed venous ulcers more rapidly and in more patients than compression therapy alone. There was no clinical or laboratory evidence of rejection or sensitization in response to HSE application. These data suggest that HSE represents a significant advance in the treatment of venous ulcers, particularly those that are difficult to heal.