Key result
First-line eplerenone causes no excess hyperkalemia or eGFR decline compared with irbesartan in obese hypertension.
Why the study?
Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists are effective antihypertensive agents, but their use as first-line therapy in obese patients with essential hypertension remains limited by concerns regarding hyperkalemia and renal impairment.
Does first-line treatment with eplerenone cause excess renal function decline or hyperkalemia compared with irbesartan in obese patients with essential hypertension?
RCT (n=198)
Open-label
Stratified randomization (according to age, sex, baseline office BP, and eGFR)
Yes
Does first-line treatment with eplerenone cause excess renal function decline or hyperkalemia compared with irbesartan in obese patients with essential hypertension?
First-line antihypertensive treatment with eplerenone in obese patients with hypertension demonstrates a favorable renal safety profile comparable to irbesartan, without increasing the risk of hyperkalemia or renal function decline over 6 months.
Supports exploring eplerenone first-line in obese hypertension; leaves open confirmation in larger trials before practice change.
Background Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are effective antihypertensive agents; however, their use as first-line therapy remains limited due to concerns regarding hyperkalemia and renal impairment. Purpose To compare renal function changes and hyperkalemia incidence between eplerenone- and irbesartan-based first-line treatment strategies in obese patients with essential hypertension. Methods HEBRO (antiHypertensive treatment with Eplerenone vs. iBesartan in hypeRtensive Obese patients) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial enrolling 198 hypertensive patients aged 30–75 years with obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) and hypertension confirmed by both office and ambulatory blood pressure (ABPM) measurements. Patients underwent stratified randomization (according to age, sex, baseline office BP, and eGFR) to eplerenone 25 mg twice daily (n=99) or irbesartan 150 mg once daily (n=99). At 2 and 4 months, stepwise up-titration with amlodipine 5 mg and indapamide 1.5 mg, respectively, was performed if mean ABPM remained >130/80 mmHg. Renal function (eGFR, serum creatinine) and potassium were assessed at baseline and 6 months. Between-group differences in change from baseline were analyzed using appropriate independent-samples tests. Hyperkalemia was defined as serum potassium ≥5.5 mmol/L. Results Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups: 50.5% men, age 55.5 ± 10.1 years, BMI 34.2 ± 3.5 kg/m², mean eGFR 85.7 ± 16.1 mL/min/1.73m², and diabetes prevalence 13.6%. A total of 162 patients were included in this safety analysis. Mean change in serum potassium was 0.02 ± 0.45 mmol/L in the eplerenone arm and 0.01 ± 0.45 mmol/L in the irbesartan arm (p=0.86). Hyperkalemia (≥5.5 mmol/L) was rare and occurred in 1.2% and 1.3% of patients, respectively (p=1.00), with no treatment discontinuations. Median change in serum creatinine was 0.00 mg/dL in both groups (p=0.70). Similarly, median change in eGFR was 0.0 mL/min/1.73m² in both groups (p=0.71). Conclusion In obese hypertensive patients, first-line treatment with eplerenone was not associated with excess renal function decline or clinically significant hyperkalemia compared with irbesartan. These findings support the renal safety of MRA-based first-line therapy in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iliakis et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Essential hypertension with obesity (n=198). Eplerenone vs. Irbesartan 150 mg once daily (with stepwise up-titration using amlodipine 5 mg and indapamide 1.5 mg) was evaluated on Hyperkalemia incidence (serum potassium ≥5.5 mmol/L) and renal function changes at 6 months (p=1.00). First-line eplerenone showed no excess hyperkalemia (1.2% vs 1.3%, p=1.00) or eGFR decline (median change 0.0 vs 0.0 mL/min/1.73m², p=0.71) compared with irbesartan in obese hypertensive patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: