What is the difference between Amlodipine and Normodipine and which one is better?

Prohibited during pregnancy

Prohibited during breastfeeding

Prohibited for children

Has restrictions for older people

Has limitations for liver problems

Allowed for kidney problems

Pathologies of the cardiovascular system are among the most dangerous. They may not show any symptoms for a long time. Gradually the situation worsens, leading to a sharp deterioration in health. Pathologies of the heart and blood vessels require timely and effective treatment.

To combat high blood pressure and heart palpitations, cardiologists equally often recommend taking Normodipine and Amlodipine, so it is worth considering what the difference is between these medications (MPs) and which one is more effective.

Comparison of the effectiveness of Amlodipine and Normodipine

The effectiveness of Amlodipine is quite similar to Normodipine - this means that the ability of the drug substance to provide the maximum possible effect is similar.
For example, if the therapeutic effect of Amlodipine is more pronounced, then using Normodipine even in large doses will not achieve this effect.

Also, the speed of therapy - an indicator of the speed of therapeutic action - is approximately the same for Amlodipine and Normodipine. And bioavailability, that is, the amount of a drug reaching its site of action in the body, is similar. The higher the bioavailability, the less it will be lost during absorption and use by the body.

Comparison of the safety of Amlodipine and Normodipine

The safety of a drug includes many factors.

At the same time, with Amlodipine it is quite similar to Normodipine. It is important where the drug is metabolized: drugs are excreted from the body either unchanged or in the form of products of their biochemical transformations. Metabolism occurs spontaneously, but most often involves major organs such as the liver, kidneys, lungs, skin, brain and others. When assessing the metabolism of Amlodipine, as well as Normodipine, we look at which organ is the metabolizing organ and how critical the effect on it is.

The risk-benefit ratio is when the prescription of a drug is undesirable, but justified under certain conditions and circumstances, with the obligatory observance of caution in use. At the same time, Amlodipine does not have any risks when used, just like Normodipine.

Also, when calculating safety, it is taken into account whether only allergic reactions occur or possible dysfunction of the main organs. In other matters, as well as the reversibility of the consequences of using Amlodipine and Normodipine.

Amlodipine: leader of medical recommendations in the treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases

AKs are a large group of drugs, the main property of which is the ability to reversibly inhibit the flow of calcium through slow calcium channels. These drugs have been used in cardiology since the late 70s of the last century and have now gained such wide popularity that in most developed countries they occupy one of the first places in terms of frequency of prescription among drugs used to treat CVD. This is due, on the one hand, to the high clinical effectiveness of calcium antagonists, on the other hand, to the relatively small number of contraindications to their use and the relatively small number of side effects they cause. Among AKs, amlodipine (Amlotop, Makiz-Pharma CJSC) occupies a special place. Amlotop is the leader in prescription by both cardiologists and therapists in the entire C08C group (selective blockers of “slow” calcium channels), according to the analytical company Comcon Pharma, Medi-Q, (2010). Amlotop has the most long-lasting effect (both antihypertensive and anti-ischemic) and has been successfully studied in many clinical studies. Amlodipine was introduced into clinical practice in 1992 for the treatment of arterial hypertension and coronary heart disease. By selectively blocking the flow of calcium ions through slow channels of vascular smooth muscle cells, amlodipine reduces vascular peripheral resistance without affecting cardiac contractility. The decrease in blood pressure is not accompanied by reflex tachycardia due to the slow development of the hypotensive effect, and there is no increase in the release of catecholamines. Amlodipine does not affect sinus node conduction and intracardiac conduction. Experimental and clinical data have been obtained on its beneficial effect on platelet aggregation and the ability to slow down the rate of development of atherosclerosis. The peculiarities of the action of amlodipine are determined by its pharmacokinetic parameters. It is quickly and completely absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and is significantly bound to protein (95–98%). The maximum concentration of the drug in the blood is observed after 6–12 hours, the half-life is 35–50 hours, while a constant concentration in the blood is achieved on the 7–8th day of administration. The drug is well tolerated, causing few side effects. Used in combination with other antianginal and antihypertensive drugs [1–4]. Classification of calcium antagonists Based on their chemical structure, they are distinguished: dihydropyridine calcium antagonists (nifedipine, amlodipine, nicardipine, felodipine, lacidipine, etc.), benzothiazepine derivatives (diltiazem) and phenylalkylamines (verapamil) (Tables 1 and 2). The use of amlodipine in arterial hypertension Currently, AKs are one of the main classes of drugs used to treat hypertension. The decrease in blood pressure under the influence of Amlotop (amlodipine) occurs due to peripheral vasodilation, which is the result of blocking slow calcium channels and a decrease in the level of intracellular calcium in vascular smooth muscle cells. According to comparative studies (ALLHAT, TOMHS, VALUE), amlodipine demonstrated an antihypertensive effect equal to the antihypertensive activity of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II antagonists, diuretics and β-blockers. Amlotop has a pronounced hypotensive effect on both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. However, the degree of blood pressure reduction varies, according to different authors. Thus, in a study by Horwitz LD et al. [2] when using 5–10 mg of amlodipine for 10 weeks, the decrease in systolic pressure was 13.1 mm Hg, diastolic pressure was 12.2 mm Hg, and in the study by Habeler G. et al. [5] when using the same dose of amlodipine for 27 months, systolic blood pressure decreased by 30.5 mm Hg, and the decrease in diastolic blood pressure was 20.7 mm Hg. (Table 3). Amlotop has a long-term hypotensive effect due to its long half-life (35–50 hours), which allows it to control blood pressure evenly throughout the day. This leads to a relatively greater effectiveness of the drug in controlling the early morning rise in blood pressure, regardless of the time of administration (morning or evening once a day) [3–6]. In a study by Leenen FH et al. during a break in treatment, blood pressure remained within normal limits even on the second day after discontinuation of the drug. The maximum hypotensive effect during therapy with 5 mg of Amlotop occurs only in the 6th week of drug use, which makes early dose increases inappropriate in case of incomplete control of blood pressure levels. The drug has a dose-dependent effect on blood pressure levels and is characterized by a linear dose-concentration relationship in blood plasma. Thus, in a study on healthy volunteers, diastolic blood pressure decreased when measured while standing by 1.1; 4.8 and 8.0 mm Hg, when using 2.5, 5 and 10 mg of amlodipine, respectively [10–12]. Amlotop, in doses usually used to treat hypertension, has a very beneficial effect on renal function. The use of Amlotop in renal failure is therefore not contraindicated. With the development of the hypotensive effect of Amlotop, there is no change in the heart rate, which sets the drug apart from other representatives of the dihydropyridine series [29]. The use of amlodipine for coronary heart disease The antianginal effect of Amlotop is determined by the coronary-lytic effect of the drug, which is maximum in patients with a pronounced spastic component of coronary obstruction. An additional beneficial protective effect of Amlotop on the state of the myocardium during an ischemic episode is considered to be its ability to reduce calcium overload of cells, which is the cause of myocardial damage [2,7,22]. Amlotop is widely used for the treatment of stable angina, significantly reducing the frequency, duration and severity of ischemic episodes. An advantageous difference between amlodipine and earlier calcium antagonists is its lack of influence on heart rate, an increase in which during physical activity is one of the triggers of ischemia [2,9,24]. The CAPE study [8,18] assessed the effect of amlodipine on the duration and frequency of myocardial ischemic episodes in patients with coronary artery disease. During the control 48-hour ECG monitoring, a decrease in the number of ischemic episodes was observed. When assessing the possible proarrhythmogenic effect of the drug in patients with stable angina, when amlodipine was added to traditional therapy with β-blockers and nitrates, no increase in episodes of arrhythmia was observed. The effect of amlodipine therapy on the prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease was assessed in the PREVENT study. There was a decrease in the number of hospitalizations due to destabilization of angina pectoris and chronic heart failure (61 in the amlodipine group and 88 in the placebo group). Also, with the use of amlodipine, a decrease in the number of myocardial revascularization operations was observed (53 compared with 85 in the placebo group), regardless of the use of b-blockers, nitrates or lipid-lowering therapy. The frequency of anginal attacks decreased from 85 to 60 [2,23]. A comparative assessment of the effect on cardiovascular mortality of the angiotensin receptor antagonist valsartan and the calcium antagonist amlodipine is carried out in the VALUE study. 14,400 patients with arterial hypertension and additional risk factors (hypercholesteremia >6.5 mmol/l, serum creatinine >1.2 mg/dl, ECG signs of left ventricular hypertrophy, type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease or stroke in history) were randomized. In the amlodipine group, blood pressure control was better throughout the observation period. The incidence of the study's main composite outcome did not differ between the two treatment groups. The incidence of heart failure and stroke, the level of overall mortality in the groups also did not differ significantly. However, the relative risk of myocardial infarction was 19% lower (p=0.02) in the amlodipine group. In the ALLHAT study, one of the directions was a comparative assessment of the effect of amlodipine on the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and coronary death, comparing four classes of antihypertensive drugs: diuretics, calcium antagonists, a-blockers and ACE inhibitors in relation to the reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients hypertension with hypercholesterolemia [2]. The ALLHAT results justify an increased role for amlodipine in the treatment of patients with hypertension and a high risk of cardiovascular complications. In patients with hypertension who received the AC amlodipine or the diuretic chlorthalidone, regardless of gender, age, race, or the presence of diabetes mellitus, there were no differences in the incidence of primary outcomes (cases of fatal ischemic heart disease and nonfatal myocardial infarction) and in the incidence of each of secondary outcomes (overall mortality, fatal and non-fatal strokes, coronary artery disease in general and cardiovascular complications in general). In addition, when analyzing components of secondary outcomes, there were no differences between the amlodipine and chlorthalidone groups in the incidence of angina pectoris, peripheral artery disease, and coronary revascularization. In the double-blind, randomized study CAMELOT 1991, patients with coronary artery disease with angiographically confirmed stenoses in the coronary arteries and diastolic pressure below 100 mm Hg. Amlodipine was prescribed at a dose of 10 mg/day, enalapril 20 mg/day, or placebo. Over 2 years of observation, a significant decrease in blood pressure was noted in both groups of antihypertensive therapy (amlodipine by 4.8/2.5 mm Hg, enalapril by 4.9/2.4 mm Hg). Cardiovascular complications were reported in 23.1% of cases in the placebo group, in 16.6% of cases in the amlodipine group and in 20.2% of cases in the enalapril group. In the amlodipine group, the risk of cardiovascular complications (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, the need for hospitalization due to angina pectoris, fatal or nonfatal stroke, peripheral arterial disease) decreased by 31% (p = 0.003), and in the amlodipine group enalapril - by 15%, but these differences were not statistically significant. The PREVENT study revealed a decrease in the number of hospitalizations due to worsening angina pectoris and chronic heart failure (61 in the amlodipine group and 88 in the placebo group), a decrease in the number of myocardial revascularization operations (53 in the amlodipine group and 85 in the placebo group), and a decrease in the frequency of anginal attacks (in the amlodipine group from 85 to 60) regardless of the use of β-blockers, nitrates or lipid-lowering drugs [23]. The results of the double-blind, placebo-controlled CAPARES study [2] demonstrated the high effectiveness of amlodipine in the prevention of restenosis after coronary angioplasty (Table 4). Amlotop has the ability to slow down platelet aggregation, which is important for the prevention of exacerbations of coronary artery disease. At the same time, it is of great importance that the aggregation ability of platelets is maximum in the morning, when the number of sudden deaths and myocardial infarctions reaches a peak level. Taking this into account, the use of amlodipine in the combination of arterial hypertension and coronary artery disease is most justified, because the drug helps slow down platelet aggregation within 24 hours (Selwyn et al., 1991). In a meta-analysis, Kloner RA et al. [16] assessed the safety of calcium channel antagonists. Comparative and non-comparative studies of amlodipine and nifedipine GITS were included. It was shown that in patients receiving amlodipine, overall cardiovascular mortality, the incidence of acute myocardial infarction and progression of coronary artery disease were significantly lower than similar indicators for other calcium antagonists. Effect of amlodipine on the autonomic nervous system and plasma renin activity Activation of the sympathetic component of the autonomic nervous system is an undesirable side effect of dihydropyridine calcium antagonists due to their mechanism of action (reflex activation). However, even with prolonged use of Amlotop in concentrations necessary for sustainable normalization of systolic and diastolic pressure, there are practically no changes in the concentration of norepinephrine, adrenaline, renin or atrio-natriuretic factor (ANF) in the blood plasma (Table 5). Thus, a feature of Amlotop’s action is the absence of activation of the sympathetic nervous system and the development of reflex tachycardia [28–29]. A small and unreliable increase in the level of aldosterone in the blood plasma is an effect inherent in other calcium antagonist drugs, but with Amlotop it is observed only in the elderly. Sometimes a small and unreliable increase in glycemia also occurs, blood plasma lipids do not change, and the concentration of total cholesterol and triglycerides decreases (Table 6). Effect of amlodipine on left ventricular myocardial mass In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study TOMHS [1,2], 5 antihypertensive drugs were compared: a diuretic (chlorthalidone), a β-blocker (acebutolol), a calcium channel antagonist (amlodipine), an ACE inhibitor (enalapril maleate) , an α-adrenergic receptor antagonist (doxazosin) and their possible effect on the mass of the left ventricular myocardium. The study was based on a proven connection between an increase in the size of the left ventricle and an increased risk of developing cardiovascular complications. The study was conducted for more than four years on 902 patients with mild hypertension of 1-2 degrees. At the first stage, patients were offered one of 5 antihypertensive drugs (including amlodipine at a dose of 5 mg/day) or placebo, and then at the second stage, if blood pressure control was inadequate, a second drug was added (chlorthalidone in 5 groups of patients and enalapril in the group previously receiving chlorthalidone). All drugs were prescribed once a day in the morning. Follow-up echocardiographic studies were performed at baseline, 3, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months. During the study, a significant decrease in blood pressure levels was observed, and in the acebutolol and amlodipine groups the percentage of changes in therapy was the smallest, i.e. Adequate blood pressure control was observed throughout the entire 4-year observation period at drug doses not exceeding the initial ones. When studying the dynamics of changes in left ventricular myocardial mass, it turned out that the most pronounced decrease was observed in the amlodipine and chlorthalidone groups compared with the acebutolol and placebo groups. During the entire observation, it turned out that amlodipine reduces the mass of the left ventricular myocardium, which may reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular complications in patients with arterial hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (Tables 7, 8). The effect of amlodipine on the progression of vascular atherosclerosis The PREVENT study assessed changes in the degree of atherosclerotic lesions of the coronary arteries and the thickness of the intima-medial layer of the carotid arteries during the administration of amlodipine. The study included 825 patients with coronary artery disease confirmed by coronary angiography [23]. Patients received amlodipine at a dose of 5 mg, which, if well tolerated, was increased to 10 mg. As a result of the study, no significant differences were obtained in both study groups (active treatment and control) in relation to the progression of atherosclerotic stenosis of the coronary vessels. In contrast, amlodipine significantly slowed the progression of atherosclerosis in the carotid arteries, detected by ultrasonography. At the same time, in the amlodipine group, regression of the intima-medial layer was observed by 0.046 mm, and in the control group, thickening by 0.011 mm. Currently, a correlation has been proven between the degree of thickening of the intima-medial layer of the carotid arteries and the incidence of myocardial infarction and cerebral stroke. Also, the PREVENT study showed good tolerability of the drug, which was previously noted by other researchers, with the frequency of adverse reactions comparable to the placebo group (79% for amlodipine and 83% for placebo). Additional prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the amlodipine group was observed half as often as in the placebo group. The CAMELOT study [2] additionally examined the effect of amlodipine and enalapril therapy on the progression of atherosclerosis using intravascular ultrasound in 274 patients. It turned out that in the amlodipine group there was no progression of atherosclerosis, in the enalapril group there was a tendency towards its progression (p=0.08), and in the placebo group there was a significant progression of atherosclerosis (p<0.0001). Moreover, when analyzing participants from the amlodipine group with initially elevated blood pressure, the slowdown in the progression of atherosclerosis was significant (p = 0.02). The use of amlodipine for chronic heart failure in a randomized double -blind placbo -controlled study of Praise I evaluate the influence of the new calcium amlodipine antagonist on patients with chronic heart failure. The study included 1153 patients with chronic heart failure of ischemic and non -ischemic genesis and an emission faction of less than 30%. The results of the study showed a decrease in the total number of cardiovascular complications by 9%, a reduction in the risk of sudden death by 16% in the amlodipine group in comparison with the placebo. The Praise II study evaluated the role of amlodipine in the therapy of chronic heart failure of nonsense (dilatation cardiomyopathy). A decrease in clinical symptoms and level of plasma norepinephrine when using amlodipine in patients with dilatation cardiomyopathy is shown. A number of authors associate this effect of amlodipine with inhibiting hyperproduction NO and a decrease in myocardial damage [2]. The drug interaction of some kind of dose of amlotope is not required when used with thiazide diuretics, β -adrenoisters, and ACE inhibitors. A favorable effect on the level of blood pressure is shown while the assignment of amlotope with A -adreno -blocking. The Schwartz JB study [27] assessed the effect of amlodipin on the pharmacological profile of digoxin in healthy volunteers. A change in the equilibrium concentration of digoxin (Steady - State), as well as blood pressure or heart rate when joint use of drugs, is not shown. The conclusion existing scientific data indicates that amlodipine retains the position of the main drug for the constant treatment of patients with hypertension, coronary heart disease and chronic heart failure. The studies prove the prolonged hypotensive effect of amlodipine, which provides very effective blood pressure control. The antianginal and protective properties in relation to the myocardium determine the beneficial effect of amlodipin on the forecast, the number of hospitalizations and the survival of patients with coronary heart disease and heart failure. Amlodipine reduces the mass of myocardial ventricular myocardium, slows down the progression of atherosclerosis, which reduces the risk of cardiovascular complications in cardiological patients. In addition, amlodipine does not affect the frequency of heart contractions, which levels sharp hemodynamic shifts. In numerous studies, good tolerance of amlodipine was observed, and the percentage of adverse reactions during its use did not significantly exceed a similar indicator in the control group. Such a favorable profile of amlodipine determines its active use in clinical practice. However, a special place in terms of purpose among all calcium antagonists is occupied by Amlotop Makiz -Farma CJSC, which has been the leader of medical recommendations for both cardiologists and therapists for several years in a row. This indicates the high efficiency of amlotope in cardiological patients. In addition, the drug has a minimum number of side effects and is available in price.

Literature 1. Zhelnov V.V. et al. Modern long-acting calcium antagonists in clinical practice. RMJ 2008, volume 16, no. 7 (317), pp. 487–491. 2. Nedogoda S.V. The role of amlodipine in the treatment of coronary heart disease. Consilium medicum 2008, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 100–104. 3. Ajayi AA et al. The efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide in Nigerians with essential hypertension. J Natl Med Assoc 1995 87(7) 485–8. 4. Broadhurst P. et al. Intra-arterial monitoring of the antihypertensive effects of once-daily amlodipine. J Hum Hypertens 1992 6 Suppl 1 9–12. 5. Brown MJ et al. Alpha-blockade and calcium antagonism: an effective and well-tolerated combination for the treatment of resistant hypertension. J Hypertens 1995 13(6) 701–7. 6. Burris JF et al. Double–blind comparison of amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988 12 Suppl 7 98–102. 7. Chahine RA et al. Randomized placebo–controlled trial of amlodipine in vasospastic angina. L Am Coll Cardiol 1993 21(6) 1365–70. 8. Detry JM Amlodipine and the total ischemic burden: Circadian Anti–Ischemia Program in Europe (CAPE) trial – Methodology, safety and tolerance. Cardiology 1994 85 Suppl 2 24–30. 9. Deanfield JE et al. Amlodipine reduces transient myocardial ischemia in patients with coronary artery disease: double–blind Circadian Anti–Ischemia Program in Europe (CAPE Trial). J Am Coll Cardiol 1994 24(6) 1460–7. 10. Frishman WH et al. Amlodipine versus atenolol in essential hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1994 73(3) 50–4. 11. Habeler G. et al. Effectiveness and tolerance of amlodipine in treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Results of long–term study with a new calcium antagonist. Wien Klin Wochenschr 1992 104(1) 16–20. 12. Hayduk K. et al. Is initial dose titration of amlodipine worthwhile in patients with mild to moderate hypertension? Current Med Res Opinion 1999 15(1) 39–45. 13. Horwitz LD et al. Comparison of amlodipine and long-acting diltiazem in the treatment of mild or moderate hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1997 10(11) 1263–9. 14. Ishimitsi T. et al. Amlodipine, a long-acting calcium channel blocker, attenuates morning blood pressure rise in hypertensive patients. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 1999 26(7) 500–4. 15. Khokhani RC et al. Amlodipine in mild and moderate hypertension: initial Indian experiment. J Assoc Physicians India 1993 41(10) 662–3. 16. Kloner RA et al. Safety of long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in hypertensive patients. Am J Cardiol 1998 81(2) 163–9. 17. Lau CP et al. Relative efficacy and tolerability of lacidipine and amlodipine in patients with mild–to–moderate hypertension: a randomized double–blind study. J Cardovasc Pharmacol 1996 28(2) 328. 18. Lichtlen PR, Fisher LD Analysis of arrhythmias in the Circadian Antiischemia Program in Europe (CAPE) study. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1999 33(1) 135–9. 19. Leenen FH et al. Persistence of antihypertensive effect after missed doses of calcium antagonist with long (amlodipine) vs short (diltiazem) elimination half–life. British J Clin Pharmacol 1996 41(2) 83–8. 20. Minami J. et al. Effects of amlodipine and nifedipine retard on autonomic nerve activity in hypertensive patients. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 1998 25(7–8) 572–6. 21. Nold G. et al. Morning versus evening amlodipine treatment: Effect of circadian blood pressure profile in essential hypertensive patients. Blood Press Monit 1998 3(1) 17–25. 22. Petkar S. et al. Amlodipine monotherapy in stable angina pectoris. Indian Heart J 1994 46(2) 85–8. 23. Pitt B. et al. Effect of amlodipine on progression of atherosclerosis and the occurrence of clinical events. PREVENT investigators. Circulation 2000 102(13) 1503–10. 24. Rinaldi CA et al. Randomized, double–blind crossover study to investigate the effects of amlodipine and isosorbide mononitrate on the time course and severity of exercise–induced myocardial stunning. Circulation 1998 98(8) 749–56. 25. Sethi KK et al. Amlodipine monotherapy in mild to moderate hypertension. Indian Heart J 1994 46(1) 17–20. 26. Siche JP et al. Effects of amlodipine on baroreflex and sympathetic nervous system activity in mild–to–moderate hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2001 14(5 Pt 1) 424–8. 27. Schwartz JB Effects of amlodipine on steady-state digoxin concentrations and renal digoxin clearance. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988 12(1) 1–5. 28. Steffensen R. et al. Effects of amlodipine and isosorbide dinitrate on exercise–induced and ambulatory ischemia in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris. Cardiovasc Drug Ther 1997 11(5) 629–35. 29. Susaguri M. et al. Amlodipine lowers blood pressure without increasing sympathetic activity or activating the rennin–angiotensin system in patients with essential hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997 53(3–4) 197–201. 30. Videbaek LM et al. Crossover comparison of the pharmacokinetics of amlodipine and felodipine ER in hypertensive patients. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997 35(11) 514–8.

Comparison of addiction between Amlodipine and Normodipine

Like safety, addiction also involves many factors that must be considered when evaluating a drug.

So, the totality of the values ​​of such parameters as “syndrome o” in Amlodipine is quite similar to the similar values ​​in Normodipine. Withdrawal syndrome is a pathological condition that occurs after the cessation of intake of addictive or dependent substances into the body. And resistance is understood as initial immunity to a drug; in this it differs from addiction, when immunity to a drug develops over a certain period of time. The presence of resistance can only be stated if an attempt has been made to increase the dose of the drug to the maximum possible. At the same time, Amlodipine has a fairly low incidence of “syndrome”, just like Normodipine.

Analogs

If a person does not tolerate the substance amlodipine, he must be prescribed another medication with a similar mechanism of action. Today, the most suitable substitutes are:

1. Cordafen (65 rubles). The tablets are based on nifedipine. It has vasodilating, antianginal and hypotensive properties. Helps lower blood pressure by blocking the entry of calcium into cells. Prescribed for symptoms of arterial hypertension and for the prevention/treatment of angina pectoris.

2. 
   Lacipil (340 rubles). Available in tablet form. One tablet contains 4 mg or 2 mg of the main component - lacidipine. Promotes expansion of peripheral arterioles, normalization of pressure. Used as a separate medicine or component of complex treatment.

3. Felodipine (250 rubles). Manufacturers used felodipine as the main ingredient. As a result of taking the tablets, regression of pancreatic hypertrophy is observed, and renal perfusion improves. Normalizes blood pressure and has anti-ischemic properties.
4. Amlotop (68 rubles). The main component is amlodipine benzilate. The drug has a pronounced hypotensive effect. Relieves pain in the heart area and normalizes blood pressure. Does not have a negative effect on patients diagnosed with chronic heart failure.

Despite the fact that these drugs are identical in mechanism and principle of action, they may differ in the list of auxiliary ingredients and cost. In order not to aggravate the situation, it is necessary to entrust a qualified specialist with the choice of a suitable analogue.

Comparison of side effects of Amlodipine and Normodipine

Side effects or adverse events are any adverse medical event that occurs in a subject after administration of a drug.

Amlodipine has more adverse effects than Normodipine. This implies that the frequency of their occurrence is low with Amlodipine and low with Normodipine. Frequency of occurrence is an indicator of how many cases of an undesirable effect from treatment are possible and registered. The undesirable effect on the body, the strength of influence and the toxic effect of drugs are different: how quickly the body recovers after taking it and whether it recovers at all. When using Amlodipine, the body's ability to recover faster is higher than that of Normodipine.

Side effects

Both medications are quite well tolerated by the body, both as monotherapy and in combination. Depending on the health status of patients, as well as chronic concomitant pathologies, the following adverse reactions of the body to taking these medications are noted:

Comparison of ease of use of Amlodipine and Normodipine

This includes dose selection taking into account various conditions and frequency of doses. At the same time, it is important not to forget about the release form of the drug; it is also important to take it into account when making an assessment.

The ease of use of Amlodipine is approximately the same as Normodipine. However, they are not convenient enough to use.

The drug ratings were compiled by experienced pharmacists who studied international research. The report is generated automatically.

Last update date: 2020-12-04 13:48:15