High blood pressure affects about 47% of all adults in the US, increasing the risk of stroke, heart disease, and kidney failure if left untreated.
Despite being a significant health concern, high blood pressure is often overlooked, which leaves many at risk for severe complications. With numerous medications available, selecting the right one can be confusing, especially when comparing amlodipine to other calcium channel blockers, which may have distinct effects on blood pressure and heart function.
This article breaks down the differences between amlodipine and other calcium channel blockers (CCBs), including their effects on blood pressure, cardiovascular protection, and safety profile. Knowing the different calcium channel blockers and how they work can help you feel more reassured about your treatment choices, no matter what heart-related condition you’re dealing with.
| 🔑 Key Takeaways ➤ Amlodipine provides consistent, long-lasting blood pressure control, outperforming first- and second-generation DHPs in 24-hour coverage and patient adherence. ➤ First-generation DHPs offer rapid effects but are limited by poor safety profiles and increased sympathetic activity. ➤ Second- and third-generation DHPs match amlodipine in efficacy but may offer added benefits, such as kidney protection or improved heart rate control. ➤ Fourth-generation DHPs have similar efficacy to amlodipine but show improved tolerability with fewer vasodilation-related side effects. ➤ Non-DHP CCBs are more cardioselective and are preferred in conditions like arrhythmias and coronary vasospasm. ➤ Amlodipine remains a preferred option for long-term use due to its effectiveness, once-daily dosing, and mild side effect profile. ➤ Selecting the right CCB depends on individual needs, including comorbidities like heart failure, kidney disease, or arrhythmia risk. |
What Is Amlodipine?
Amlodipine is a third-generation dihydropyridine (DHP) CCB used alone or with other medications to treat high blood pressure in adults and children aged six and up. It may also be used to treat coronary artery disease and angina.
Like other CCBs, amlodipine regulates calcium movement in the heart and blood vessels.
By relaxing blood vessels, it lowers blood pressure while enhancing blood flow and oxygen delivery to the heart. This action also helps decrease the heart’s workload.
| 🩺 Doctor’s Note Always consult your doctor on the proper dosing of amlodipine. Acute renal failure, refractory shock, and non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema can all result from an amlodipine overdose, which can be challenging to treat. |
Amlodipine and Other Calcium Channel Blockers
There are several generations of DHPs, with amlodipine being part of the third generation.
In the following sections, we will compare amlodipine with other calcium channel blockers as follows:
- First-generation DHPs
- Second-generation DHPs
- Third-generation DHPs
- Fourth-generation DHPs
- Non-DHPs
Amlodipine vs. First-Generation DHPs
The first generation of DHPs includes nicardipine and short-acting nifedipine. Compared to amlodipine, first-generation DHPs have a rapid onset and brief duration of vasodilation.
| Amlodipine | First-Generation DHPs | |
| Drugs | – | Short-acting nifedipine, nicardipine |
| Duration | Long-acting | Short-acting |
| Onset | Slow | Rapid |
Blood Pressure Control
Amlodipine is more effective than first-generation DHPs in blood pressure control.
A 90-day study comparing amlodipine and nicardipine showed that amlodipine was more effective for treating isolated systolic high blood pressure in elderly patients.
Another study found that while amlodipine and short-acting nifedipine effectively lower blood pressure, they show opposite effects on sympathetic activity. While amlodipine reduces heart rate and norepinephrine levels, short-acting nifedipine increases both.
This contrasting impact on sympathetic activation shows that amlodipine may be better suited for long-term blood pressure management, as increased sympathetic activity can lead to adverse cardiovascular outcomes.
Safety Profile
There are limited studies comparing amlodipine and first-generation DHPs in terms of safety profile.
However, research stated that first-generation nifedipine was discontinued in clinical practice due to its adverse safety profile. Its mechanism of action triggers an excessive sympathetic response in patients, which leads to an increased risk of mortality and myocardial ischemia.
Amlodipine vs. Second-Generation DHPs
The second-generation DHPs include nifedipine extended-release (ER) or slow-release (SR), felodipine, benidipine, and efonidipine. This classification of DHPs has a gradual onset and moderate duration of vasodilation.
| Amlodipine | Second-Generation DHPs | |
| Drugs | – | Extended-release nifedipine, felodipine, benidipine, efonidipine |
| Duration | Long-acting | Moderate |
| Onset | Slow | Gradual |
Blood Pressure Control
While amlodipine consistently demonstrates effective blood pressure control, other DHPs such as benidipine and efonidipine offer comparable blood pressure-lowering effects and may provide added benefits in kidney protection and tolerability.
A study comparing amlodipine and nifedipine SR for high blood pressure found that amlodipine, taken once daily, demonstrated significantly better than twice-daily nifedipine SR in the following:
- Patient compliance
- 24-hour blood pressure control
- Fewer adverse events
This implies that amlodipine may be a better-tolerated option, helping patients stick to treatment and maintain steady blood pressure throughout the day.
Another study comparing amlodipine and felodipine ER had the same findings, with amlodipine providing superior blood pressure control, with a higher response rate at 4 weeks and better nighttime blood pressure reduction. By 8 weeks, 82% of amlodipine patients reached the target blood pressure, compared to 69% for felodipine.
A systematic review comparing benidipine and amlodipine in patients with chronic kidney disease found no significant difference in blood pressure reduction. However, benidipine showed greater benefits for kidney health, including improved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and lower urinary albumin/creatinine ratios.
This suggests that while amlodipine is effective, benidipine may offer added kidney protection for patients with hypertension and CKD.
Meanwhile, a randomized trial found that efonidipine was non-inferior to amlodipine in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate, indicating that efonidipine may be a suitable alternative for patients who require effective blood pressure control.
Cardiovascular Protection
While amlodipine and nifedipine SR equally improved ischemia and angina in patients, amlodipine reduced anginal episodes more effectively.
Meanwhile, when comparing amlodipine with felodipine, the latter excelled in long-term effects by prolonging exercise duration and delaying ischemia onset.
Benidipine showed greater cardiovascular effects than amlodipine in a study conducted over 12 months, as it led to larger reductions in inflammation and oxidative stress markers. It also has the potential for mitigating atherosclerosis in hypertensive individuals with mild chronic kidney disease.
In another study involving patients with chronic heart failure and hypertension, efonidipine reduced heart rate and plasma aldosterone levels more effectively than amlodipine. These effects were sustained over 18 months and were associated with a significant decrease in left ventricular mass index.
Given that elevated aldosterone contributes to heart and vessel damage, efonidipine’s suppression of this may provide greater cardiovascular protection in high-risk patients with chronic heart failure.
Overall, amlodipine offers strong anti-anginal benefits, but benidipine and efonidipine may provide broader cardiovascular protection, especially in patients with chronic kidney disease or heart failure.
Safety Profile
While amlodipine generally shows a better safety profile than nifedipine and felodipine, other CCBs such as benidipine and efonidipine may offer improved tolerability, especially regarding side effects like ankle swelling and reflex tachycardia.
In a study comparing amlodipine, nifedipine SR, and a placebo, amlodipine resulted in fewer treatment-related side effects (27% vs. 41% for nifedipine SR) and fewer reports of headache and flushing.
Another study comparing amlodipine and felodipine had a similar conclusion of amlodipine having a more favorable clinical profile, with patients reporting fewer adverse events in amlodipine (2 patients) versus felodipine (9 patients).
In a study comparing benidipine and amlodipine, it was found that benidipine had a lower likelihood of causing ankle edema in patients with hypertension.
Between efonidipine and amlodipine, research concluded that efonidipine is a better alternative due to its more favorable side effect profile and added benefits, as it targets both L-type and T-type calcium channels and has a lower tendency to cause peripheral edema and reflex tachycardia compared to amlodipine.
| 💡 Did You Know? CCBs are also used as therapy for Raynaud’s syndrome (RS), wherein arterioles constrict more tightly than usual in response to exposure to cold environments. While both medications can be used for RS, nifedipine is considered the drug of first choice. |
Amlodipine vs. Third-Generation DHPs
Aside from amlodipine, another third-generation DHP is azelnidipine. Third-generation DHPs have a slow onset and long-acting duration of vasodilation.
| Amlodipine | Third-Generation DHPs | |
| Drugs | Amlodipine | Azelnidipine |
| Duration | Long-acting | Long-acting |
| Onset | Slow | Slow |
Blood Pressure Control
Both azelnidipine and amlodipine effectively reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as demonstrated by a meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
However, azelnidipine may offer additional benefits when used in combination with therapy for high blood pressure. A study comparing azelnidipine and amlodipine, both paired with olmesartan, revealed that azelnidipine led to more significant improvements in:
- Central blood pressure
- Left ventricular mass index
- Left ventricular diastolic function
These findings suggest that azelnidipine may offer superior cardiovascular protection beyond blood pressure reduction alone and has the potential to lower the risk of heart failure and other cardiac complications.
Cardiovascular Protection
A meta-analysis of 11 RCTs highlighted that azelnidipine significantly reduces heart rate compared to amlodipine.
Supporting this, another study comparing the cardiovascular effects of the two drugs found that while both were the same in providing long-lasting hypotensive effects, amlodipine caused reflex tachycardia by increasing sympathetic tone.
Given this, azelnidipine’s ability to avoid reflex tachycardia shows that it is a safer and more favorable choice for patients with cardiovascular diseases, ensuring better heart rate control.
Safety Profile
Azelnidipine has a better safety profile due to its reduced incidence of adverse effects.
Amlodipine has drawbacks like reflex tachycardia and pedal edema. Azelnidipine addresses these issues effectively, lowering blood pressure without causing these drawbacks, and offers additional cardio- and renoprotective benefits.
Amlodipine vs. Fourth-Generation DHPs
Fourth-generation DHPs include cilnidipine, lercanidipine, and lacidipine. Like amlodipine, these DHPs have a slow onset and long-acting duration.
| Amlodipine | Fourth-Generation DHPs | |
| Drugs | – | Lacidipine, lercanidipine, cilnidipine |
| Duration | Long-acting | Long-acting |
| Onset | Slow | Slow |
Blood Pressure Control
All fourth-generation DHPs are as effective as amlodipine in blood pressure control.
A study found that lacidipine works as well as amlodipine in lowering blood pressure in patients with mild-to-moderate high blood pressure. After 14 weeks, both groups saw a significant drop in the following measures, with no major difference between them:
- Systolic blood pressure
- Diastolic blood pressure
- Edema regression times
This implies that lacidipine can be a good alternative to amlodipine, particularly for patients who need effective blood pressure control, especially those concerned about the management of edema (or swelling).
Another study found no statistical difference between lercanidipine and amlodipine in blood pressure reduction or normalization rates. Both medications significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure, including:
- Clinical blood pressure
- 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure
- Daytime blood pressure
- Nighttime blood pressure
This shows that either option can be used for steady, all-day blood pressure control, depending on what works best for the patient.
Amlodipine and cilnidipine were also equally effective in reducing blood pressure in a study involving individuals with mild to moderate high blood pressure.
Cardiovascular Protection
Cilnidipine may offer better cardiovascular protection in conditions associated with sympathetic overactivity, as evidenced by a study. While both amlodipine and cilnidipine effectively lowered blood pressure, cilnidipine had stronger suppression of cardiac sympathetic overactivity in patients with high blood pressure.
Meanwhile, there are no significant differences in the effectiveness of lacidipine, lercanidipine, and amlodipine in cardiovascular protection.
Both lacidipine and amlodipine significantly improved arterial stiffness in patients with mild-to-moderate high blood pressure, as evidenced by a randomized, double-blind trial.
A retrospective study comparing lercanidipine and amlodipine also did not find any statistically significant differences in preventing major cardiovascular events (MACE).
Safety Profile
Fourth-generation DHPs have a more tolerable safety profile than amlodipine.
A study on 326 patients with high blood pressure concluded that cilnidipine has a better safety profile, as amlodipine had a higher incidence of adverse drug reactions such as ankle edema, palpitations, and weight gain.
Lercanidipine was also found to have lower vasodilation-related side effects than amlodipine, as found in a prospective, double-blind, parallel-group study with 100 patients.
Another study on patients with mild-to-moderate high blood pressure found that lacidipine caused fewer adverse events, with an incidence rate of 28% compared to 48% in patients treated with amlodipine.
| 📋 Summary of Amlodipine vs. DHP CCBs Based on the findings above: ➤ Blood Pressure Control: Amlodipine shows consistent, long-acting blood pressure control and outperforms first-generation DHPs. Compared to second- to fourth-generation DHPs, amlodipine remains equally effective, with some newer DHPs offering additional benefits such as kidney protection, heart rate control, and lower sympathetic activation. ➤ Cardiovascular Protection: Amlodipine offers strong anti-anginal effects and helps reduce ischemic episodes. However, newer generations of DHPs provide broader cardiovascular benefits. ➤ Safety Profile: While amlodipine has a generally favorable safety profile, especially compared to first-generation DHP CCBs, the newer DHPs tend to be better tolerated. |
Amlodipine vs. Non-DHPs
Compared to DHPs, non-DHP CCBs affect the heart by having a more pronounced effect on the ventricular muscle and conduction system. However, they are less effective in promoting vasodilation.
Based on their chemical composition, non-DHPs are categorized into phenylethylamine and benzodiazepine.
Blood Pressure Control
Verapamil is more effective than amlodipine in blood pressure control and rate-product responses to stress. However, compared with diltiazem, amlodipine causes a more significant decrease in blood pressure.
According to a study, while both amlodipine and diltiazem-SR could provide stable 24-hour blood pressure reduction, amlodipine caused a more significant decrease in systolic blood pressure.
Another study involving 123 patients with high blood pressure had similar findings, with amlodipine leading to more significant reductions versus diltiazem in:
- Sitting and standing systolic pressures
- Standing diastolic pressures
- 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure
Findings from this study suggest that amlodipine may offer more consistent and reliable blood pressure control than diltiazem, making it a strong option for managing hypertension.
Cardiovascular Protection
Non-DHPs are more suited for cardiovascular conditions, and the choice depends on the treated condition. Amlodipine does not have the same cardiac-specific effects as the non-DHP CCBs.
Verapamil has higher cardiac selectivity than the two medications, making it effective for arrhythmia treatment. Meanwhile, diltiazem is highly effective for coronary vasodilation, making it helpful in treating coronary vasospasm.
Safety Profile
Amlodipine and non-DHPs are generally safe, and the choice of medication depends on the specific cardiovascular condition and patient needs.
Amlodipine is generally the safest for long-term use, especially for high blood pressure and angina, with mild side effects like peripheral edema. Verapamil, while effective for arrhythmias, carries higher risks, such as bradycardia and constipation, making it less favorable for some patients.
There were also no statistically significant differences in the adverse reactions experienced by patients in a study comparing amlodipine and diltiazem in 119 patients with stable angina pectoris.
| 📋 Summary of Amlodipine vs. Non-DHP CCBs Based on the findings above: ➤ Blood Pressure Control: Amlodipine significantly reduces systolic blood pressure compared to diltiazem, while verapamil is superior to amlodipine in overall blood pressure control and stress-related rate-product responses. ➤ Cardiovascular Protection: Non-DHPs are better suited for cardiovascular conditions, with verapamil being effective for arrhythmias due to its cardiac selectivity and diltiazem excelling in coronary vasodilation for treating coronary vasospasm. ➤ Safety Profile: Amlodipine and non-DHPs are generally safe, with amlodipine preferred for long-term use due to mild side effects. |
Wrap Up
Amlodipine remains a reliable choice for high blood pressure and cardiovascular conditions, offering long-acting blood pressure control with a favorable safety profile.
However, newer calcium channel blockers like azelnidipine and cilnidipine may provide additional benefits, such as improved heart rate regulation and fewer side effects. While amlodipine is effective across various patient groups, those experiencing issues like reflex tachycardia or edema may benefit from alternative options.
Consulting a healthcare provider is crucial for selecting the most suitable medication based on individual needs. Understanding the differences between amlodipine and other CCBs allows for more informed treatment decisions and ensures better cardiovascular outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who should not take amlodipine?
Individuals who are not suitable to take amlodipine include those with an allergic reaction to amlodipine or any medication, kidney or liver disease, those with heart failure, or those who recently experienced a heart attack.
Can I stop taking calcium channel blockers if my blood pressure is normal?
You should not stop taking calcium channel blockers unless your doctor advises. Stopping medication intake can raise your blood pressure and cause angina.
What are natural alternatives to calcium-channel blockers?
Magnesium is a natural alternative to calcium-channel blockers as it helps block calcium movement in the body. Foods rich in magnesium, such as spinach, almonds, black beans, and bananas, may support blood pressure regulation.
Sources
- Achilli, F., Buono, G., Di Fraia, S., Dolara, A., Raffo, M., Montereggi, A., Ravera, E., & Valagussa, F. (1996). Acute and chronic effects of felodipine extended release and amlodipine in patients with exertional angina: A double-masked, clinical comparison. Current Therapeutic Research, 57(7), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-393X(96)80062-2
- Adake, P., Somashekar, H. S., Mohammed Rafeeq, P. K., Umar, D., Basheer, B., & Baroudi, K. (2015). Comparison of amlodipine with cilnidipine on antihypertensive efficacy and incidence of pedal edema in mild to moderate hypertensive individuals: A prospective study. Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research, 6(2), 81–85. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-4040.154543
- Babu, K. H., Anitha, K., & Nallagonda, G. (2024). Amlodipine versus benidipine for essential hypertension – A comparison of therapeutic efficacy and safety. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, 16(5), 1419–1423. Retrieved from https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/16/IJPCR,Vol16,Issue5,Article238.pdf
- Cao, T. S., Huynh, V. M., & Tran, V. H. (2015). Effects of lercanidipine versus amlodipine in hypertensive patients with cerebral ischemic stroke. Current medical research and opinion, 31(1), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2014.964855
- Circo, A., Scaccianoce, G., Platania, F., Castelli, D., Cardillo, R., & Mangiameli, S. (1992). Amlodipine versus nifedipine retard in the treatment of chronic ischemic heart disease. La Clinica terapeutica, 140(1), 43–57. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1388115/
- Comparison of sustained-release nifedipine and temperature biofeedback for treatment of primary Raynaud phenomenon. Results from a randomized clinical trial with 1-year follow-up. (2000). Archives of internal medicine, 160(8), 1101–1108. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.160.8.1101
- Dewan, B., & Wani, V. (2018). A Comparative Clinical Trial of Efonidipine and Amlodipine in Management of Stage-I Hypertension: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study in Indian Population. Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, 25(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.9734/JAMMR/2018/38509
- Garg, R. (2024). A Review of Efonidipine vs Amlodipine for Hypertension Management: Evaluating Efficacy, Safety and Additional Therapeutic Benefits. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 13(7), 786-788. https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR24714113108 https://www.doi.org/10.21275/SR24714113108
- Glasser, S. P., Neutel, J. M., Gana, T. J., & Albert, K. S. (2003). Efficacy and safety of a once daily graded-release diltiazem formulation in essential hypertension. American journal of hypertension, 16(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-7061(02)03153-9
- Hamada, T., Watanabe, M., Kaneda, T., Ohtahara, A., Kinugawa, T., Hisatome, I., Fujimoto, Y., Yoshida, A., & Shigemasa, C. (1998). Evaluation of changes in sympathetic nerve activity and heart rate in essential hypertensive patients induced by amlodipine and nifedipine. Journal of hypertension, 16(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004872-199816010-00016
- Horwitz, L. D., Weinberger, H. D., & Clegg, L. (1997). Comparison of amlodipine and long-acting diltiazem in the treatment of mild or moderate hypertension. American journal of hypertension, 10(11), 1263–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-7061(97)00264-1
- Hosie, J., Bremner, A. D., Fell, P. J., James, G. V., Saul, P. A., & Taylor, S. H. (1993). Side effects of dihydropyridine therapy: comparison of amlodipine and nifedipine retard. Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology, 22 Suppl A, S9–S12. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7522287/
- Joo, H. J., Oh, S., Hong, S. J., Yu, C. W., Kim, Y. H., & Kim, E. J. (2024). Comparative efficacy of amlodipine and lercanidipine in the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients. Journal of Hypertension, 42(Suppl 1), e258. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjh.0001022148.28547.f7
- Lee, E. M. (2023). Calcium channel blockers for hypertension: old, but still useful. Cardiovascular Prevention and Pharmacotherapy, 5(4), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.36011/cpp.2023.5.e16
- Lefrandt, J. D., Heitmann, J., Sevre, K., Castellano, M., Hausberg, M., Fallon, M., Urbigkeit, A., Rostrup, M., Agabiti-Rosei, E., Rahn, K. H., Murphy, M., Zannad, F., de Kam, P. J., & Smit, A. J. (2001). Contrasting effects of verapamil and amlodipine on cardiovascular stress responses in hypertension. British journal of clinical pharmacology, 52(6), 687–692. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0306-5251.2001.01507.x
- Mounier-Vehier, C., Bernaud, C., Carré, A., Lequeuche, B., Hotton, J. M., & Charpentier, J. C. (1998). Compliance and antihypertensive efficacy of amlodipine compared with nifedipine slow-release. American journal of hypertension, 11(4 Pt 1), 478–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-7061(97)00485-8
- Lombardo, D., & Raimondi, F. (1994). Efficacy and safety evaluation of lacidipine compared with amlodipine in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients. Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology, 23 Suppl 5, S98–S100. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005344-199423005-00021
- Na, J. O., Seo, H. S., Choi, C. U., Lim, H. E., Kim, J. W., Kim, E. J., Han, S. W., Rha, S. W., Park, C. G., Oh, D. J., & ELDER investigators (2013). Results of a 14-Week, Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label, Noninferiority Clinical Trial Comparing the Antihypertensive Effect and Edema Incidence of Lacidipine and Amlodipine in Older Korean Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension. Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental, 74, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.curtheres.2013.02.001
- Ostergren, J., Isaksson, H., Brodin, U., Schwan, A., & Ohman, K. P. (1998). Effect of amlodipine versus felodipine extended release on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in hypertension. American journal of hypertension, 11(6 Pt 1), 690–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-7061(98)00032-6
- Pal, D., Maji, S., & Maiti, R. (2023). Efficacy and Safety of Azelnidipine as an Antihypertensive Compared to Amlodipine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension, 30(5), 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40292-023-00601-5
- Pehrsson, S. K., Tolagen, K., & Ulvenstam, G. (1996). Efficacy and safety of Amlodipine compared with Diltiazem in patients with stable angina pectoris. Clinical Drug Investigation, 11(6), 313–319. https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-199611060-00001
- Ram C. V. S. (2022). Therapeutic Usefulness of a Novel Calcium Channel Blocker Azelnidipine in the Treatment of Hypertension: A Narrative Review. Cardiology and therapy, 11(4), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40119-022-00276-4
- Raparti, G. T., Choure, B. K., Patil, P. T., & Patne, S. S. (2017). A randomized comparison between lercanidipine and amlodipine for efficacy and tolerability in patients with essential hypertension. International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology, 5(4), 1181–1186. https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20162233
- Sakata, K., Shirotani, M., Yoshida, H., Nawada, R., Obayashi, K., Togi, K., & Miho, N. (1999). Effects of amlodipine and cilnidipine on cardiac sympathetic nervous system and neurohormonal status in essential hypertension. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979), 33(6), 1447–1452. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.hyp.33.6.1447
- Sofy, A. A., Abdelsattar, A. T., Mohammed, O. M., Shareef, M. A., Alamodi, A. A., Nso, N., Payton, M., & Masoud, A. T. (2020). Amlodipine Compared with Benidipine in the Management of Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension, 27(6), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40292-020-00412-y
- Takami, T., & Saito, Y. (2013). Azelnidipine plus olmesartan versus amlodipine plus olmesartan on arterial stiffness and cardiac function in hypertensive patients: a randomized trial. Drug design, development and therapy, 7, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S42338
- Tsutamoto, T., Tanaka, T., Nishiyama, K., Yamaji, M., Kawahara, C., Fujii, M., Yamamoto, T., & Horie, M. (2009). Long-term effect of efonidipine therapy on plasma aldosterone and left ventricular mass index in patients with essential hypertension. Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension, 32(8), 670–674. https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2009.78
- van der Krogt, J. P., Brand, R., Dawson, E. C., & AMFORTAS Study Group. (1996). Amlodipine versus extended-release felodipine in general practice: A randomized, parallel-group study in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Current Therapeutic Research, 57(3), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-393X(96)80120-2
- Wang, Y., Li, Y., Huo, Y., & Wang, J. G. (2021). Treatment effect of lacidipine and amlodipine on clinic and ambulatory blood pressure and arterial stiffness in a randomised double-blind trial. Blood pressure, 30(2), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/08037051.2020.1840915