Drug Database
OL

olmesartan + amlodipine (Sevikar / Normetec / Konverge)

✓ Approved

Merck & Co. · AGTR1 · Small Molecule

What is olmesartan + amlodipine?

olmesartan + amlodipine is a small molecule developed by Merck & Co.. It is approved for therapeutic indications via oral (po).

Drug Profile

Brand NamesSevikar, Normetec, Konverge
CompanyMerck & Co.
Drug ClassSmall Molecule
Molecular TargetAGTR1, CACNA1C
RouteOral (PO)
StatusApproved

Mechanism of Action

Molecular Targets

olmesartan + amlodipine acts on 2 molecular targets:

AGTR1angiotensin II receptor type 1 (HAT1R, AT1)
CACNA1Ccalcium voltage-gated channel subunit alpha1 C (CACNL1A1, CACNA1C-IT2)
Want deeper analysis?Noah AI can explain complex mechanisms and compare to similar drugs.

Therapeutic Indications

olmesartan + amlodipine is developed for 1 unique indication across 1 therapeutic area.

Therapeutic AreaConditionPhase
Vascular disordersHypertension✓ Approved

Related Research Articles

PubMedThe AAPS journal2026-10-13

Physiologically based Biopharmaceutics Modeling (PBBM) Reveals a Low Dissolution-related Bioequivalence Risk for Immediate-Release Amlodipine Tablets.

de la Cruz Cruz Porfirio P, Gomide Larissa Lopes Rodrigues LLR, do Nascimento Gabriela Moraes GM, Urizar José Trinidad Pérez JTP et al.

A conservative BCS class III classification was recently proposed for amlodipine based on inconclusive permeability evidence. However, the scarce in vivo data suggest that amlodipine is slowly, though completely, absorbed. This means that the very rapid dissolution criterion associated with a BCS class III classification may be overly restrictive for immediate-release amlodipine products. The aim of this manuscript was to develop and validate a physiologically based biopharmaceutics model (PBBM) to assess the risk of bioequivalence failure associated with dissolution. Given that amlodipine is a lipophilic weak base, the absorption model incorporated a surrogate representation of intracellular lysosomal trapping through the FuEnt parameter, resulting in an adequate description of oral pharmacokinetics. Dissolution input included in vitro profiles obtained in phosphate buffer pH 6.8 at 50 rpm for different multisource products, fitted to either the Johnson model or the Z-factor approach. Although several products did not meet biowaiver dissolution criteria, virtual bioequivalence simulations conducted with the validated PBBM consistently predicted bioequivalence across tested formulations. Overall, these findings suggest that dissolution differences would have limited impact on the in vivo performance of amlodipine and support a low dissolution-related bioequivalence risk for immediate-release amlodipine tablets.

PubMedJournal of hypertension2026-10-12

Blood pressure and homocysteine-lowering effects of the amlodipine/folic acid combination in patients with hypertension and serum homocysteine concentration ≥10 μmol/l (H-type hypertension): a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial.

Li Jianping J, Zhang Yan Y, Fan Fangfang F, Yi Tieci T et al.

Elevated plasma homocysteine (Hcy ≥10 μmol/l) and hypertension, defined as H-type hypertension, can synergistically increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases, especially for stroke. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of amlodipine-folic acid in lowering both blood pressure (BP) and plasma Hcy, compared with amlodipine alone. Eligible participants (299 males and 241 females) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to 5 mg amlodipine (control, group A), 5 mg amlodipine plus 0.4 mg folic acid (group B), or 5 mg amlodipine plus 0.8 mg folic acid (group C). All participants were followed at 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the efficacy of lowering both BP and Hcy. Among the 540 participants who were randomized, the efficacy of lowering both BP and Hcy was significantly better in groups B and C compared with group A at the end of 4 weeks, and sustained at the end of 8 weeks (group B vs. group A: 31.7% vs. 6.1%, P < 0.001; group C vs. group A: 32.8% vs. 6.1%, P < 0.001). Both groups B and C were more efficacious in lowering Hcy and raising folate levels than amlodipine alone at 8 weeks. There was no significant difference in BP lowering and adverse events among the three treatment groups. In H-type hypertension patients, amlodipine-folic acid (5 mg/0.4 mg or 5 mg/0.8 mg) had a significantly higher efficacy of lowering both BP and plasma Hcy compared with amlodipine alone. The efficacy of BP lowering and safety profile were comparable among the three treatment groups. This trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01848873.

PubMedPLoS medicine2026-10-12

Comparative effectiveness of amlodipine versus nifedipine prescribed at discharge in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: A nationwide 5-year follow-up registry study.

Li Xinya X, Xia Xue X, Gao Meng M, Xu Qin Q et al.

Amlodipine and nifedipine are the most commonly prescribed calcium channel blockers (CCB) for patients suffering from ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of direct comparative evidence on their effectiveness. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of amlodipine and nifedipine in patients with ischemic stroke or TIA. This observational study was based on the Third China National Stroke Registry, which recruited consecutive adult patients with ischemic stroke or TIA from 2015 to 2018. In this study, ischemic stroke or TIA patients were prescribed either amlodipine or nifedipine at discharge. The primary outcome was the distribution of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, which assesses functional outcomes in patients with stroke, at 5 years. The intergroup differences were examined using ordinal logistic regression, yielding odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Patient age, gender, body mass index, systolic blood pressure at admission, and onset date were adjusted. To improve baseline characteristic balance, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. A total of 2,859 eligible patients were included, and there were 1847 patients in the amlodipine group and 1,058 patients in the nifedipine group after IPTW. The amlodipine group demonstrated significantly lower 5-year mRS scores in comparison to the nifedipine group, with an OR of 0.76 (95% CI [0.65, 0.89]; p < 0.001). A total of 956 (51.76%) amlodipine users and 632 (59.74%) nifedipine users achieved a mRS score > 0 at 5 years, with an OR of 0.71 (95% CI [0.61, 0.83]; p < 0.001). The sensitivity analyses yielded consistent results. The main limitations include the inherent observational design, the exclusive reliance on registry data, and relatively high loss-to-follow-up rate at 5 years. This study revealed that amlodipine, compared to nifedipine, may be associated with improved functional recovery in ischemic stroke or TIA patients. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings and refine CCB therapy.

PubMedHigh blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension2026-10-12

Real-World Adherence to Dihydropyridine Calcium-Channel Blockers: A Pharmacoepidemiologic Study.

Capacci Marco M, Rivasi Giulia G, Degli Esposti Luca L, Fumagalli Carlo C et al.

Low medication adherence contributes to uncontrolled cardiovascular (CV) risk. This study investigated 12- and 24-month adherence, all-cause mortality and CV events in subjects receiving originator or generic dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) as recorded in administrative databases from Local Health Units across several Italian regions. We retrospectively analysed databases containing demographics and vital status, drug prescriptions, and hospital discharge diagnoses for more than 6 million individuals. Subjects receiving lercanidipine originator, generic lercanidipine, amlodipine originator, or generic amlodipine were included. Subjects with prior or occasional CCB use, inadequate follow-up time, chronic ischaemic heart disease or acute pulmonary heart disease, or switching between CCBs were excluded. Adherence was defined as a Proportion of Days Covered ≥ 80% at 12 and 24 months. Cox regression models estimated the association between treatments and a composite of all-cause mortality and CV events. Adherence was assessed in 3,860 propensity-score-matched subjects (965/group), selected from 14,849 eligible subjects. Lercanidipine originator was associated with higher (p < 0.001) 12-month (43%) and 24-month (38%) adherence than generic lercanidipine (31 and 26%) and amlodipine originator (22 and 19%). The events analysis included 15,808 subjects. Compared with originator lercanidipine, originator amlodipine, generic lercanidipine and generic amlodipine were associated with 43%, 30% and 33% higher hazards of the composite outcome, respectively (corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals: 1.28-1.60, 1.10-1.55, 1.17-1.50). Medium-term adherence was low across all treatments. Originator lercanidipine was associated with the highest adherence, with lower adjusted hazards of the composite outcome and all-cause mortality compared to the other treatments.

PubMedJournal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia2026-10-11

Angiotensin II in Refractory Shock Secondary to Amlodipine Overdose with Co-Ingestions.

Poindexter Abigail J B AJB, Pluenneke Jack J, Berry Timothy P TP, Douglas Aaron A et al.

PubMedHypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension2026-10-10

Age-stratified efficacy and safety of esaxerenone versus angiotensin II receptor blockers in older patients with hypertension: a predefined subanalysis of the ESCORT-HT study.

Kario Kazuomi K, Ohbayashi Hiroyuki H, Ishii Hajime H, Kato Mitsutoshi M et al.

The ESCORT-HT study recently demonstrated non-inferiority of esaxerenone to angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in lowering morning home systolic blood pressure (SBP) in Japanese patients aged ≥65 years with inadequately controlled hypertension on amlodipine. This predefined subgroup analysis of the ESCORT-HT study analyzed age-related differences in the efficacy and safety of esaxerenone relative to ARBs. In the 65-74-year subgroup, 98 patients were treated with esaxerenone and 94 with an ARB; in the ≥75-year subgroup, 104 were treated with esaxerenone and 106 with an ARB. The least squares mean difference in morning home SBP between the two treatment groups at end of treatment was -1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.8, 1.6) mmHg for the 65-74-year subgroup and -2.2 (95% CI -5.2, 0.9) mmHg for the ≥75-year subgroup. The upper bound of the 95% CI was within the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of <3.8 mmHg. The urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio decreased in all groups at Week 12, regardless of age or treatment, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels decreased in esaxerenone-treated patients, regardless of age. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 34.3% (esaxerenone) and 32.0% (ARB) in patients 65-74 years, and 16.7% and 29.6%, respectively, in patients aged ≥75 years. There were no notable increases in the incidence of hyperkalemia or hypokalemia, relative to ARBs, in any of the age subgroups. This predefined subgroup analysis of the ESCORT-HT study showed antihypertensive effects consistent with the non-inferiority of esaxerenone to ARBs in both age groups, and suggested a potential cardioprotective effect, including for patients aged ≥75 years.

+8032 more articles available with a free account

Sign up free to view all articles →

Ask about olmesartan + amlodipine