Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. Efficacy and safety of escitalopram versus citalopram in major depressive disorder: a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose study. A randomized, double-blind, 24-week study of escitalopram (10 mg/day) versus citalopram (20 mg/day) in primary care patients with major depressive disorder. Efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram versus citalopram in major depressive disorder: a 6-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in adult outpatients. Prospective, multicentre, randomized, double-blind study of the efficacy of escitalopram versus citalopram in outpatient treatment of major depressive disorder. Faster onset of antidepressant effects of citalopram compared with sertraline in drug-naïve first-episode major depressive disorder in a Chinese population: a 6-week double-blind, randomized comparative study. Placebo-controlled comparison of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and sertraline. Efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine compared with citalopram: a double-blind study in patients with major depressive disorder. Effectiveness and acceptability of sertraline and citalopram in major depressive disorder: pragmatic randomized open-label comparison.
The enhanced sensitivity of the elderly to the side effects produced by tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and the frequency and type of adverse events, have made the treatment of depression in this group difficult. The selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been reported to produce significantly fewer undesirable side effects and display better tolerance than TCAs. We compared the therapeutic actions and side effects produced by citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, with amitriptyline in a group of elderly patients (aged 65 and older) diagnosed with major depression. In a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter comparison of citalopram (20 or 40 mg/day) and amitriptyline (50 or 100 mg/day), patients who did not respond to placebo during a 1-week single-blind phase were randomly assigned to receive citalopram or amitriptyline for 8 weeks. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), and Clinical Global Impressions. Both drug treatments produced equivalent time-related declines in severity of depression, so that by 8 weeks slightly more than 50% of the patients in each group experienced marked recovery, defined as MADRS scores < or = 12. Amitriptyline produced a greater overall incidence of adverse events, including a significantly higher (P < 0.001) percentage of patients reporting dry mouth (34% vs. 7%), as well as a significantly higher (P < 0.02) incidence of somnolence. Constipation and fatigue also occurred more frequently in the amitriptyline than in the citalopram group. For only one event (nausea) did the citalopram group report a significantly greater (P = 0.012) incidence (12.8% vs. 4.8%). On the basis of these results, it was concluded that citalopram is as effective an antidepressant as amitriptyline in the treatment of the depressed elderly. Because of its low incidence and low magnitude of side effects, citalopram seems especially useful in private practice. S-citalopram (escitalopram) is the very active moiety of citalopram. It has been shown in many studies to be an effective and safe antidepressant for treating major depressive disorder (MDD).
                The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of escitalopram vs citalopram in Chinese MDD patients.
                In the double-blind study, 240 MDD patients were randomly assigned to treatment for 6 weeks either with escitalopram (10-20 mg/d) or citalopram (20-40 mg/d). The primary efficacy measurement was the change of 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score from baseline to the end of study. The secondary efficacy measurements were response and remission rates. The adverse events (AEs) were recorded by the investigator.
                Two hundred and three (85%) patients completed the trial. The average dose was 13.9 mg/d in the escitalopram group and 27.6 mg/d in the citalopram group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in the change in HAMD-17 total score, response, and remission rate. These results were similar in severe MDD patients. No significant differences were found between the two groups in AEs. No serious AEs were observed in this study.
                The study suggests that escitalopram 10-20 mg/d are as effective and safe as citalopram 20-40 mg/d in the short-term treatment for Chinese MDD patients. A randomized, double-blind, 24-week-fixed-dose study comparing the efficacy and safety of escitalopram to that of citalopram was safety was conducted in primary care patients with moderate to severe major depressive disorder (MDD).
                This was a randomized, double-blind, 24-week fixeddose study. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with escitalopram 10 mg/day (n = 175) or citalopram 20 mg/day (n = 182). Clinical response was evaluated using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale. The prospectively defined primary parameter of antidepressant efficacy was the change from baseline in the mean MADRS total score during the 24 weeks of double-blind treatment, using a repeated measures analysis of variance to compare the treatment groups over all assessment points simultaneously.
                Based on the primary parameter, escitalopram was at least as efficacious as citalopram. Based on the prospectively defined secondary parameter, mean change from baseline in the CGI-S score, escitalopram was statistically significantly superior to citalopram at Week 24. The importance of long-term treatment could be demonstrated, in that more than half (55% and 51%) of the patients who had not responded by Week 8 achieved remission by Week 24. Both escitalopram and citalopram were safe and well tolerated in acute and long-term treatment, and the overall adverse event profiles for the two drugs were similar. For the intent-to-treat population, there were statistically significantly fewer withdrawals in the escitalopram group than in the citalopram group, particularly after Week 8.
                Patients with MDD responded well to long-term treatment with either escitalopram or citalopram. This study demonstrated the importance of extending treatment of depression beyond 8 weeks. The S-enantiomer of citalopram (escitalopram) is the active moiety linked to the anti-depressant effects associated with citalopram (the racemate). For escitalopram to be approved for the treatment of depression in Europe, findings from clinical trials of escitalopram are required to match previous results from studies of the racemate, citalopram.
                The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram and citalopram in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD).
                This prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study was conducted at 8 psychiatric outpatient clinics in the Federation of Russia. Adult outpatients aged 25 to 45 years with MDD and a total score > or =25 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks of treatment with fixed daily doses of escitalopram 10 mg, citalopram 10 mg, or citalopram 20 mg. Efficacy assessments were made at weeks 0 (baseline), 1, 4, and 6 (study end or last observation carried forward). The primary efficacy parameter was the change from baseline in MADRS total score. Secondary measures were the change from baseline in MADRS total score in a subgroup of severely depressed patients (baseline MADRS total score, > or =35), MADRS core depression subscale score, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Improvement (CGI-S and CGI-I) scores; and the proportions of patients classified as responders and remitters at study end. Tolerability was assessed using adverse events (AEs) recorded by the investigator.
                Of 330 assessable randomized patients, 8 withdrew, including 7 who withdrew consent and 1 who withdrew due to recurrence of a preexisting event. Thus, 322 patients were included in the assessment (mean age, 35 years; 41.6% male; all white; escitalopram 10 mg, 108 patients; citalopram 10 mg, 106; citalopram 20 mg, 108). At study end, the mean (SE) change from baseline in MADRS total score was significantly greater in the escitalopram arm than in the 10- and 20-rag citalopram arms (-28.70 [0.78] vs -20.11 [0.80] and -25.19 [0.78]; both, P < 0.001). Improvements were more marked in the severely depressed subgroup (-30.33 [0.95] vs -20.87 [0.99] and -26.34 [0.91]). Changes in the CGI-S and CGI-I scores and the rates of response and remission were significantly greater in the escitalopram group compared with those in the citalopram 10- and 20-mg groups (CGI-S: -2.60 [0.10] vs -1.61 [0.10] and -2.05 [0.10]; CGI-I: +1.58 [0.09] vs +2.35 [0.10] and +1.80 [0.09]; response: 95.4% vs 44.3% and 83.3%; remission: 89.8% vs 25.5% and 50.9% [all, P < 0.001]). Mean (SE) changes from baseline in core depression subscale score were -19.00 (0.59), -13.00 (0.60), and -16.52 (0.58) with escitalopram, citalopram 10 mg, and citalopram 20 mg, respectively. The prevalence of AEs was significantly lower in the escitalopram group (7) compared with the citalopram groups (16 and 19 in the 10- and 20-mg groups, respectively; both, P < 0.05). Nausea (2 [1.9%], 5 [4.7%], and 7 [6.5%] patients in the escitalopram and citalopram 10- and 20-mg groups, respectively) and headache (1 [0.9%], 2 [1.9%], and 4 [3.7%]) were the most frequently reported AEs.
                The results from this study suggest that escitalopram 10 mg was more effective than citalopram 10 and 20 mg at 6 weeks in these adult outpatients with MDD. All treatments were well tolerated.
                Copyright (c) 2007 Excerpta Medica, Inc. Pre-clinical studies, active-control clinical trials and meta-analyses indicate that escitalopram (S-citalopram) might be more effective than citalopram, the racemic mixture of S- and R-citalopram. The present study aimed to confirm the superior efficacy of escitalopram over citalopram. A double-blind, randomized clinical trial was performed in which general practitioners and psychiatrists compared fixed doses of escitalopram (20 mg/day) with citalopram (40 mg/day) over 8 weeks in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) [baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score > or =30]. Primary efficacy parameter was change from baseline to last assessment in the MADRS total score. Out of 138 (aged 44.1+/-10.9 years; initial MADRS score 36.3+/-4.8) and 142 (aged 46.2+/-11.1 years; initial MADRS score 35.7+/-4.4) evaluable patients who were randomized to escitalopram and citalopram, respectively, six and 15 withdrew prematurely (P=0.05). The MADRS score decreased more in the escitalopram than in the citalopram arm (-22.4+/-12.9 versus -20.3+/-12.7; P<0.05). There were more treatment responders with escitalopram (76.1%) than with citalopram (61.3%, P<0.01). Adjusted remitter rates were 56.1% and 43.6%, respectively (P<0.05). Tolerability was similar in both groups. This randomized double-blind trial confirms that escitalopram has a superior effect to citalopram in MDD. Several previous studies, including a meta-analysis, reported no significant differences between various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of major depressive disorder. However, because of the different chemical structure of SSRIs and the difference in the frequency of serotonin transporter polymorphisms between ethnic groups, a head-to-head comparative study between SSRIs in different populations may be enlightening. We compared the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of citalopram and sertraline in a double-blinded randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population of drug-naïve patients with first-episode major depressive disorder. Fifty-one patients were randomly assigned to citalopram or sertraline treatment. The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was used as the primary outcome. Efficacy and adverse effects were analyzed in an intent-to-treat population. Efficacy was analyzed using a last-observation-carried-forward method for early terminators. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics at baseline. No significant differences were found in MADRS scores between citalopram and sertraline at baseline (36.6 ± 5.5 vs 38.2 ± 4.9; P = 0.322) or at the end of treatment (week 6; 10.8 ± 10.0 vs 16.7 ± 11.3; P = 0.082). However, MADRS scores in the citalopram group were significantly lower at week 1 (25.2 ± 8.5 vs 30.4 ± 6.1; P = 0.029) and week 3 (15.9 ± 10.0 vs 22.1 ± 8.7; P = 0.037). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse effects were reported by 14.3% and 28.6% of patients in the citalopram and sertraline groups, respectively. In conclusion, citalopram and sertraline were both efficacious and well tolerated. However, citalopram exhibited a significantly faster onset than sertraline during the early weeks of treatment and tended to have a better efficacy in overall treatment, although the statistic was not significant. Previous comparative studies of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have rarely included a placebo control group and have rarely demonstrated significant between-group differences. The study reported on here was a placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant effects of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline.
                Three hundred twenty-three patients with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder were randomized to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with citalopram (20-60 mg/day), sertraline (50-150 mg/day), or a placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and the primary statistical analysis was an analysis of variance comparing the change from baseline to the last observation carried forward in each treatment group.
                Both citalopram and sertraline produced significantly greater improvement than placebo on the HAMD, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Significant improvement was observed at earlier timepoints in the citalopram group than the sertraline group; however, sertraline treatment was associated with increased gastrointestinal side effects and a tendency toward early discontinuation, and analyses that excluded early dropouts revealed similar acute efficacy for the two active treatments. The Hamilton Anxiety Scale demonstrated a significant anxiolytic effect of citalopram, but not sertraline, relative to placebo.
                This study confirms the antidepressant efficacy of two SSRIs, citalopram and sertraline. It is hypothesized that the more consistent evidence of antidepressant activity that was observed early in treatment in the citalopram group was related to more pronounced antianxiety effects and better tolerability upon initiation of therapy. The objective of this study was to compare efficacy and tolerability of the selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor reboxetine with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram, in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In total, 357 outpatients with MDD were randomized to treatment with reboxetine 8-10 mg or citalopram 20-40 mg per day during 24 weeks. Primary end-point was change from baseline in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D, 21 items). Sexual function/dysfunction was measured by the Sexual Function scale (SF). Observed case analysis showed that both treatments yielded a gradual reduction of HAM-D scores: reboxetine with -21.4 and citalopram with -22.1 points (NS). LOCF analysis showed a greater reduction of the HAM-D scores with citalopram compared with reboxetine (-19.6 vs. -17.8; P = 0.034). The response rate was 90.3% for reboxetine and 92.7% for citalopram (NS). The most common side effect in the reboxetine group was dry mouth, and in the citalopram group sexual dysfunction. At week 24, anorgasmia was reported by 5.9% of the sexually active women in the reboxetine group vs 39% in the citalopram group. The dropout number was 91 in the reboxetine group, and 54 in the citalopram group. To summarize, both treatments gave a satisfactory antidepressant effect. The side effect profile differed between the groups, with a notably high prevalence of sexual dysfunctions in the citalopram group. The high number of dropouts in the reboxetine group, is considered as a result of the non-titration starting dose of 8 mg reboxetine per day, which gave a high incidence of early side-effects. Citalopram and sertraline are widely prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). There is no conclusive evidence to show superiority of citalopram or sertraline in terms of efficacy or tolerability. Hence this study was designed to compare short term efficacy and safety of citalopram and sertraline in major depressive disorder (MDD) in Indian patients.
                In an open, randomized study, 100 patients were divided into two groups. In Group A (n = 50) patients received citalopram (20-60 mg/day) for 6 weeks. In Group B (n = 50) patients received sertraline (50-150 mg/day) for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated at baseline and then at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 weeks.
                There was significant improvement in Hamilton depression rating scale (HDRS), Montgomery and Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) and Amritsar depressive inventory (ADI) scores (p < 0.05) with both the drugs. However, the decrease in score was more with citalopram (p < 0.05). Onset of action of citalopram was earlier as compared to sertraline (p < 0.05). The number of responders and remitters was also more with citalopram (p < 0.05). No serious adverse event was reported in either of the groups.
                Citalopram had shown better efficacy, earlier onset of action and more number of responders and remitters as compared to sertraline in MDD in Indian patients.
                Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Some statistically significant differences between citalopram and other antidepressants for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found in terms of efficacy, tolerability and acceptability. Citalopram was more efficacious than paroxetine and reboxetine and more acceptable than tricyclics, reboxetine and venlafaxine, however, it seemed to be less efficacious than escitalopram. As with most systematic reviews in psychopharmacology, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias and publication bias should be borne in mind when interpreting review findings. Economic analyses were not reported in the included studies, however, cost effectiveness information is needed in the field of antidepressant trials.