Citalopram versus nortriptyline in late-life depression: a 12-week randomized single-blind study. 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. Citalopram versus mianserin. A controlled, double-blind trial in depressed patients. Polymorphism of the 5-HT transporter and response to antidepressants: randomised controlled trial. Escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) is effective and well tolerated in a placebo-controlled study in depression in primary care. 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. A double-blind multicenter trial comparing sertraline and citalopram in patients with major depression treated in general practice. Citalopram versus maprotiline: a controlled, clinical multicentre trial in depressed patients. Efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine in geriatric outpatients with major depression: a double-blind, randomised 6-month comparative trial with citalopram. Oral citalopram and reboxetine challenge tests before and after selective antidepressant treatment. Escitalopram Versus Citalopram and Sertraline: A Double-Blind Controlled, Multi-centric Trial in Indian Patients with Unipolar Major Depression. Effectiveness and acceptability of sertraline and citalopram in major depressive disorder: pragmatic randomized open-label comparison. Prospective, multicentre, randomized, double-blind study of the efficacy of escitalopram versus citalopram in outpatient treatment of major depressive disorder. Efficacy and safety of escitalopram versus citalopram in major depressive disorder: a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose study. Efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine compared with citalopram: a double-blind study in patients with major depressive disorder. Placebo-controlled comparison of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and sertraline. Oxidative damage and major depression: the potential antioxidant action of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. Citalopram and imipramine in the treatment of depressive patients in general practice. A Nordic multicentre clinical study. Efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine versus citalopram: a double-blind, randomized study in patients with major depressive disorder. Nordic Antidepressant Study Group. Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. Comparative efficacy and safety of a once-daily dosage of hypericum extract STW3-VI and citalopram in patients with moderate depression: a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled 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. Fixed-dose trial of the single isomer SSRI escitalopram in depressed outpatients. A double-blind comparison of citalopram (Lu 10-171) and amitriptyline in depressed patients. Different gender response to serotonergic and noradrenergic antidepressants. A comparative study of the efficacy of citalopram and reboxetine. A comparison of the antidepressant action of citalopram and amitriptyline. A randomised, double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of citalopram compared to mianserin in elderly, depressed patients with or without mild to moderate dementia.
The aim of this single-blind study was to examine the efficacy and tolerability of citalopram compared to nortriptyline in moderate to severe major depressive patients aged 60 years or over. Method: In- and out-patients (N=58) with unipolar major depression were randomized to 12-week flexible dose treatment with nortriptyline or citalopram.
                No significant differences between the number of drop-outs in either group were observed, but the autonomic side-effects were significantly higher for nortriptyline than for citalopram. A significantly higher remission rate to nortriptyline than to citalopram was demonstrated, particularly if severe patients (endogenous or psychotic patients) were assessed.
                The remission rate to a therapeutic plasma level of nortriptyline appears to be higher than the remission rate to a standard dose of citalopram in a group of elderly major depressed patients, especially those with endogenous or psychotic features. On the other hand, citalopram appears to be better tolerated. 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. In a double-blind trial, comprising 60 endogenously depressed patients, citalopram was compared with mianserin. Fifty-eight patients completed the 6-week trial period with ratings and side effect recordings at weeks 0, 1, 2, 4, and 6. Both drugs were administered as a single evening dose, 20-80 mg (most frequently 40 mg) for citalopram and 60-120 mg (most frequently 90 mg) for mianserin. CPRS (Subscale for Depression) total scores showed a highly significant reduction in both groups with a significant difference in favour of citalopram after 1 and 2 weeks. Based on the Global Evaluation of the Severity of Illness there were 18 complete and three partial responders on citalopram and 13 complete and four partial responders on mianserin. Six patients on citalopram and one patient on mianserin showed mild or moderate side effects, but no cardiovascular side effects were recorded. The authors conclude that citalopram is a safe antidepressant drug, presumably better than mianserin. Antidepressants exhibit a variety of pharmacological actions including inhibition of the serotonin and noradrenaline transporters. We wished to investigate whether genetic variation could be used to target or personalise treatment, in a comparison of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NARIs).
                To test the hypothesis that patients homozygous for the long (insertion) polymorphism of the serotonin transporter (5-HTTLPR) have an increased response to SSRI antidepressants but not to NARI antidepressants.
                In an individually randomised, parallel-group controlled trial, people meeting criteria for a depressive episode who were referred by their general practitioner were randomised to receive either citalopram (an SSRI) or reboxetine (an NARI). Randomisation was by means of a remote automated system accessed by telephone. The main outcome was depressive symptoms, measured by Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) total score 6 weeks after randomisation. The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN31345163).
                Altogether 298 participants were randomised to receive citalopram and 303 were randomised to reboxetine. At 6 weeks follow-up, complete data were available for 258 participants taking citalopram and 262 taking reboxetine. We found no evidence to support an influence of 5-HTTLPR on outcome following antidepressant treatment. The interaction term for BDI score at 6 weeks was 0.50 (95% CI -2.04 to 3.03, P = 0.70), which indicated that responses to the SSRI and NARI were similar irrespective of 5-HTTLPR genotype.
                It is unlikely that the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism alone will be clinically useful in predicting response to antidepressants in people with depression. Escitalopram was compared to placebo in moderately to severely depressed patients in primary care with citalopram as the active reference. Patients were randomized to receive flexible doses of 10-20 mg/day escitalopram (n=155), 20-40 mg/day citalopram (n=160), or placebo (n=154) over an 8-week double-blind period. The primary efficacy parameter was the change from baseline to last assessment in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score. Escitalopram produced a statistically significant therapeutic difference of 2.9 points (P=0.002) compared to placebo, and escitalopram was consistently and statistically significantly more efficacious than placebo from week 1 onwards. Analysis of Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement confirmed the primary efficacy results. By week 8, significantly more patients had responded to treatment with escitalopram than with citalopram (P=0.021) or placebo (P=0.009). Escitalopram was as well tolerated as citalopram and had a similar adverse event profile. Both escitalopram- and citalopram-treated patients had placebo-level adverse event withdrawal rates (3% and 4%, respectively). This study demonstrates the consistent antidepressant efficacy and excellent tolerability of escitalopram 10-20 mg/day in primary care patients with major depressive disorder. 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. The purpose of this double-blind, multicenter trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of sertraline (50-150 mg/day) with those of citalopram (20-60 mg/day) in patients with major depression in general practice during 24 weeks of treatment. The patients were assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions of severity and improvement scales. Observed and spontaneously reported adverse events were recorded and side-effects were assessed by means of the UKU Side-Effect Scale. Altogether 400 patients were randomized into the study. A total of 308 patients completed the 24-week study in accordance with the protocol. A significant reduction in the total Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores was observed in both treatment groups as early as 2 weeks, with no statistically significant differences between the drugs. In the intention to treat-last observation carried forward analysis 76% responded to treatment in the sertraline and 81% in the citalopram group. The final mean doses were 82 mg/day (64% higher than baseline) in the sertraline group and 34 mg/day (70% higher than baseline) in the citalopram group. The response rate in completers in accordance with protocol was 90% in the sertraline group and 93% in the citalopram group. The side-effects were those usually seen, and both sertraline and citalopram were considered to be well tolerated. It was concluded that patients with major depression in general practice respond well to 24 weeks of treatment with sertraline or citalopram. With regard to efficacy, no statistically significant differences were found between the drugs. In a double-blind trial, comprising 96 depressed patients, citalopram was compared with maprotiline. The trial period was 6 weeks with ratings (MADRS, CGI) and side effects recordings taking place at Weeks 0, 1, 2, 4, and 6. Both drugs were administered as a single evening dose, 40 or 60 mg for citalopram, and 75 or 150 mg for maprotiline. MADRS total scores and CGI scores showed a highly significant reduction in both groups with no significant difference between them, whether the groups were considered as a whole or whether they were subdivided into endogenously/non-endogenously depressed or melancholic/non-melancholic patients. Side effects were not significantly different, but the maprotiline group showed more anticholinergic side effects, whereas the citalopram group showed more nausea, increased sweating and headache. Two patients on maprotiline were withdrawn because of side effects (hypotension and somnolence in the one case; tremor and insomnia in the other). One patient in each group was withdrawn because of increased transaminases, the citalopram-treated patient having increased values, however, already at baseline. Apart from this, no cardiovascular side effects and no pathological laboratory values related to treatment were observed. The authors conclude that citalopram is a safe antidepressant drug and as effective as maprotiline. The objectives of the study were to compare efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine ER 75-150 mg/day with that of citalopram 10-20 mg/day in elderly patients with major depression according to DSM-IV criteria.
                A randomised, double-blind, parallel group 6-month study. Efficacy was assessed by MADRS, CGI Global Improvement, CGI Severity of Illness and GDS-20 scores and safety by physical examinations, vital signs, adverse events and UKU side effect rating. Plasma levels of venlafaxine, its major metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine and citalopram were followed.
                One hundred and fifty-one male and female patients (64-89 years) were enrolled and 118 patients completed the study. Comparable improvements in MADRS, CGI Severity of Illness, CGI Global Improvement and GDS-20 were observed during venlafaxine and citalopram treatment. The MADRS remission rate was 19% for venlafaxine and 23% for citalopram. Side effects were common during both treatments but differed in tremor being more common during citalopram and nausea/vomiting during venlafaxine treatment. There were no clinically significant changes in blood pressure or body weight.
                The observed benefits of venlafaxine treatment in elderly patients with major depression were similar to those observed in younger adults as were reported adverse events and side effects. Treatment with venlafaxine ER was well tolerated and induced beneficial effects of similar magnitude as those of citalopram.
                Copyright (c) 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. nan The present randomized, double blind, parallel group, controlled, multi-centric trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in comparison with citalopram and sertraline in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Outpatients (N=214) with an ongoing/newly diagnosed ICD-10 major depressive episode and a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of > 18 were randomly assigned to citalopram, 20-40 mg/day (74 patients), escitalopram, 10-20 mg/day (69 patients) and sertraline, 50-150 mg/day (71 patients), for a 4-week double-blind treatment period, with dosage adjustment (after 2 weeks of treatment) according to the response to treatment. Clinical response was evaluated by the 17 items HAM-D and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales, which were recorded at baseline and at weekly intervals. Tolerability was evaluated by observed/spontaneously reported adverse changes in laboratory parameters (baseline and after 4 weeks). Response rate was defined as a decrease in HAM-D score by 50% from baseline and remission rate was defined as a HAM-D score of < 8. Response rate at the end of two week were 58% for escitalopram (10mg/day), 49% for citalopram (20mg/day) and 52% for sertraline (50-100mg/day). Response rate at the end of four week were 90% for escitalopram (10-20mg/day), 86% for citalopram (20-40mg/day) and 97% for sertraline (100-150mg/day). The Remission rates at the end of four weeks were 74% for escitalopram, 65% for citalopram and 77% for sertraline. Adverse experiences were reported by 45% of patients in escitalopram group, 58% patients in citalopram and 56% patients in the sertraline group. Additionally, there were lesser dropouts and lesser requirement for dose escalation in escitalopram than in citalopram and sertraline group. In conclusion Escitalopram, the Senantiomer of the citalopram is a safe and effective antidepressant in the Indian population. It has potentially superior efficacy than citalopram and a comparable efficacy to sertraline with fewer side effects than both citalopram and sertraline. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. There is evidence of derangement of oxidant and antioxidant defense systems in depression. The present study examined the effects of fluoxetine and citalopram, standard selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, on lipid peroxidation, superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and ascorbic acid concentrations. For this, a prospective open-labeled, randomized design was utilized. Patients with major depression (n = 62) were compared with age- and sex-matched healthy volunteers (n = 40). There was a significant increase in serum SOD, serum MDA and decrease in plasma ascorbic acid levels in patients of major depression as compared to control subjects. The trend reversed significantly after treatment with fluoxetine and citalopram. Results indicate a greater reduction in oxidative stress with citalopram than fluoxetine. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) score also improved with fluoxetine and citalopram treatment. These findings indicate that major depression is associated with increased levels of serum SOD, serum MDA and decreased levels of plasma ascorbic acid. Treatment with fluoxetine and citalopram reversed these biochemical parameters. This study can be used as a predictor of drug response by fluoxetine and citalopram in major depression. Two dose levels of citalopram, 10-30 mg and 20-60 mg, were compared with imipramine, 50-150 mg, in depressed patients treated in general practice. This was a multicentre study carried out in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. The duration of treatment was 6 weeks with an optional continuation phase of a further 16 weeks. The patients were assessed by means of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), and a visual analogue self-rating scale for depression. Observed and spontaneously reported adverse events were recorded. A total of 472 patients were entered into the study and 400 patients completed the 6 week trial period. A total of 297 patients completed the optional 22 week double-blind period. A clear reduction of the HAMD total scores was seen in all three treatment groups with no significant differences between groups. A reduction of the HAMD anxiety factor and sleep factor scores was also seen with no significant differences between treatments. The imipramine-treated patients showed a higher frequency of adverse events, especially the anticholinergic type, than citalopram-treated patients. Most patients entered into the continuation phase remained well. We aimed to compare the antidepressant and anxiolytic effects, tolerability and effects on quality of life of mirtazapine and citalopram in a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, 8-week study. Patients with a Major Depressive Episode (DSM-IV) and a baseline score of > or = 22 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were randomized to 8 weeks treatment with either mirtazapine (n = 137, 15-60 mg/day) or citalopram (n = 133, 20-60 mg/day). Efficacy was evaluated by the MADRS, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Clinical Global Impression scales (CGI), the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (QLESQ). The efficacy analyses were performed on the Intent-To-Treat Group using the Last Observation Carried Forward method. Vital signs and laboratory variables are measured and adverse events recorded at each weekly visit. The magnitude of reduction from baseline in group mean MADRS scores was large in both groups, reaching after 8 weeks of treatment mean scores of 9.1 in the mirtazapine group and 8.9 in the citalopram group. Both treatments also resulted in a substantial improvement in anxiety symptoms, sleep disturbances and quality of life, and high percentage of responders. However, at day 14, statistically significantly larger magnitudes of change favouring mirtazapine were present in the group mean MADRS, HAM-A and CGI-Severity of illness and Quality of life scores. A difference of 2.3 points on MADRS favouring mirtazapine is considered indicative for a clinically relevant superiority between two proven antidepressants. Mirtazapine treatment was also related to faster improvement of sleep, quality of sleep and improved alertness following awakening, as shown by statistically significant differences on the self-rating LSEQ at various time points. There were no differences between two treatment groups on self-rating QLSEQ. Both drugs were well tolerated, with a low number of patients in either group prematurely terminating the study due to adverse events (mirtazapine: 3.6%, citalopram, 3.0%). Sweating and nausea were statistically significantly more frequent in the citalopram group and increased appetite and complaints of weight increase in the mirtazapine group. There were no clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters and vital sign variables with either treatment, except for clinically relevant increase in body weight, occurring more frequently in mirtazapine patients. In this study, mirtazapine and citalopram were equally effective in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety, and well tolerated. However, mirtazapine was significantly more effective than citalopram after 2 weeks of treatment on the MADRS, HAM-A and CGI Severity of illness and Quality of life scales. This finding, consistently present at all major efficacy variables, suggests potentially faster onset of efficacy of mirtazapine over citalopram. 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. The objective of this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre clinical study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority and safety of the hypericum extract STW3-VI in a once-daily dosage regime in the treatment of moderate depression. During the 6-week treatment phase, the course of depression was documented by use of HAMD (items 1-17), the von Zerssen's Adjective Mood Scale (BfS) and the CGI scales. The primary objective of this 3-arm design study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of hypericum extract STW3-VI (900 mg) to the SSRI citalopram (20 mg) and superiority of hypericum over placebo.
                Outpatients (N = 388) suffering from moderate depression were enrolled. The safety and tolerability of hypericum extract in comparison to citalopram and placebo was investigated on the basis of CGI, the occurrence of adverse events and the investigation of laboratory parameters and vital signs.
                From almost identical baseline values of 21.9 +/- 1.2 points (hypericum extract), 21.8 +/- 1.2 points (citalopram) and 22.0 +/- 1.2 points (placebo), the HAMD score was reduced to 10.3 +/- 6.4 (hypericum extract), 10.3 +/- 6.4 (citalopram) and 13.0 +/- 6.9 (placebo), respectively. Based on this data, the statistical significant therapeutic equivalence of hypericum extract STW3-VI to citalopram (p < 0.0001) and the superiority of this hypericum extract over placebo (p < 0.0001) was demonstrated. At the end of treatment 54.2 % (hypericum extract), 55.9 % (citalopram) and 39.2 % (placebo) of the patients were assessed as therapy responders. The secondary efficacy parameters, change in BfS, CGI and amount of therapy responders showed that the hypericum group was not statistically different from the citalopram group, and significantly superior to the placebo group. Significantly more adverse events with "certain", "probable" or "possible" relation to study medication were documented in the citalopram group (hypericum: 17.2 %, citalopram: 53.2 %, placebo: 30 %). In most cases, the investigators assessed the tolerability of hypericum extract, citalopram and placebo as "good" or "very good".
                The non-inferiority of hypericum extract as compared to citalopram and the superiority of both active compounds to placebo were demonstrated, as well as a better safety and tolerability of hypericum extract in comparison to citalopram. These results revealed that hypericum extract STW3-VI is a good alternative to chemically defined antidepressants in the treatment of outpatients with moderate depression. 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. Escitalopram is the single isomer responsible for the serotonin reuptake inhibition produced by the racemic antidepressant citalopram. The present randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose multicenter trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder.
                Outpatients with an ongoing DSM-IV major depressive episode (N = 491) were randomly assigned to placebo, escitalopram, 10 mg/day, escitalopram, 20 mg/day, or citalopram, 40 mg/day, and entered an 8-week double-blind treatment period following a 1-week single-blind placebo lead-in. Clinical response was evaluated by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and patient-rated quality-of-life scales.
                Escitalopram, at both doses, produced significant improvement at study endpoint relative to placebo on all measures of depression; significant separation of escitalopram from placebo was observed within I week of double-blind treatment. Citalopram treatment also significantly improved depressive symptomatology compared with placebo; however, escitalopram, 10 mg/day, was at least as effective as citalopram, 40 mg/day, at endpoint. Anxiety symptoms and quality of life were also significantly improved by escitalopram compared with placebo. The incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events for the escitalopram 10 mg/day group was not different from the placebo group (4.2% vs. 2.5%; p = .50), and not different for the escitalopram 20 mg/day group and the citalopram 40 mg/day group (10.4% vs. 8.8%; p = .83).
                Escitalopram, a single isomer SSRI, is well-tolerated and has demonstrated antidepressant efficacy at a dose of 10 mg/day. In a controlled, clinical, multicentre trial comprising a total of 43 patients (17 men and 26 women) citalopram was compared double-blindly with amitriptyline. Nineteen patients of each group were classified as endogeneously depressed, whereas four patients of the citalopram group and one of the amitriptyline group were classified as non-endogenously depressed. The patients were seriously ill with a high frequency of previous depressive episodes and of mental disorders among their closest relatives. Thirteen of the patients in either group had received antidepressants without satisfactory effect before entry into the trial. Each patient was treated for a period of at least 3 weeks with daily citalopram doses of 30-60 mg or daily amitriptyline doses of 75-225 mg. A statistically significant reduction of MADRS scores (total scores as well as each of the 10 individual items) was recorded in both groups. The only difference between the groups was a trend towards a better effect on sleep disturbances in the amitriptyline group. Side-effects were recorded more frequently in the amitriptyline group than in the citalopram group, global assessment of side effects being significantly different in favour of citalopram. It is concluded that citalopram is an effective and safe drug in the treatment of endogenous depression - probably as efficacious as amitriptyline, but with fewer side effects. It is well established that depressive disorders are more prevalent in women; however gender differences in the pharmacological response to antidepressants are not a consistent finding in all reports. It is considered that this discrepancy can be explained by the fact that in most clinical trials drug use for comparative purposes is not completely different. In this study gender differences in antidepressant response with citalopram (CTP), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and reboxetine (RBX), a selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor were evaluated in a group of young men and premenopausal women.
                Eighty-six depressed patients 18 to 40 years old participated in an 8-week double-blind clinical trial. Subjects were divided in four groups according to sex and treatment assignation: females treated with CTP (n = 25) or RBX (n = 23), and males treated with CTP (n = 19) or RBX (n = 19). Response was determined using HDRS and BDI.
                ANOVA analysis considering change in HDRS scores from baseline to last evaluation found a significant interaction between gender and type of treatment. Females treated with CTP showed a significantly greater response than females treated with RBX, while in men no differences were observed for both drugs.
                Replication using larger sample size and longer treatment periods is required.
                These results support previous findings which show that premenopausal women respond better than men to serotonergic antidepressants. They also support that a plausible interaction between gonadal hormones and serotonin may explain gender differences in antidepressant response. The response of patients with major depressive illness to citalopram of amitriptyline was compared in a double-blind multi-centre trial. No differences in efficacy were observed, but citalopram had less hypnotic effect, and a remarkably lower profile of side-effects. Depression is the most common psychiatric disorder among the elderly and in old age may interact with emotional and cognitive functioning. Depression in old age has been shown to be associated with degenerative changes in the brain. It is, therefore, important that in this patient population antidepressants with a favourable tolerability profile, such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are examined for both antidepressant efficacy and effect on cognitive function and emotional impairment. This randomised, double-blind study compared the efficacy and tolerability of citalopram and mianserin in 336 elderly, depressed patients with or without dementia. Patients received either citalopram 20-40 mg/day or mianserin 30-60 mg/day for 12 weeks. The treatments were equivalent with respect to change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score; patients in both treatment groups responded well. Patients with dementia showed a smaller decrease in total MADRS score than patients without dementia. Both treatments were well tolerated with a relatively low incidence of adverse events. Fatigue and somnolence were more frequent with mianserin, while insomnia was more frequent with citalopram. Overall, this study showed that the two treatments were equivalent in efficacy, and that citalopram is an effective, well-tolerated and non-sedative treatment for elderly depressed patients with or without dementia.
                Copyright 2000 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.