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 .
BACKGROUND Recent US and UK clinical practice guidelines recommend that second-generation antidepressants should be considered amongst the best first-line options when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode .
Systematic review s have already highlighted some differences in efficacy between second-generation antidepressants .
Citalopram , one of the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRI ) introduced in the market , is one of these antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care .
OBJECTIVES To assess the evidence for the efficacy , acceptability and tolerability of citalopram in comparison with tricyclics , heterocyclics , other SSRIs and other conventional and non-conventional antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression .
Efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine versus citalopram: a double-blind, randomized study in patients with major depressive disorder. Nordic Antidepressant Study Group.
We aim ed to compare the antidepressant and anxiolytic effects , tolerability and effects on quality of life of mirtazapine and citalopram in a r and omized , 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 r and omized 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 Question naire ( LSEQ ) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Question naire ( 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 result ed 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 clinical ly 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 clinical ly relevant changes in laboratory parameters and vital sign variables with either treatment , except for clinical ly 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
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 .
BACKGROUND Recent US and UK clinical practice guidelines recommend that second-generation antidepressants should be considered amongst the best first-line options when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode .
Systematic review s have already highlighted some differences in efficacy between second-generation antidepressants .
Citalopram , one of the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRI ) introduced in the market , is one of these antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care .
OBJECTIVES To assess the evidence for the efficacy , acceptability and tolerability of citalopram in comparison with tricyclics , heterocyclics , other SSRIs and other conventional and non-conventional antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression .