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 .
A double‐blind six months comparative study of milnacipran and clomipramine in major depressive disorder
Milnacipran is a new antidepressant with similar effects on the reuptake of noradrenaline and serotonin in vivo and in vitro . The present study was design ed to study the efficary and tolerability of long-term treatment of depressed patients with milnacipran in comparison with clomipramine . The study was design ed as a double-blind , r and omized parallel group comparison at 10 different hospitals in The Netherl and s. The duration of treatment was 6 weeks , with an extension period of 20 weeks . The entire study period of 26 weeks was done under double-blind conditions . There was 1 week of dose escalation after which the patients received either treatment with milnacipran 200 mg/day or clomipramine 150 mg/day in fixed doses during weeks 2 to 10 . This was followed by flexible dosing with 200 , 150 , or 100 mg/day milnacipran or 150 , 100 or 75 mg/day clomipramine during weeks 11 to 26 . Both milnacipran and clomipramine showed poor antidepressant activity in this patient sample . There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups with respect to antidepressant efficacy . Several method ological reasons might explain the lack of antidepressant efficacy in the present study . In 45 % of the patients in the present study , the duration of the current episode of depression was longer than 6 months , whereas 48 % of the patients used antidepressants before the study and 73 % of these appeared to be non-responders . This raises the possibility that the present sample consisted of treatment-resistant depressive patients
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 .