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 comparison of the efficacy and safety of milnacipran and fluoxetine in depressed inpatients
This double-blind , r and omised , multicentre study compared the antidepressant efficacy and safety of two doses of milnacipran ( 100 mg/day and 200 mg/day ) and fluoxetine ( 20 mg/day ) in 289 in patients with endogenous depression . After a placebo washout period of 4–7 days , assessment s were performed weekly during ; the first 4 weeks , and then after 6 , 8 and 12 weeks , using the 17-itein Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HDRS ) . the Montgomery - Åsberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) and the Clinical Global Impression ( CGI ) . HDRS total score was reduced by a mean of 14.8 in the milnacipran 100 mg/day group , 12.9 in the milnacipran 200 mg/day group and 12.1 in the fluoxetine  20 mg/day group . MADRS total score decreased by 17.4 , 15.8 and 14.6 , respectively . No significant difference could be shown between the three treatment groups for either the HDRS or MADRS total scores . However , the time-by-time change showed a trend in favour of milnacipran 100 mg/day , which was found significantly superior to fluoxetine at day 28 for several converging parameters ( MADRS , CGI-3 ) . Overall , efficacy ratings for all parameters were highest for milnacipran 100 mg/day , followed by milnacipran 200 mg/day and fluoxetinc 20 mg/day . Side-effect profiles were not significantly different between groups except for a significantly greater frequency of dose-related increase hi heart rate ≥ 100 bpm in milnacipran recipients and a significantly greater weight loss in fluoxetine recipients
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 .