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 citalopram (Lu 10–171) and amitriptyline in depressed patients
ABSTRACT — 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 endogenously 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
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 .