Citalopram versus other anti‐depressive agents for depression
Citation: Cipriani A., Purgato M., Furukawa T.A., et al C. Citalopram versus other anti‐depressive agents for depression. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD006534. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006534.pub2.
Citalopram was shown to be significantly less effective than escitalopram in achieving acute response, but more effective than paroxetine and reboxetine.
Major depression is a severe mental illness characterised by a persistent and unreactive low mood and loss of all interest and pleasure, usually accompanied by a range of symptoms including appetite change, sleep disturbance, fatigue, loss of energy, poor concentration, inappropriate guilt and thoughts of death. Antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment in moderate‐to‐severe major depression. During the last 20 years, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), including citalopram have become the most commonly prescribed antidepressants. This review aimed to assess efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of citalopram in comparison with other antidepressants in the acute‐phase treatment of major depression. Thirty‐seven randomised controlled trials (more than 6000 participants) were included in this review. 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. Researchers noted that the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias and publication bias should be borne in mind when interpreting review findings.
Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence on the health of refugees and asylum seekers but may not have the time, initially, to read the original report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence that is presented within it is relevant to their decision-making they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. Evidence Aid cannot be held responsible for any decisions made about the health of refugees and asylum seekers on the basis of this summary alone.
If you have found this summary helpful, please consider making a donation. If everyone who looked at our COVID-19 resources gave us just £2 per month, it would fund Evidence Aid’s life-saving work.