Cited by 254Treatment of Major DepressionMental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Escitalopram (10–20 mg/day) is effective and well tolerated in a placebo-controlled study in depression in primary care

Lepola, Ulla M., Loft, Henrik, Reines, Elin Heldbo·2003·International Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Escitalopram was compared to placebo in moderately to severely depressed patients in primary care with citalopram as the active reference. Patients were randomized to receive flexible doses of 10–20 mg/day escitalopram (n=155), 20–40 mg/day citalopram (n=160), or placebo (n=154) over an 8-week double-blind period. The primary efficacy parameter was the change from baseline to last assessment in the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score. Escitalopram produced a statistically significant therapeutic difference of 2.9 points (P=0.002) compared to placebo, and escitalopram was consistently and statistically significantly more efficacious than placebo from week 1 onwards. Analysis of Clinical Global Impression–Severity and Clinical Global Impression–Improvement confirmed the primary efficacy results. By week 8, significantly more patients had responded to treatment with escitalopram than with citalopram (P=0.021) or placebo (P=0.009). Escitalopram was as well tolerated as citalopram and had a similar adverse event profile. Both escitalopram- and citalopram-treated patients had placebo-level adverse event withdrawal rates (3% and 4%, respectively). This study demonstrates the consistent antidepressant efficacy and excellent tolerability of escitalopram 10–20 mg/day in primary care patients with major depressive disorder.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.yic.0000074988.54339.7c

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lepola, U. M., Loft, H., & Reines, E. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Lundbeck (Denmark) (DK)
Corresponding author
Loft, Henrik
Venue
International Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
2003-07
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
211-217
ISSN
0268-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4249162025
Cited by
254
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 12
FWCI
17.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
H. Lundbeck A/S
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
escitalopram, citalopram, major depressive disorder, antidepressant efficacy, tolerability, primary care, flexible dosing, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, adverse events, treatment response
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Stereoisomerism, Citalopram, Treatment Outcome, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review