Table 1.
Pooled analysis studies of comparative efficacy of escitalopram in all patients
| Author | Number of trials (patients, n) | Comparator | Primary outcome | Mean treatment difference | Response rates | Remission rates | Withdrawals (for adverse events) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kennedy et al16 | 16 trials with all agents (n = 4549) | Citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, venlafaxine | MADRS | ESC > Comp, 1.1 points, P < 0.0001 | ESC > Comp, 63.7% vs 58.3%, P < 0.0001 | ESC > Comp, 53.1% vs 49.4%, P < 0.0059 | ESC < Comp, 5.4% vs 7.9%, P < 0.0007 | Also conducted subgroup analysis of four SNRI trials, but used the same data and had the same results as Kornstein et al 2009 |
| 12 trials with SSRIs (n = 2964) | Citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline | MADRS | ESC > SSRIs, 0.9 points, P = 0.0023 | ESC > SSRIs, 62.1% vs 58.3%, P = 0.0089 | ESC = SSRIs, 51.6% vs 49.0%, P = 0.0958 | ESC = SSRIs, 5.4% vs 6.3%, P = ns | Pooled data from 12 of 15 identified randomized controlled trials with SSRIs | |
| 5 trials with citalopram (n = 1583) | Citalopram | MADRS | ESC > CIT, 1.2 points, P = 0.0094 | ESC > CIT, 59.7% vs 52.3%, P = 0.0043 | ESC = CIT, 47.8% vs 42.7%, P = 0.0517 | Not reported | Pooled data from 5 of 8 identified randomized controlled trials with citalopram | |
| Kasper et al32 | 2 trials (n = 777) | Paroxetine | MADRS | ESC > PAR, 2.0 points, P < 0.01 | ESC > PAR, 83% vs 76.8%, P < 0.05 | ESC > PAR, 76.4% vs 70.0%, P < 0.05 | ESC < PAR, 6.6% vs 11.7%, P < 0.01 | Pooled data from 2 of 2 identified randomized controlled trials with paroxetine |
| Lam et al34 | 2 trials (n = 569) | Duloxetine | MADRS | ESC > DUL, 2.6 points, P < 0.01 | ESC > DUL, 67.1% vs 53.2%, P < 0.001 | ESC > DUL, 54.3% vs 44.4%, P < 0.05 | ESC < DUL, 12.9% vs 24.3%, P < 0.001 | Pooled data from 2 of 3 identified randomized controlled trials with duloxetine |
| Montgomery and Andersen33 | 2 trials (n = 483) | Venlafaxine XR | MADRS | ESC = VEN, 2.1 points, P = ns | ESC = VEN, 70% vs 67%, P = ns | ESC = VEN, 62% vs 58%, P = ns | ESC < VEN, 6.2% vs 13.3%, P < 0.01 | Pooled data from 2 of 2 identified randomized controlled trials with venlafaxine XR |
| Kornstein et al35 | 4 trials (n = 1051) | Duloxetine, venlafaxine XR | MADRS | ESC > SNRIs 1.7 points, P < 0.01 | ESC > SNRIs, 68.3% vs 59.0%, P < 0.01 | ESC > SNRIs, 57.8% vs 50.5%, P < 0.05 | ESC < SNRIs, 5.3% vs 12.0%, P < 0.0001 | Pooled data from 4 of 5 identified randomized controlled trials with SNRIs |
| Clayton et al29 | 2 trials (n = 830) | Bupropion XL | Ham-D | ESC = BUP 0.4 points, P = ns | ESC = BUP, 65% vs 62%, P = ns | ESC = BUP, 45% vs 43%, P = ns | ESC = BUP, 4.3% vs 6.2%, P = ns | Pooled data from 2 of 2 identified randomized controlled trials with bupropion. ESC > BUP in worsened sexual functioning, 36% vs 20%, P < 0.001 |
Abbreviations: BUP, bupropion XL; ESC, escitalopram; CIT, citalopram; Comp, comparator; DUL, duloxetine; Ham-D, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; MADRS, Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale; ns, not significant; PAR, paroxetine; SNRI, serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor; SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; VEN, venlafaxine XR.