escitalopram

• Efficacy versus venlafaxine XR

  no effect, n = 240

  In analysis by medication class, escitalopram was significantly superior to the SSRIs and comparable to venlafaxine

  PMID:16575428 · one of two readings recorded this

• MADRS total score, estimated difference in treatment effect at end of study

  increases, p = 0.01, n = 2687

  estimated difference in treatment effect of 1.07 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.73, p < 0.01)

  PMID:16575428 · one of two readings recorded this

• MADRS total score treatment effect, response (50% or greater MADRS reduction) and remission (MADRS 12 or below) for escitalopram versus citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine XR (abstract only)

  increases, estimated difference in treatment effect 1.07 points (95% CI 0.42-1.73); response OR 1.29 (1.07-1.56)

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  Escitalopram was superior to all comparators in overall treatment effect, with an estimated difference in treatment effect of 1.07 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.73, p < 0.01), and in response (odds ratio [OR] 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.56, p < 0.01) and remission (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.46, p < 0.05) rates.

  PMID:16575428 · one of two readings recorded this

• MADRS total score treatment effect, response (at least 50% MADRS reduction) and remission (MADRS 12 or below), escitalopram versus active controls citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine XR (abstract only)

  increases, response OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.56

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  Escitalopram was superior to all comparators in overall treatment effect, with an estimated difference in treatment effect of 1.07 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.73, p < 0.01), and in response (odds ratio [OR] 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.56, p < 0.01) and remission (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.46, p < 0.05) rates.

  PMID:16575428 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission (MADRS total score of 12 or less at end of study)

  increases, p = 0.05, n = 2687

  remission (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.46, p < 0.05)

  PMID:16575428 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response (at least 50% reduction in baseline MADRS total score)

  increases, p = 0.01, n = 2687

  response (odds ratio [OR] 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.56, p < 0.01)

  PMID:16575428 · one of two readings recorded this

• Withdrawal rate due to adverse events

  decreases, p = 0.05

  The withdrawal rate due to adverse events was 6.7% for escitalopram compared with 9.1% for the comparators (p < 0.05)

  PMID:16575428 · one of two readings recorded this

• Constipation

  decreases, p = 0.004, n = 557

  OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69, p = 0.004; 2 studies, 557 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Diarrhoea

  decreases, p = 0.009, n = 483

  OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.84, p = 0.009; 2 trials, 483 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to any cause

  no effect, p = 0.9, n = 842

  OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.39, p = 0.90; 3 studies, 842 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to any cause

  no effect, p = 0.16, n = 1823

  OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.10, p = 0.16; 6 studies, 1823 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to any cause

  decreases, p = 0.05, n = 1120

  OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99, p = 0.05; 3 studies, 1120 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to any cause

  no effect, p = 0.68, n = 813

  OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.55, p = 0.68; 4 studies, 813 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to any cause

  no effect, p = 0.24, n = 784

  OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.29, p = 0.24; 2 studies, 784 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to any cause

  no effect, p = 0.37, n = 489

  OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.97, p = 0.37; 2 studies, 489 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to any cause

  no effect, p = 0.62, n = 495

  OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39, p = 0.62; 2 studies, 495 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to inefficacy

  no effect, p = 0.14, n = 276

  OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.02, p = 0.14; 1 study, 276 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to inefficacy

  no effect, p = 0.56, n = 1604

  OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.03, p = 0.56; 5 studies, 1604 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to inefficacy

  no effect, p = 0.95, n = 1120

  OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.25, p = 0.95; 3 studies, 1120 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to inefficacy

  no effect, p = 0.41, n = 813

  OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.15, p = 0.41; 4 studies, 813 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to inefficacy

  no effect, p = 0.76, n = 784

  OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 11.44, p = 0.76; 2 studies, 784 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to inefficacy

  no effect, p = 0.33, n = 274

  OR 3.09, 95% CI 0.32 to 30.08, p = 0.33; 1 study, 274 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to inefficacy

  no effect, p = 0.14, n = 293

  OR 9.06, 95% CI 0.48 to 169.85, p = 0.14; 1 study, 293 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to side effects

  no effect, p = 0.36, n = 842

  OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.65, p = 0.36; 3 studies, 842 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to side effects

  no effect, p = 0.36, n = 1604

  OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31, p = 0.36; 5 studies, 1604 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to side effects

  no effect, p = 0.15, n = 1120

  OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.29, p = 0.15; 3 studies, 1120 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to side effects

  no effect, p = 0.29, n = 813

  OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.28, p = 0.29; 4 studies, 813 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to side effects

  no effect, p = 0.5, n = 784

  OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.96, p = 0.50; 2 studies, 784 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to side effects

  no effect, p = 0.89, n = 489

  OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.37, p = 0.89; 2 studies, 489 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to side effects

  no effect, p = 0.09, n = 495

  OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.17, p = 0.09; 2 studies, 495 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Dizziness

  decreases, p = 0.01, n = 1111

  OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.90, p = 0.01; 3 trials, 1111 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Dry mouth

  decreases, p = 0.007, n = 822

  OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.87, p = 0.007; 3 studies, 822 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Dry mouth

  decreases, p = 0.001, n = 1111

  OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, p = 0.001; 3 trials, 1111 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Fatigue

  increases, p = 0.0003, n = 557

  OR 3.48, 95%CI 1.77 to 6.84, p = 0.0003; 2 studies, 557 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Increased sweating

  decreases, p = 0.02, n = 487

  OR 0.45, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.87, p = 0.02; 2 trials, 487 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Insomnia

  decreases, p = 0.02, n = 822

  OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92, p = 0.02; 3 studies, 822 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Insomnia

  unclear, p = 0.06, n = 1111

  OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.02, p = 0.06; 3 trials, 1111 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Irritability

  unclear, p = 0.06, n = 557

  OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.04, p = 0.06; 2 trials, 557 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Irritability

  unclear, p = 0.05, n = 547

  OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.01, p = 0.05; 1 trials, 547 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Jitteriness

  decreases, p = 0.03, n = 369

  OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.82, p = 0.03; 1 trial, 369 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Lethargy/sedation

  unclear, p = 0.05, n = 212

  95% CI 0.99 to 13.94, p = 0.05; 1 trial, 212 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Mean change from baseline in depressive symptoms, acute phase

  no effect, p = 0.23, n = 793

  SMD −0.08, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.05, p = 0.23; 3 studies, 793 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Mean change from baseline in depressive symptoms, acute phase

  decreases, p = 0.009, n = 1392

  SMD −0.17, 95% CI −0.30 to −0.04, p = 0.009; 5 studies, 1392 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Mean change from baseline in depressive symptoms, acute phase

  no effect, p = 0.28, n = 1096

  SMD −0.10, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.09, p = 0.28; 3 studies, 1096 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Mean change from baseline in depressive symptoms, acute phase

  decreases, p = 0.02, n = 759

  SMD −0.17, 95% CI −0.32 to −0.03, p = 0.02; 3 studies, 759 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Mean change from baseline in depressive symptoms, acute phase

  no effect, p = 0.76, n = 776

  SMD −0.05, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.26, p = 0.76; 2 studies, 776 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Mean change from baseline in depressive symptoms, acute phase

  no effect, p = 0.85, n = 477

  SMD 0.02, 95% CI −0.16 to 0.20, p = 0.85; 2 studies, 477 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Mean change from baseline in depressive symptoms, acute phase

  no effect, p = 0.68, n = 283

  SMD −0.07, 95% CI −0.38 to 0.25, p = 0.68; 5 studies, 283 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Nausea

  decreases, p = 0.0001, n = 1111

  OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.75, p = 0.0001; 3 trials, 1111 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Nausea

  decreases, p = 0.05, n = 487

  OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.99, p = 0.05; 2 trials, 487 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• number of patients who responded to treatment (at least 50% reduction on MADRS or HAM-D), acute phase 6 to 12 weeks, escitalopram versus citalopram and other antidepressants

  increases, OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.89 on failure to respond, escitalopram versus citalopram, p = 0.006

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  There was a statistically significant difference with escitalopram being more effective than citalopram (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.89, p = 0.006; 6 studies, 1823 participants) (see Figure 3).

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patients experiencing at least one side effect

  no effect, p = 0.12, n = 822

  OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07, p = 0.12; 3 studies, 822 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patients experiencing at least one side effect

  no effect, p = 0.12, n = 1802

  OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.07, p = 0.12; 6 studies, 1802 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patients experiencing at least one side effect

  no effect, p = 0.82, n = 1111

  OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.38, p = 0.82; 3 studies, 1111 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patients experiencing at least one side effect

  no effect, p = 0.13, n = 804

  OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, p = 0.13; 4 studies, 804 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patients experiencing at least one side effect

  no effect, p = 0.23, n = 454

  OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.17, p = 0.23; 1 study, 454 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patients experiencing at least one side effect

  no effect, p = 0.15, n = 483

  OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.19, p = 0.15; 2 studies, 483 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Patients experiencing at least one side effect

  no effect, p = 0.16, n = 487

  OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.23, p = 0.16; 2 studies, 487 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.72, n = 842

  OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.32, p = 0.72; 3 studies, 842 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  increases, p = 0.02, n = 1823

  OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.90, p = 0.02; 6 studies, 1823 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.56, n = 1120

  OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.29, p = 0.56; 3 studies, 1120 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.32, n = 783

  OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.15, p = 0.32; 3 studies, 783 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.67, n = 784

  OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.68, p = 0.67; 2 studies, 784 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.42, n = 489

  OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.67, p = 0.42; 2 studies, 489 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.64, n = 495

  OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.33, p = 0.64; 2 studies, 495 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission, follow-up (16 to 24 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.18, n = 295

  OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.16, p = 0.18; 1 study, 295 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.5, n = 842

  OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.20, p = 0.50; 3 studies, 842 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  increases, p = 0.006, n = 1823

  OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.89, p = 0.006; 6 studies, 1823 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.21, n = 1120

  OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.20, p = 0.21; 3 studies, 1120 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.17, n = 783

  OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.10, p = 0.17; 3 studies, 783 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.57, n = 784

  OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.32, p = 0.57; 2 studies, 784 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.76, n = 489

  OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.53, p = 0.76; 2 studies, 489 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, acute phase treatment (6 to 12 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.53, n = 495

  OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39, p = 0.53; 2 studies, 495 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• response (at least 50% reduction on HAM-D or MADRS), remission, mean change from baseline and dropout for escitalopram versus citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, venlafaxine and bupropion in major depression

  increases, OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.89, p = 0.006 for acute-phase response, escitalopram versus citalopram, p = 0.006

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  There was a statistically significant difference with escitalopram being more effective than citalopram (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.89, p = 0.006; 6 studies, 1823 participants) (see Figure 3).

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, early (1 to 4 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.73, n = 240

  OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.56, p = 0.73; 1 study, 240 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, early (1 to 4 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.6, n = 293

  OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.55, p = 0.60; 1 study, 293 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, follow-up (16 to 24 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.88, n = 357

  OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.56, p = 0.88; 1 study, 357 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, follow-up (16 to 24 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.25, n = 295

  OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25, p = 0.25; 1 study, 295 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, follow-up (16 to 24 weeks)

  no effect, p = 0.17, n = 459

  OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.15, p = 0.17; 1 study, 459 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, sensitivity analysis excluding trials with dropout greater than 20% in both arms

  increases, p = 0.0009, n = 1187

  OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.79, p = 0.0009; 4 studies, 1187 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, sensitivity analysis excluding trials with dropout greater than 20% in both arms

  no effect, p = 0.2, n = 578

  OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.13, p = 0.20; 2 studies, 578 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, sensitivity analysis excluding trials with dropout greater than 20% in only one arm additionally

  increases, p = 0.0002, n = 830

  OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.72, p = 0.0002; 3 studies, 830 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Yawning

  increases, p = 0.007, n = 557

  OR 7.71, 95%CI 1.75 to 34.05, p = 0.007; 2 studies, 557 participants

  PMID:19370639 · one of two readings recorded this

• Discontinuation due to adverse events or inefficacy up to 8 weeks

  no effect

  Discontinuations due to adverse events or inefficacy up to 8 weeks of treatment were comparable

  PMID:20162747 · one of two readings recorded this

• MADRS score reduction, proportion of responders, CGI-S reduction and discontinuation for escitalopram versus equimolar citalopram in major depressive disorder (abstract only)

  increases, relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.26 for response at week 8, escitalopram versus citalopram

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  Risk of response was higher with escitalopram at week 8 (relative risk, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.26) but number needed to treat was 14 (95% CI, 7 to 111).

  PMID:20162747 · one of two readings recorded this

• MADRS score reduction

  increases

  MADRS reduction was greater with escitalopram

  PMID:20162747 · one of two readings recorded this

• Number needed to treat for response at week 8

  Risk of response was higher with escitalopram at week 8 (relative risk, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.26) but number needed to treat was 14 (95% CI, 7 to 111)

  PMID:20162747 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response (proportion of responders) at week 8

  increases

  Risk of response was higher with escitalopram at week 8 (relative risk, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.26) but number needed to treat was 14 (95% CI, 7 to 111)

  PMID:20162747 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response rate and MADRS reduction at week 8 in severe patients

  increases

  Data for severe patients (MADRS> or =30) are scarce (only 1 RCT), indicating somewhat greater efficacy (response rate and MADRS reduction at week 8, but not CGI-S reduction) of escitalopram

  PMID:20162747 · one of two readings recorded this

• response rate at week 8 and MADRS score reduction, escitalopram versus citalopram head-to-head, meta-analysis of randomized trials (abstract only)

  increases, relative risk 1.14; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.26 for response at week 8

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  Risk of response was higher with escitalopram at week 8 (relative risk, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.26) but number needed to treat was 14 (95% CI, 7 to 111).

  PMID:20162747 · one of two readings recorded this

• acceptability, proportion of treatment completers, escitalopram versus placebo

  random-effects combined OR 0.89 (0.73 to 1.07) for escitalopram

  Not recorded as a finding: no outcome node for completion or dropout proportion; sentence also names citalopram

  Concerning acceptability, the proportion of treatment completers was lower with citalopram and escitalopram than placebo, with similar effect sizes, see Section 13, Additional file 1, the random-effects combined OR 0.91 (0.75 to 1.10) for citalopram and 0.89 (0.73 to 1.07) for escitalopram.

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Acceptability (treatment completers), adjusted indirect comparison, escitalopram v citalopram

  no effect

  the adjusted indirect comparison OR for escitalopram versus citalopram was 0.98 (0.75 to 1.28)

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Acceptability (treatment completers), head-to-head trials, escitalopram v citalopram

  no effect

  For escitalopram versus citalopram, the random-effects combined OR was 1.27 (0.93 to 1.72)

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Acceptability (treatment completers), placebo-controlled trials, citalopram v placebo

  no effect

  the random-effects combined OR 0.91 (0.75 to 1.10) for citalopram and 0.89 (0.73 to 1.07) for escitalopram

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Acceptability (treatment completers), placebo-controlled trials, escitalopram v placebo

  no effect

  the random-effects combined OR 0.91 (0.75 to 1.10) for citalopram and 0.89 (0.73 to 1.07) for escitalopram

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Citalopram claims, 2004 to 2006

  decreases

  substantial decrease in consumption of citalopram between 2004 (2.1 million claims) and 2006 (0.7 million claims)

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Citalopram consumption in DDD units, 2004 to 2010

  decreases

  for citalopram consumption, the DDD units decreased from 73.9 million in 2004 to 7.6 million in 2010, whereas for escitalopram, the units increased from 15.7 million in 2005 to 193.9 million in 2010

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Escitalopram consumption in DDD units, 2005 to 2010

  increases

  for citalopram consumption, the DDD units decreased from 73.9 million in 2004 to 7.6 million in 2010, whereas for escitalopram, the units increased from 15.7 million in 2005 to 193.9 million in 2010

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Generic citalopram consumption in DDD units, 2005 to 2010

  increases

  For generic forms of citalopram, the DDD units were 55.2 million in 2005 and slightly increased to 58.8 million in 2010

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates of acceptability (difference in log ORs)

  unclear, p = 0.21

  with large inconsistency between the direct and indirect estimates (difference in log ORs 0.26, corresponding to a ratio of OR of 1.30 (P = 0.21)

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates of response (difference in log ORs)

  unclear, p = 0.07

  We found a large inconsistency between the direct and indirect estimates (difference in log ORs 0.44, corresponding to a ratio of OR of 1.55, P = 0.07

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Monthly reimbursement claims in 2010

  unclear

  5.4 million claims for escitalopram vs. 0.2 and 1.7 million for citalopram and its generic forms, respectively

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Number needed to treat for additional response, escitalopram v citalopram, higher control response rate

  increases

  This combined OR would translate to a NNT of 8.5 and 9.6 patients to achieve an additional response with escitalopram compared to citalopram, when the control response rate is lower (47%) or higher (61%)

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Number needed to treat for additional response, escitalopram v citalopram, lower control response rate

  increases

  This combined OR would translate to a NNT of 8.5 and 9.6 patients to achieve an additional response with escitalopram compared to citalopram, when the control response rate is lower (47%) or higher (61%)

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Overall health cost burden of citalopram, its generic forms and escitalopram, 2010

  unclear

  Overall, the health cost burden of the three drug forms reached 120.6 million Euros in 2010

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Reimbursement cost burden of citalopram, 2010

  unclear

  The cost burden of escitalopram continued to increase, to reach 96.8 million Euros in 2010, as compared with citalopram, 4.4 million Euros

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, adjusted indirect comparison, citalopram v escitalopram

  no effect

  the adjusted indirect comparison OR for citalopram versus escitalopram was 1.03 (0.82 to 1.30)

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response (head-to-head trials, escitalopram v citalopram)

  increases

  Escitalopram was associated with higher response as compared with citalopram (random-effects model, combined OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.05 to.46))

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, placebo-controlled trials, citalopram v placebo

  increases

  Random-effects combined OR 1.50 (1.27 to 1.78) for citalopram and 1.55 (1.33 to 1.82) for escitalopram

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, placebo-controlled trials, escitalopram v placebo

  increases

  Random-effects combined OR 1.50 (1.27 to 1.78) for citalopram and 1.55 (1.33 to 1.82) for escitalopram

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• response proportion, escitalopram versus citalopram head-to-head, 7 trials, combined OR 1.60

  increases

  Not recorded as a finding: comparator_not_absence: citalopram is an active comparator, so the contrast does not isolate escitalopram against no drug

  Escitalopram was associated with higher response as compared with citalopram (random-effects model, combined OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.05 to.46)) (See Section 8, Additional file 1).

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• response rate, escitalopram versus citalopram head-to-head, direct meta-analysis of seven trials

  increases

  Not recorded as a finding: active comparator, not absence of the compound

  Escitalopram was associated with higher response as compared with citalopram (random-effects model, combined OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.05 to.46)) (See Section 8, Additional file 1).

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Small-study effect (Egger's test), citalopram v placebo trials

  no effect, p = 0.79

  Egger's test P = 0.79 for citalopram vs. placebo and P = 0.46 for escitalopram vs. placebo

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Small-study effect (Egger's test), escitalopram v placebo trials

  no effect, p = 0.46

  Egger's test P = 0.79 for citalopram vs. placebo and P = 0.46 for escitalopram vs. placebo

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• treatment acceptability, proportion of completers, escitalopram versus placebo, combined OR 0.89

  random-effects combined OR 0.89 (0.73 to 1.07)

  Not recorded as a finding: no outcome node for completer proportion or dropout; interval spans 1

  Concerning acceptability, the proportion of treatment completers was lower with citalopram and escitalopram than placebo, with similar effect sizes, see Section 13, Additional file 1, the random-effects combined OR 0.91 (0.75 to 1.10) for citalopram and 0.89 (0.73 to 1.07) for escitalopram.

  PMID:23167972 · one of two readings recorded this

• Rate of employment, PGRN v STAR*D

  unclear, p = 0.009

  rate of employment (PGRN=81% vs. STAR*D=60%, p-value=0.009)

  PMID:30578947 · one of two readings recorded this

• SNRI remission, CYP2D6 URM, meta-analysis across PGRN and STAR*D

  increases, p = 0.023

  In the meta-analysis across the two studies, CYP2D6 URM was significantly associated (p = 0.023) with greater odds of SNRIs remis-sion (OR = 3.9; I2 = 0.0)

  PMID:30578947 · one of two readings recorded this

• Venlafaxine-XR remission association with CYP2D6 metabolism phenotype

  increases, p = 0.027

  Venlafaxine-XR remission was associated with CYP2D6 metabolism phenotype (p = 0.027)

  PMID:30578947 · one of two readings recorded this

• Venlafaxine-XR remission, linear effect of CYP2D6 metabolizer status (PM, IM/EM, URM)

  increases, p = 0.018

  higher metabolism was associated with greater odds of remission (OR = 4.72, p = 0.018)

  PMID:30578947 · one of two readings recorded this

• Venlafaxine-XR remission rate by CYP2D6 metabolizer phenotype (URM v PM)

  increases

  remission rates were higher among URM (n = 5, 71.4%) in comparison to CYP2D6 PM (n = 1, 10%)

  PMID:30578947 · one of two readings recorded this

• Activities of daily living

  no effect

  The pooled analysis was not in favor of the escitalopram compared with the control (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI, − 0.32 to 1.16; I2 = 94%

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Anorexia

  no effect

  the anorexia (RR = 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.90; 3 trials; I2 = 2%

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Antidepressant efficiency, single trial report

  increases, p = 0.05

  the antidepressant efficiency was obvious statistical significance (P < 0.05) in escitalopram group (88.9%) compared with the control (64.7%)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Anxiety

  no effect

  the anxiety (RR = 1.98; 95% CI, 0.37 to 10.61; 2 trials; I2 = 48%, P = 0.16

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Bleeding

  no effect

  the bleeding (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.15 to 7.07; 2 trials; I2 = 0%

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Chest pain

  no effect

  Only 2 trails reported the chest pain, and the RR was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.70; 2 trials; I2 = 0%, P = 0.57

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Cognitive impairments

  no effect

  The SMD was 0.56 (95% CI, − 0.23 to 1.34; 3 trials

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• depression rating scores pooled across HAMD-17, HAMD-24 and other scales, SMD

  decreases, SMD -1.25, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.68

  Not recorded as a finding: hdrs-total-score requires the HDRS total; this estimate pools several scales and no pooled-instrument depression node exists

  Figure 2 shows that the SMD of depression rating scores was − 1.25 (95% CI, − 1.82 to − 0.68; 7 trials; I2 = 90%) among participants allocated escitalopram compared with control.

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• depression rating scores, pooled SMD across HAMD-17 and HAMD-24 and other scales, 7 trials, escitalopram versus placebo or blank control

  SMD -1.25 (95% CI, -1.82 to -0.68)

  Not recorded as a finding: hdrs-total-score requires the Hamilton total score; the pooled estimate mixes rating scales and the sentence gives only a signed SMD with no direction word

  Figure 2 shows that the SMD of depression rating scores was − 1.25 (95% CI, − 1.82 to − 0.68; 7 trials; I2 = 90%) among participants allocated escitalopram compared with control.

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Depression rating scores

  decreases

  Figure 2 shows that the SMD of depression rating scores was − 1.25 (95% CI, − 1.82 to − 0.68; 7 trials; I2 = 90%) among participants allocated escitalopram compared with control

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Depression rating scores

  decreases

  the group of 3 ~ 6 months (SMD = -1.23; 95% CI, − 1.50 to − 0.97; I2 = 0%)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Depression rating scores

  decreases

  there was obvious statistical significance in the subgroup where follow-up duration was the group of < 3 months (SMD = -1.78; 95% CI, − 2.78 to − 0.77; I2 = 91%)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Depression rating scores

  decreases

  But there was moderate heterogeneity among participants who were with depression (SMD = -1.32; 95% CI, − 1.74 to − 0.90; I2 = 57%)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Depression rating scores

  decreases

  or not depression (SMD = -1.15; 95% CI, − 2.21 to − 0.09; I2 = 95%)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Dizziness

  no effect

  the dizziness (RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.32; 3 trials; I2 = 0%, P = 0.95

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Drowsiness

  increases

  except for the drowsiness (RR = 6.95; 95% CI, 1.61 to 30.09; 3 trials; I2 = 31%, P = 0.23

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Drowsiness

  no effect

  the drowsiness (SMD = 4.70; 95% CI, 0.17 to 127.25; I2 = 64%, P = 0.09)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Dry mouth

  no effect

  the dry mouth (RR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03; 3 trials; I2 = 46%

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Dysuria

  no effect

  the dysuria (RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 0.51 to 3.77; 2 trials; I2 = 0%, P = 0.85

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Falls

  no effect

  the falls (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.15 to 7.07; 2 trials; I2 = 0%, P = 0.97

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Fatigue

  no effect

  the fatigue (RR = 1.25; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.74; 3 trials; I2 = 0%, P = 0.73

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, constipation)

  no effect

  For nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain and constipation, the RR was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.99; 7 trials; Fig. 5)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Incidence of poststroke depression

  decreases

  The incidence of PSD was higher in control compared with escitalopram and with moderate heterogeneity (RR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.91; 5 trials; I2 = 72%; Fig. 4)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Increased sweating

  no effect

  the increased sweating (RR = 1.78; 95% CI, 0.99 to 3.20; 3 trials; I2 = 0%, P = 0.80

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Indigestion

  no effect

  the indigestion (RR = 1.26; 95% CI, 0.75 to 2.11; 3 trials; I2 = 0%

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Insomnia

  no effect

  the insomnia (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.39; 4 trials; I2 = 0%, P = 0.71

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• motor function pooled across Fugl-Meyer and Hemispheric Stroke Scale, SMD

  increases, SMD = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.93

  Not recorded as a finding: no motor function outcome node; pooled across two instruments and not robust in sensitivity analysis

  There was a better effect in the escitalopram versus the control (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.93; 4 trials, Supplemental Fig. 19) with high heterogeneity among trials (I2 = 83%; P = 0.0005), between different motor function scales FM (SMD = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.06; I2 = 54%, P = 0.11) vs Hemispheric Stroke Scale (SMD = 0.00; 95% CI, − 0.18 to 0.18).

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• motor function, pooled SMD across Fugl-Meyer and Hemispheric Stroke Scale, 4 trials

  increases, SMD = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.93

  Not recorded as a finding: no outcome node for motor function after stroke; result did not hold in sensitivity analysis

  There was a better effect in the escitalopram versus the control (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.93; 4 trials, Supplemental Fig. 19) with high heterogeneity among trials (I2 = 83%; P = 0.0005), between different motor function scales FM (SMD = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.06; I2 = 54%, P = 0.11) vs Hemispheric Stroke Scale (SMD = 0.00; 95% CI, − 0.18 to 0.18).

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Motor function

  increases

  There was a better effect in the escitalopram versus the control (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.93; 4 trials

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Motor function

  increases

  between different motor function scales FM (SMD = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.06; I2 = 54%, P = 0.11)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Motor function

  no effect

  vs Hemispheric Stroke Scale (SMD = 0.00; 95% CI, − 0.18 to 0.18)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Motor function

  no effect

  except for the motor function (SMD = 0.36; 95% CI, − 0.40 to 1.13; I2 = 90%, P = 0.002)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Neurological deficit scores

  no effect

  The SMD was − 0.97 (95% CI, − 1.97 to 0.03; 4 trials

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Neurological deficit scores

  decreases

  vs MESSS (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI, − 0.69 to − 0.01)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Neurological deficit scores

  decreases

  regarding different scales NFI (Neurologic Function Impairment) (SMD = -3.25; 95% CI, − 3.86 to − 2.64)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Neurological deficit scores

  no effect

  vs NIHSS (SMD = -0.15; 95% CI, − 0.46 to 0.17; I2 = 91%, P = 0.15)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Pain

  no effect

  the pain (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.63; 2 trials; I2 = 24%, P = 0.25

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Palpitation

  no effect

  The RR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.44 to 2.96; 3 trials; I2 = 0%, P = 0.65; Fig. 6) for palpitation

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Publication bias test (Egger) for depression rating scores

  no effect, p = 0.478

  the Egger tests showed that the outcome of depression rating scores (t = -0.77; P = 0.478 > 0.10) was not affected by publication bias

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Recovery rate of neurological function, single trial report

  increases, p = 0.05

  the recovery rate of neurological function was obvious statistical significance (P < 0.05) in escitalopram group (86.1%) compared with the control (58.8%)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Sexual adverse events

  no effect

  Escitalopram did not affect sexual function versus control (RR = 1.39; 95% CI, 0.94 2.05; I2 = 0%, P = 0.72; 3 trials; Fig. 7)

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Tachycardia

  no effect

  For tachycardia, the RR was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.28; 2 trials

  PMID:35228575 · one of two readings recorded this

• Early response, 1 to 4 weeks

  no effect

  or newer ADs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Early response, 1 to 4 weeks

  no effect

  There was no statistically significant difference with escitalopram being more effective than other SSRIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Follow-up remission, 16 to 24 weeks

  no effect

  or newer ADs (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Follow-up remission, 16 to 24 weeks

  no effect

  There was no statistically significant difference between escitalopram being more effective than other SSRIs (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.27)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Follow-up response, 16 to 24 weeks

  no effect

  no statistically significant difference between escitalopram and newer ADs (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.19)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Follow-up response, 16 to 24 weeks

  no effect

  There was no statistically significant difference between escitalopram and other SSRIs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05, I 2 = 0%)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Mean change from baseline in depressive symptoms, 6 to 12 weeks

  decreases

  or newer ADs (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.02, I 2 = 97%)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Mean change from baseline in depressive symptoms, 6 to 12 weeks

  decreases

  Escitalopram was found to be more efficacious than other SSRIs in reduction of depressive symptoms (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.06, I 2 = 34%)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• number of patients who responded to treatment (at least 50% reduction on HAM-D/MADRS or CGI-I), acute phase 6 to 12 weeks, escitalopram versus other SSRIs and versus newer antidepressants

  increases

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  There was a statistically significant difference with escitalopram being more effective than other SSRIs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95, I 2 = 33%; 14 studies, 4111 participants).

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission, acute phase 6 to 12 weeks (RR below 1 favours escitalopram)

  no effect

  there was no statistically significant difference with escitalopram being more effective than newer ADs (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.01, I 2 = 36%)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Remission, acute phase 6 to 12 weeks (RR below 1 favours escitalopram)

  decreases

  There was statistically significant difference between escitalopram being more effective than other SSRIs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, I 2 = 69%)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• response (at least 50% reduction on HAM-D or MADRS), remission, mean change in depressive symptoms, and tolerability for escitalopram versus other SSRIs and newer antidepressants in major depressive disorder

  RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95 for response versus other SSRIs

  Not recorded as a finding: the comparison was against another active treatment

  There was a statistically significant difference with escitalopram being more effective than other SSRIs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95, I 2 = 33%; 14 studies, 4111 participants).

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, sensitivity analysis excluding studies with dropout above 20% in both arms

  decreases, n = 1893

  not only when studies whose dropout rate was greater than 20% in both arms were ruled out (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97, I 2 = 68%; 7 studies, 1893 participants; Figure S 12)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response, sensitivity analysis excluding studies with dropout above 20% in one arm only

  decreases, n = 1062

  but also when studies whose dropout rate was greater than 20% in only one arm were additionally ruled out (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98, I 2 = 71%; 4 studies, 1062 participants; Figure S 13)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response to treatment, acute phase 6 to 12 weeks (RR below 1 favours escitalopram)

  decreases, n = 3663

  There was a statistically significant difference with escitalopram being more effective than newer ADs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97, I 2 = 43%; 11 studies, 3663 participants)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Response to treatment, acute phase 6 to 12 weeks (RR below 1 favours escitalopram)

  decreases, n = 4111

  There was a statistically significant difference with escitalopram being more effective than other SSRIs (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95, I 2 = 33%; 14 studies, 4111 participants)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Tolerability, patients experiencing at least one side effect

  no effect

  there were no statistically significant differences between escitalopram and newer ADs in terms of tolerability (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.01, I 2 = 29%)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• Tolerability, patients experiencing at least one side effect

  decreases

  There were statistically significant differences between escitalopram and other SSRIs in terms of tolerability (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.97, I 2 = 0%)

  PMID:38001423 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in depressive symptoms from baseline, HAMD-17 (other scales converted to HAMD-17), escitalopram 10 mg and 20 mg against placebo response in antidepressant trials, Bayesian network meta-analysis

  escitalopram 10 mg MD 1.86 (0.21 to 3.50); escitalopram 20 mg MD 1.82 (0.16 to 3.43), credible intervals not crossing zero

  Not recorded as a finding: the direction is carried only as a signed number

  Additionally, in comparison with placebo response in antidepressant trials, the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (6.52 (3.19 to 9.57)), escitalopram 10 mg (1.86 (0.21 to 3.50)), and escitalopram 20 mg (1.82 (0.16 to 3.43)) did not cross zero.

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• change in depressive symptoms from baseline, HAMD-17 (scores converted to HAMD-17), escitalopram 10 mg and 20 mg versus placebo response in antidepressant trials, Bayesian network meta-analysis mean difference

  escitalopram 10 mg MD 1.86 (0.21 to 3.50); escitalopram 20 mg MD 1.82 (0.16 to 3.43)

  Not recorded as a finding: the direction is carried only as a signed number

  Additionally, in comparison with placebo response in antidepressant trials, the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (6.52 (3.19 to 9.57)), escitalopram 10 mg (1.86 (0.21 to 3.50)), and escitalopram 20 mg (1.82 (0.16 to 3.43)) did not cross zero.

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, extremely low dose psilocybin v placebo response in psychedelic trials

  decreases

  Notably, placebo response in antidepressant trials (3.79 (95% credibile interval 0.77 to 6.80)) and extremely low dose psilocybin (3.96 (0.61 to 7.17)) were better than placebo response in the psychedelic trials

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, high dose psilocybin v escitalopram 10 mg

  decreases

  Importantly, the mean differences of high dose psilocybin compared with escitalopram 10 mg (4.66 (1.36 to 7.74); standardised mean difference 0.22), escitalopram 20 mg (4.69 (1.64 to 7.54); 0.24), high dose MDMA (4.98 (1.23 to 8.67); 0.32), and low dose psilocybin (4.36 (1.20 to 7.51); 0.32)

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, high dose psilocybin v escitalopram 10 mg

  decreases

  Notably, the relative effects of high dose psilocybin compared with escitalopram 10 mg (4.96 (1.97 to 7.82)), escitalopram 20 mg (4.97 (2.19 to 7.64)), and low dose psilocybin (3.82 (0.61 to 7.04)) all exceeded 3 and did not cross zero

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, high dose psilocybin v escitalopram 20 mg

  decreases

  Importantly, the mean differences of high dose psilocybin compared with escitalopram 10 mg (4.66 (1.36 to 7.74); standardised mean difference 0.22), escitalopram 20 mg (4.69 (1.64 to 7.54); 0.24), high dose MDMA (4.98 (1.23 to 8.67); 0.32), and low dose psilocybin (4.36 (1.20 to 7.51); 0.32)

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, high dose psilocybin v escitalopram 20 mg

  decreases

  Notably, the relative effects of high dose psilocybin compared with escitalopram 10 mg (4.96 (1.97 to 7.82)), escitalopram 20 mg (4.97 (2.19 to 7.64)), and low dose psilocybin (3.82 (0.61 to 7.04)) all exceeded 3 and did not cross zero

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, high dose psilocybin v high dose MDMA

  decreases

  Importantly, the mean differences of high dose psilocybin compared with escitalopram 10 mg (4.66 (1.36 to 7.74); standardised mean difference 0.22), escitalopram 20 mg (4.69 (1.64 to 7.54); 0.24), high dose MDMA (4.98 (1.23 to 8.67); 0.32), and low dose psilocybin (4.36 (1.20 to 7.51); 0.32)

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, high dose psilocybin v low dose psilocybin

  decreases

  Importantly, the mean differences of high dose psilocybin compared with escitalopram 10 mg (4.66 (1.36 to 7.74); standardised mean difference 0.22), escitalopram 20 mg (4.69 (1.64 to 7.54); 0.24), high dose MDMA (4.98 (1.23 to 8.67); 0.32), and low dose psilocybin (4.36 (1.20 to 7.51); 0.32)

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, high dose psilocybin v low dose psilocybin

  decreases

  Notably, the relative effects of high dose psilocybin compared with escitalopram 10 mg (4.96 (1.97 to 7.82)), escitalopram 20 mg (4.97 (2.19 to 7.64)), and low dose psilocybin (3.82 (0.61 to 7.04)) all exceeded 3 and did not cross zero

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, placebo response in antidepressant trials v placebo response in psychedelic trials

  decreases

  Notably, placebo response in antidepressant trials (3.79 (95% credibile interval 0.77 to 6.80)) and extremely low dose psilocybin (3.96 (0.61 to 7.17)) were better than placebo response in the psychedelic trials

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, placebo response in psychedelic trials v extremely low dose psilocybin

  increases

  When compared with extremely low dose psilocybin, only the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (6.35 (95% credibile interval 3.41 to 9.21)) and placebo response in the psychedelic trials (−3.96 (−7.17 to −0.61))

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms, placebo response in psychedelic trials v extremely low dose psilocybin

  increases

  only the 95% credibile intervals of the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (4.36 (0.54 to 8.27); standardised mean difference 0.30) and placebo response in the psychedelic trials (−6.46 (−10.41 to −2.32), standardised mean difference −0.46) exceeded 3

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms v extremely low dose psilocybin

  decreases

  When compared with extremely low dose psilocybin, only the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (6.35 (95% credibile interval 3.41 to 9.21)) and placebo response in the psychedelic trials (−3.96 (−7.17 to −0.61))

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms v extremely low dose psilocybin

  decreases

  only the 95% credibile intervals of the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (4.36 (0.54 to 8.27); standardised mean difference 0.30) and placebo response in the psychedelic trials (−6.46 (−10.41 to −2.32), standardised mean difference −0.46) exceeded 3

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms v placebo response in antidepressant trials

  decreases

  Additionally, in comparison with placebo response in antidepressant trials, the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (6.52 (3.19 to 9.57)), escitalopram 10 mg (1.86 (0.21 to 3.50)), and escitalopram 20 mg (1.82 (0.16 to 3.43)) did not cross zero

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms v placebo response in antidepressant trials

  decreases

  Additionally, in comparison with placebo response in antidepressant trials, the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (6.52 (3.19 to 9.57)), escitalopram 10 mg (1.86 (0.21 to 3.50)), and escitalopram 20 mg (1.82 (0.16 to 3.43)) did not cross zero

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms v placebo response in antidepressant trials

  decreases

  Additionally, in comparison with placebo response in antidepressant trials, the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (6.52 (3.19 to 9.57)), escitalopram 10 mg (1.86 (0.21 to 3.50)), and escitalopram 20 mg (1.82 (0.16 to 3.43)) did not cross zero

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms v placebo response in antidepressant trials

  decreases

  However, only the mean differences for high dose psilocybin (6.82 (95% credibile interval 3.84 to 9.67)), ayahuasca (5.38 (0.02 to 10.61)), and placebo response in the psychedelic trials (−4.00 (−6.87 to −1.13)) exceeded 3

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

• Change in HAMD-17 depressive symptoms v placebo response in antidepressant trials

  decreases

  However, only the mean differences for high dose psilocybin (6.82 (95% credibile interval 3.84 to 9.67)), ayahuasca (5.38 (0.02 to 10.61)), and placebo response in the psychedelic trials (−4.00 (−6.87 to −1.13)) exceeded 3

  PMID:39168500 · one of two readings recorded this

The whole record — 319 rows