It is known that newer antidepressants, such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), provide advantages in tolerability over antidepressants such as the tricyclics. However, even within the SSRI class, differences in efficacy or tolerability exist between the individual drugs. Among the three most widely prescribed SSRIs are paroxetine, sertraline, and escitalopram. Escitalopram is commonly referred to as an SSRI, but also has well-documented allosteric properties, and thus can be further classed as an allosteric serotonin reuptake inhibitor. All three antidepressants are efficacious compared with placebo, but there is evidence that escitalopram is more effective than a range of other antidepressants. There are no direct data to regard either paroxetine or sertraline as a superior antidepressant. Escitalopram is superior compared with paroxetine, which has a less favorable tolerability profile. Paroxetine is associated with cholinergic muscarinic antagonism and potent inhibition of CYP2D6, and sertraline has moderate drug interaction issues in comparison with escitalopram. Overall, as an allosteric serotonin reuptake inhibitor that is somewhat different from classical SSRIs, escitalopram is the first choice judged by combined efficacy and tolerability, and nonclinical data have offered possible mechanisms through which escitalopram could be more efficacious, based on its interaction with orthosteric and allosteric binding sites at the serotonin transporter.

The safety and tolerability of vortioxetine in adults with major depressive disorder was assessed. Tolerability was based on the nature, incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during acute (6/8) week treatment in 11 randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled short-term studies in major depressive disorder: six with an active reference. Symptoms following discontinuation were assessed through the Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms checklist in three studies. Long-term (⩽52 weeks) tolerability was evaluated in five open-label extension studies. Patients (n =5701) were acutely treated with either placebo (n=1817), vortioxetine (5–20mg/day; n=3018), venlafaxine XR (225mg/day; n=113) or duloxetine (60mg/day; n=753). The withdrawal rate due to TEAEs during treatment with vortioxetine (5–20mg/day) was 4.5–7.8%, compared with placebo (3.6%), venlafaxine XR (14.2%) or duloxetine (8.8%). Common TEAEs (incidence ⩾5% and >2 × placebo) with vortioxetine (5–20mg/day) were nausea (20.9–31.2%) and vomiting (2.9–6.5%). For vortioxetine (5–20mg/day), the incidence of TEAEs associated with insomnia was 2.0–5.1% versus 4.0% for placebo, and with sexual dysfunction 1.6–1.8% versus 1.0% for placebo. Discontinuation symptoms as assessed by the mean Discontinuation-Emergent Signs and Symptoms total score after abrupt discontinuation were comparable to placebo in the first and second week. Vortioxetine had no effect relative to placebo on clinical laboratory parameters, body weight, heart rate or blood pressure. Vortioxetine showed no clinically relevant effect on ECG parameters, including the QTcF interval. In long-term treatment, no new types of TEAEs were seen; the mean weight gain was 0.7–0.8kg. Thus, vortioxetine (5–20mg/day) appears safe and generally well tolerated in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

The R-enantiomer present in citalopram counteracts the activity of the S-enantiomer, thereby providing a possible basis for the pharmacological and clinical differences observed between citalopram and escitalopram.

Patients with MDD responded well to long-term treatment with either escitalopram or citalopram. This study demonstrated the importance of extending treatment of depression beyond 8 weeks.

Escitalopram is the active S-enantiomer of citalopram. In a chronic mild stress model of depression in rats, treatments with both escitalopram and citalopram were effective; however, a faster time to onset of efficacy compared to vehicle treatment was observed for escitalopram-treated (5 mg/kg/day) than for citalopram-treated (10 mg/kg/day) rats at Week 1. To study the predictability of this observation in the clinic, we analysed 4-week data from an 8-week, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study that compared escitalopram and citalopram to placebo in primary care patients with major depressive disorder (baseline Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores > or =22 and < or =40). Since the flexible dosing started after Week 4, analysis of 4-week data ensured that the patients received fixed doses of 10 mg/day escitalopram (155 patients), 20 mg/day citalopram (160 patients), or placebo (154 patients). The efficacy analysis showed a significantly superior therapeutic effect for escitalopram versus placebo from Week 1 onwards (observed cases) with an adjusted mean change in MADRS at Week 4 (last observation carried forward) of 2.7 points (P=0.002). By comparison, 20 mg/day citalopram did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect compared to placebo. Escitalopram was well tolerated with an adverse event profile similar to that of citalopram. The preclinical observation that escitalopram possesses a faster time to onset of efficacy than citalopram was also seen in primary care patients with major depressive disorder. Thus, escitalopram is efficacious in depression and the effect occurs earlier than for citalopram.