This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Escitalopram does in the body
Only the left-handed one blocks the serotonin pump; the right-handed one does very little.
Citalopram is a mixture of two molecules that are mirror images of each other, like a left and right hand. Escitalopram is that mixture with the inactive hand removed. Beyond that it works exactly like any other SSRI: it plugs the pump that clears serotonin out of the gap between nerve cells.
Why people take it. Used for depression and generalised anxiety.
What happened in people
In the largest antidepressant comparison, escitalopram combined better-than-average results with fewer people stopping treatment.
✓ Reviewed first-read answer
Where this came from
A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.
A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
Higher doses increased side-effect dropouts without clearly adding more benefit.
Where it acts
Presynaptic serotonergic terminals, raphe nuclei and cortical projections
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
What the registries record it as
Its recorded molecular formula is C20H21FN2O•C2H2O4, weighing 414.40.
US prescribing information · 10b25a10-c5e7-479b-a9f5-7eeafd802323 · read 2026-08-30
Where each sentence above came from
A person wrote this explanation into the record, with the studies named in the path below.
A reviewer approved this sentence against this exact record and its sources.
The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.
The four opening statements run to 86 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Formulation
A formulation is the exact made-up form a substance comes in.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the difference between a whole bean and instant coffee.
Where that stops being true. Coffee tastes different. A formulation can change how much reaches the blood.
What people get wrong. Two products with the same name are assumed to behave the same. They often do not.
The specific composition and physical form of a product, including salt, excipients and release profile.
Enzyme
An enzyme is a protein that speeds up one chemical change.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
An enzyme is like a machine on a production line doing one cut.
Where that stops being true. A machine is switched on and off by a person. Enzymes are controlled by the cell.
What people get wrong. Enzymes are thought to be used up. They are not; they work again and again.
A catalytic protein that lowers the activation energy of a specific reaction.
Receptor
A receptor is a part of a cell that a signal fits into.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A receptor is like a lock waiting for one key.
Where that stops being true. A lock either opens or does not. A receptor can be half-triggered, or worn out.
What people get wrong. Fitting a receptor is read as causing a benefit. It causes a step, and nothing more.
A protein that binds a specific ligand and converts that binding into a cellular response.
Pathway
A pathway is a chain of steps inside a cell, each one setting off the next.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A pathway is like a row of dominoes.
Where that stops being true. Dominoes fall one way. Pathways loop back and can switch themselves off.
What people get wrong. Changing one step is read as changing the outcome. Other steps often absorb it.
An ordered series of molecular interactions producing a defined cellular change.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What was measured, goal by goal
One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.
Registered studies list 40 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.
There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.
Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
Goal
Life outcome
What a body can do
How a person feels
A test result
A step in the body
Harms
How long
Who was studied
Mood
…Waiting for a reviewer2 registered study measure of this kind. No reviewed result yet.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer12 registered symptom measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Sleep
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer1 registered symptom measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Focus
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer2 registered performance measure of this kind.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Pain
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer1 registered symptom measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Mood
hamilton depression scale; hamilton rating scale for depression; montgomery asberg depression rating scale; montgomery asberg depression scale a of 13 or higher; remission of depression; recurrence of major depression; hamilton anxiety rating scale; madrs
P = 0.022 (-22.1 vs -18.8, last observation carried forward)
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Discontinuation for adverse events 2.6% vs 0.6%; serious adverse events 2.6% vs 1.3%; suicidality incidence reported as similar between groups.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet and oral solution, once daily
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
■Living longer, or avoiding a major eventEvidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.3 registered measures of this kind. No reviewed result.
■What a body can do day to dayEvidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.2 registered measures of this kind.
■Measured performanceEvidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.2 registered measures of this kind.
■Symptoms and quality of lifeEvidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.16 registered measures of this kind.
□A number that stands in for healthNo evidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.No registered study measures this.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
■AnimalsEvidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.Stored records in C. elegans (roundworm), Mouse. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
■Cells in a dishEvidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.Stored mechanism abstracts describe steps measured in cells or tissue.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Where a source records it acting
Brain: Potentiation of serotonergic activity in the central nervous system (CNS) through inhibition of CNS neuronal reuptake of serotonin, as recorded
US prescribing information · 0458445b-e431-4c82-86b8-90373813c10a · read 2026-08-27
Start
Escitalopram
What a person takes: Oral tablet and oral solution, once daily.
The measurement behind this step
Immediate-release tablets and an oral solution. Absorption is not affected by food. The long half-life means a missed dose is forgiving and abrupt cessation still produces discontinuation symptoms.
Getting in
Once-daily tablet, absorbed independently of food
One tablet a day. Food does not meaningfully change how much is absorbed, and the level in the blood stops rising after about a week.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Oral bioavailability around 80%, absorption unaffected by food, terminal half-life of roughly 27 to 32 hours giving steady state in about a week. Metabolised by CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 to weakly active demethyl metabolites.
Unlike citalopram, what arrives at the nerve terminals is only the active mirror-image form.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Crosses the blood-brain barrier and distributes to serotonergic projection fields. The R-enantiomer present in racemic citalopram is absent, which is the entire pharmacological difference between the two products.
It blocks the pump that clears serotonin out of the gap between nerve cells, so the messenger lingers.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Binds the primary substrate site of SLC6A4. Escitalopram is the most SERT-selective of the SSRIs, with negligible activity at norepinephrine and dopamine transporters and at muscarinic, histaminergic and adrenergic receptors — which is why its side-effect profile is narrower than the older tricyclics.
The immediate effect is blocked within hours, but the mood change takes weeks, which points at slower adaptation rather than at a topped-up chemical.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Somatodendritic 5-HT1A autoreceptor desensitisation over two to four weeks releases the acute brake on raphe firing, raising net forebrain serotonergic transmission. The link from that adaptation to symptom change remains a hypothesis.
The endpoint in every trial is a questionnaire score, not a laboratory value.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Efficacy is measured as MADRS, HAM-D, HAM-A or CDRS-R change. In the adolescent trial the separation was 3.3 CDRS-R points; in the adult network the estimate is an odds ratio on response rate.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Felt, measured, or meaningful
Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.
Felt
Things a person could notice without a test.
hamilton depression scale
hamilton rating scale for depression
montgomery asberg depression rating scale
montgomery asberg depression scale a of 13 or higher
pain relief
pittsburgh sleep quality index
hamilton anxiety rating scale
penn state worry questionnaire
madrs
hamilton depression rating scale
and 6 more.
Measured
Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
Meaningful
Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.
remission of depression
remission
global cognitive performance
cognitive instrumental activities of daily living
remission of depressive symptoms
A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.
Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.
Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.
Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.
Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.
Names that fit none of the three (19)
clinical global impressions scale
y bocs scores at 1st and last visit
negative symptoms
ham d 17
diary sleep efficiency
recurrence of major depression
treatment adherence
yale brown obsessive compulsive scale
caps
pharmacokinetics
changes in updrs subscale
response rates
phase 2
cordance value
remitters on ids c30 at week 12
bioequivalence
depressive symptoms
auc of m1 metabolite of tramadol
time of retention
These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How long anything takes
Nine different lengths of time that get confused with each other. None of them is worked out from another.
Before anything is noticed.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Before a test result moves.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Before performance moves.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
How long the result was watched.No finished study window is recorded for a study that tested this substance.
How long people took it.How long people actually took it is not stored. The study window is not the same thing.
How long people were followed.Follow-up length is not stored separately. It is never read off the study window, which would be a different thing.
How fast the body clears it. about 27 to 32 hours hours
Read from the label, which states: “Biotransformation of escitalopram is mainly hepatic, with a mean terminal half-life of about 27-32 hours.”
How long effects linger.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Beyond the studies. Nothing is recorded about the long term.
The longest finished study sets the edge of what anyone measured.
A study window is not how long people took it, and neither is how long they were followed. Where RNAWiki holds only one of the three, it shows one.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Adults with major depression or generalised anxiety disorder, adolescents aged 12 and older with depression, and children aged 7 and older with generalised anxiety disorder.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “The safety and effectiveness of escitalopram oxalate have not been established in pediatric (younger than 12 years of age) patients with major depressive disorder.”
US prescribing information · 10b25a10-c5e7-479b-a9f5-7eeafd802323 · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “Approximately 6% of the 1144 patients receiving escitalopram in controlled trials of escitalopram oxalate in major depressive disorder and GAD were 60 years of age or older; elderly patients in these trials received daily doses of escitalopram oxalate between 10 and 20 mg.”
US prescribing information · 10b25a10-c5e7-479b-a9f5-7eeafd802323 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Pregnancy Exposure Registry There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to antidepressants during pregnancy.”
US prescribing information · 10b25a10-c5e7-479b-a9f5-7eeafd802323 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk Summary Data from the published literature report the presence of escitalopram and desmethylescitalopram in human milk (see Data) .”
US prescribing information · 10b25a10-c5e7-479b-a9f5-7eeafd802323 · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
CIT-MD-18, the paediatric trial of the parent drug citalopram, showed no significant difference from placebo on its protocol-specified outcome; the published article reported it as positive, and litigation documents showed how
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely.
On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf.
On this record: This record is linked to 1 related forms. Evidence does not carry across all of them.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing.
On this record: The dose-response finding has moved guidance toward starting and staying low rather than titrating on principle
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (8)
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Prescription only
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral tablet and oral solution, once daily
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Suppression classes recorded: S6.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Immediate-release tablets and an oral solution. Absorption is not affected by food. The long half-life means a missed dose is forgiving and abrupt cessation still produces discontinuation symptoms.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
The US label carries a boxed warning for increased suicidal thinking and behaviour in children, adolescents and young adults up to age 24. Common adverse effects are nausea, insomnia, somnolence, increased sweating and sexual dysfunction. Dose-dependent QT prolongation is a class concern that led the FDA to restrict maximum citalopram dosing in 2011; escitalopram labelling carries QT precautions. Hyponatraemia and serotonin syndrome are recognised risks.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Escitalopram appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 5783 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.
open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral tablet and oral solution, once daily
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
Absorption is not affected by food. The long half-life means a missed dose is forgiving and abrupt cessation still produces discontinuation symptoms.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
81 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 81 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.
US prescribing information · 102c3893-4fdc-40b3-bd83-775e292723d7 · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · 102c3893-4fdc-40b3-bd83-775e292723d7 · read 2026-08-29
Escitalopram Oral Solution is oral solution at 1 mg per mL, recorded as prescription product; fda label in effect 2025-03-05 in the United States.
US prescribing information · 0458445b-e431-4c82-86b8-90373813c10a · read 2026-08-27
Recorded price in US: 0.0394–5.40748 USD per one unit as the pricing file counts it — a tablet, capsule, patch or single item, across 65 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..
Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
Evidence on this page does not automatically apply to this one.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Escitalopram studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That escitalopram is superior to milligram-equivalent racemic citalopram — the comparisons behind that claim were contested from 2003 and the allosteric mechanism proposed for it was never demonstrated in humans
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That titrating a partial responder to a higher dose improves the odds of response
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the drug corrects a serotonin deficiency, an explanation the biomarker literature does not support
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Escitalopram are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
Top-tier ranking in the 21-drug network on efficacy and acceptability together
In plain words
In the largest comparison of antidepressants ever assembled, escitalopram was in the small group that combined better-than-average results with better-than-average tolerability.
What was measured
Response rate odds ratio and all-cause discontinuation odds ratio
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Cipriani et al. pooled 522 double-blind randomised trials and 116,477 participants across 21 antidepressants, with response rate as the efficacy primary and all-cause discontinuation as the acceptability primary. All 21 drugs beat placebo on efficacy; escitalopram was among those with both a favourable efficacy odds ratio and favourable acceptability. Certainty of evidence was rated moderate to very low across most comparisons, and the ranking is a network estimate, not a head-to-head result.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The "chiral chimera" objection was published the year escitalopram launched
In plain words
From 2003 onwards, pharmacologists argued in print that separating out the active half of citalopram was a commercial move dressed as a scientific advance, because the comparisons used to prove superiority were not fair.
What was measured
That escitalopram is meaningfully superior to milligram-equivalent citalopram, rather than being the same active molecule delivered without its inactive partner
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Svensson and Mansfield set out the objection in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics: the claimed superiority of escitalopram over citalopram rested on comparisons in which escitalopram was tested at doses that were not milligram-equivalent to the citalopram comparator, on manufacturer-sponsored analyses, and on a mechanism — allosteric interference by the R-enantiomer — that was proposed rather than demonstrated in humans. Later independent reanalyses reached mixed conclusions. This is a dispute about the increment over the racemate, not about whether escitalopram works.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Adolescent depression: a 3.3-point CDRS-R separation in 312 patients
In plain words
In the trial that supported the teenage indication, depression scores fell about three points further on escitalopram than on placebo over eight weeks, on a scale that runs from 17 to 113.
What was measured
Change in CDRS-R total score at 8 weeks
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Emslie et al. randomised adolescents aged 12 to 17; 259 of 312 completed eight weeks of double-blind treatment. Baseline Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised was 57.6 on escitalopram and 56.0 on placebo. Change at endpoint was -22.1 versus -18.8 (p=0.022, last observation carried forward). Discontinuation for adverse events was 2.6% versus 0.6%; serious adverse events 2.6% versus 1.3%; suicidality incidence similar between groups. The FDA granted the adolescent MDD indication on this evidence base.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The paediatric citalopram trial behind the franchise was misreported, and court documents proved it
In plain words
The children's trial of citalopram — escitalopram's parent drug — was published as positive. Litigation documents later showed the protocol-specified outcome had shown no difference from placebo.
What was measured
Not recorded
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Jureidini, Amsterdam and McHenry reconstructed the CIT-MD-18 paediatric depression trial from documents produced in litigation. They found efficacy and safety data inconsistent with the protocol criteria; unreported procedural deviations that conferred statistical significance on the primary outcome; an implausible claimed effect size; post-hoc positive measures introduced and negative secondary outcomes omitted; adverse events analysed misleadingly; and manuscript drafts prepared by company employees and outside ghostwriters with academic researchers solicited as authors. Their conclusion was that protocol-specified outcomes showed no statistically significant difference between citalopram and placebo. Forest Laboratories, escitalopram's US marketer, resolved related federal charges in 2010.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Higher doses buy tolerability problems, not extra efficacy
In plain words
Across 77 studies, SSRI benefit stopped increasing near the bottom of the licensed dose range while side-effect dropouts kept climbing all the way up it.
What was measured
That increasing the dose of an SSRI in a partial responder increases the chance of response
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Furukawa et al. dose-response meta-analysis, 77 studies, 19,364 participants. For SSRIs (99 treatment groups) the dose-efficacy curve rose gradually to between 20 and 40 mg fluoxetine equivalents and was then flat to decreasing through the higher licensed doses up to 80 mg equivalents. Dropouts due to adverse effects increased steeply across the examined range, and optimal acceptability sat in the lower licensed range. The routine clinical inference that a partial responder should be titrated upward is not supported by this curve at the population level.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The serotonin-deficiency account is not supported, and the trial results are unchanged
In plain words
The explanation given to patients for decades — that the drug corrects a chemical imbalance — has no consistent biomarker evidence behind it. That does not undo the trial results, and the trials never measured serotonin.
What was measured
That escitalopram corrects a measurable serotonin deficiency in depressed patients
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Moncrieff et al.'s umbrella review of 17 studies found no consistent association between depression and serotonin metabolite concentrations, 5-HT1A binding, SERT binding, or SERT genetics, and reported evidence that lowered plasma serotonin was associated with antidepressant use rather than with depression. Jauhar et al., for 35 co-authors, argued the conclusion was overstated on methodological and interpretive grounds, particularly regarding tryptophan depletion and molecular imaging. Both papers are about pathophysiology. Neither reanalyses an escitalopram trial.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
4 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
The isolated active enantiomer of citalopram, ranked with sertraline in the top tier of the 21-drug antidepressant network on efficacy and acceptability, and licensed on a chemistry argument that was contested in print from the year it launched.
Recorded evidence blocks (13)
Q2
What did Escitalopram's largest trial (3255526 people) and its longest (18 years) measure?
3255526 people in Escitalopram's largest registered study, 18 years in its longest registered window, measuring Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Stratified by Baseline Frailty. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
147 phase4, 80 phase3, 68 na, 49 phase2, 26 phase1, 20 na or unstated, 3 early phase1; NCT07274241; 2025-11-15. Last human test completed 2026, NCT06049797.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Escitalopram was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase4
147
phase3
80
na
68
phase2
49
phase1
26
na or unstated
20
2 more recorded rows
early phase1
3
Last recorded human testNCT06049797
2026-05-07
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q3
From C. elegans to human: where has Escitalopram shown lifespan?
Interpretation Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Stratified by Baseline Frailty — the recorded outcome words.
Show the evidence
C. elegans
lifespan
mouse
mechanism-only
humanNCT01973283
healthspan; Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Stratified by Baseline Frailty; 375
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q4
43 of Escitalopram's trials stopped: safety, futility/efficacy, accrual/recruitment, funding/business, other?
safety (6), futility/efficacy (1), accrual/recruitment (18), funding/business (4) and other (14): Escitalopram's stop wording, clustered. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
"Mutual agreement between Sponsor and Investigator."; 43 of 375 registered studies
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00227292
withdrawn; "Mutual agreement between Sponsor and Investigator."
NCT00272025
terminated; "Lundbeck withdrew committment - expiring patents and prolonged inactivity"
NCT00387348
terminated; "DSMB stopped study because placebo arm had more adverse events"
NCT00464191
terminated; "The study has been terminated because too few patients have been recruited"
NCT00488670
terminated; "Dr. Rabheru left VCH last year and the study was cancelled according to his research coordinator."
NCT00523705
terminated; "Enrollment too slow."
14 further recorded trials
NCT00642694
terminated; "Enrollment discontinued based on mutually agreed upon decision by PI and funding sponsor"
NCT00643162
terminated; "Interim analysis indicated recruitment was necessary beyond study capabilities."
NCT00660062
terminated; "Slow inclusion"
NCT00754793
terminated; "poor recruitment"
NCT00926835
terminated; "due to patient recruitment difficulties"
NCT00955474
terminated; "AstraZeneca halted funding; patent expired for Seroquel (Quetiapine) in 2012"
NCT00958633
terminated; "Recruitment was stopped before the planned sample size was reached owing to the Covid-19 pandemic and expiration of funding."
NCT01103180
terminated; "Funding withdrawn due to inability to accrue"
NCT01111539
terminated; "The study was terminated early due to Sponsor decision, closure of this combination therapy program is unrelated to any safety issues, no signals of concern."
NCT01111552
terminated; "The study was terminated early due to Sponsor decision, closure of this combination therapy program is unrelated to any safety issues, no signals of concern."
NCT01111565
terminated; "The study was terminated early due to Sponsor decision, closure of this combination therapy program is unrelated to any safety issues, no signals of concern."
NCT01123707
terminated; "The study was terminated early due to Sponsor decision; no safety issues."
NCT01219686
terminated; "Recruitment difficulties"
NCT01244724
terminated; "Unable to recruit targeted #"
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q5
Human studies of Escitalopram used Escitalopram Oxalate Tablets 20 mg — over how long?
11 recorded entries; human; also "Escitalopram Oxalate Tablets 20 mg", "Lexapro® Tablets (20 mg", "Lexapro® Tablets 20 mg"
Show the evidence
human
NCT00648570
Escitalopram Oxalate Tablets 20 mg
NCT00648570
Lexapro® Tablets (20 mg
NCT00648661
Lexapro® Tablets 20 mg
NCT00807248
Escitalopram 20 mg
NCT00813735
Escitalopram 10mg or 20mg daily in the AM
NCT01628783
escitalopram 10 mg
5 more recorded rows
humanNCT01787240
Escitalopram 10mg
humanNCT01871701
Escitalopram 20 mg (Lexapro, Tablet)
humanNCT02072278
Escitalopram 15 mg
humanNCT03652870
Escitalopram 5mg
humanNCT03728673
escitalopram 10mg
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q6
Escitalopram's half-life is about 27 to 32 hours — which schedules were studied?
about 27 to 32 hours, the half-life Escitalopram's label states. openfda-label · 9ddd1f24-3ebd-4307-bb23-6acd742cd140 · 2026-08-27
Show the evidence
half life
about 27 to 32 hours hours; Biotransformation of escitalopram is mainly hepatic, with a mean terminal half-life of about 27-32 hours.
metabolism
Metabolism Escitalopram is metabolized to S-DCT and S-didemethylcitalopram (S-DDCT).
recorded 2026-08-27 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q7
Which of 17 item hamilton depression rating scale, auc of m1 metabolite of tramadol and bioequivalence did Escitalopram's trials measure?
17 item hamilton depression rating scale, auc of m1 metabolite of tramadol and bioequivalence lead 40 outcome terms across Escitalopram's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
clinical global impressions scale, y bocs scores at 1st and last visit, montgomery asberg depression scale a of 13 or higher, negative symptoms, remission of depression and ham d 17 follow.
Show the evidence
hamilton depression scale
1
hamilton rating scale for depression
1
montgomery asberg depression rating scale
1
clinical global impressions scale
1
y bocs scores at 1st and last visit
1
montgomery asberg depression scale a of 13 or higher
1
14 more recorded rows
negative symptoms
1
remission of depression
1
ham d 17
1
pain relief
1
pittsburgh sleep quality index
1
diary sleep efficiency
1
remission
1
global cognitive performance
1
cognitive instrumental activities of daily living
1
recurrence of major depression
1
treatment adherence
1
yale brown obsessive compulsive scale
1
hamilton anxiety rating scale
1
penn state worry questionnaire
1
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q8
Which of Escitalopram's 26 ongoing trials reports first?
modified- Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study--Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC); Escitalopram concentration in blood serum (area under curve (AUC)); latest 2030-12-31
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT03108846
"Escitalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer's Disease"; n 187; "modified- Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study--Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC)"; 2025-05
NCT03460379
"Bariatric Surgery and Pharmacokinetics of Escitalopram"; n 12; "Escitalopram concentration in blood serum (area under curve (AUC))"; 2026-10
NCT03511118
"Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Commonly Used Drugs in Lactating Women and Breastfed Infants"; n 1600; "M/P ratio"; 2028-07-31
NCT03728673
"A Study Utilizing Escitalopram in Glioma Patients"; n 20; "Change in Cognition"; 2029-06
NCT03843463
"Escitalopram and Language Intervention for Subacute Aphasia"; n 88; "Change in Philadelphia Naming Test short-form accuracy score"; 2027-01-18
NCT04336228
"The Role of Serotonin in Compulsive Behavior in Humans: Underlying Brain Mechanisms"; n 46; "Learning Primary Outcome 1 measured with Probability Reversal Learning test: Mean errors Stage 1 (Learning)"; 2027-12-31
14 further recorded trials
NCT04623099
"Pharmacogenetically-guided Escitalopram Treatment for Pediatric Anxiety: Aiming to Improve Safety and Efficacy (PrEcISE)"; n 132; "Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale severity score"; 2026-12-01
NCT05004987
"Aβ Dynamics in LLMD"; n 60; "Change in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) Aβ40 Biomarker Levels"; 2027-06-30
NCT05017311
"Optimized Predictive Treatment In Medications for Unipolar Major Depression (OPTIMUM-D)"; n 400; "Change in Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores from baseline"; 2029-04-30
NCT05480150
"Chinese Longitudinal and Systematic Study of Bioplar Disorder"; n 10000; "Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale(MADRS)"; 2026-12-31
NCT05519683
"Home Transcutaneous Electrical Acustimulation (TEA)"; n 160; "Change in abdominal pain/discomfort via daily Visual Analog Scale (VAS) survey"; 2026-09
NCT05603104
"Intensified Pharmacological Treatment for Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Depression After a First-time Treatment Failure"; n 1254; "Change in symptom severity"; 2028-06-30
NCT05866575
"Prediction of the Therapeutic Response in Depression Based on Neuro-computational Modeling Assessment of Motivation"; n 136; "Prediction of the therapeutic response (MADRS score) 28 days after the introduction of the antidepressant strategy (V3) based on the early changes (differences between V1 and V2) of the computational phenotype of depressed patients."; 2026-11-12
NCT05901571
"Acupuncture and Escitalopram for Treating Major Depression Clinical Study"; n 216; "HDRS-17 scale"; 2030-02
NCT05973786
"The Effect of a Six Week Intensified Pharmacological Treatment for Bipolar Depression Compared to Treatment as Usual in Subjects Who Had a First-time Treatment Failure on Their First-line Treatment."; n 418; "Comparing the change in symptom severity on Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale"; 2028-06-30
NCT06054321
"Psychopharmacotherapy for Depressive Patients"; n 400; "Remission and treatment response status by Hamilton Depression Rating Scale"; 2030-12-31
NCT06216535
"Escitalopram in Asthma Patients With Frequent Exacerbation"; n 105; "Total number of severe asthma exacerbations"; 2029-06-01
NCT06337539
"Precision Psychiatry for Depression: Immune Response and Affective Symptoms as Predictors of Response to Antidepressants"; n 50; "Treatment Response"; 2027-07-31
NCT06692361
"Assessment of the Efficacy and Safety of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder"; n 214; "The differences in efficacy(HAMD-17 score reduction rate ≥50%) between the two groups"; 2026-12
NCT06696482
"Effort and Antidepressant Study Test"; n 50; "Effort-based decision-making task for self-benefiting and prosocial behaviours: behavioural correlates"; 2025-09
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q9
Which 140 trials of Escitalopram posted no result?
Posted no result
140 of 140 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00121069, NCT00222820, NCT00565422, NCT00648570, NCT00648661 and NCT01024140, and 134 more
Completion dates
oldest 2004-09; newest 2024-04-02
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00121069
2004-09
NCT00222820
2004-09
NCT00565422
2004-10
NCT00648570
2004-10
NCT00648661
2004-10
NCT01024140
2004-12
14 further recorded trials
NCT00156325
2005-02
NCT00073411
2005-05
NCT00148447
2005-09
NCT00115011
2005-11
NCT00223288
2006-02
NCT00206934
2006-03
NCT00109044
2006-05
NCT00108979
2006-07
NCT00157547
2006-08
NCT01148472
2006-11
NCT00260624
2006-12
NCT00305500
2006-12
NCT00116532
2007-02
NCT00162968
2007-04
Q10
At the median, Escitalopram's trials enrolled 80 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
80
Largest enrolment
3255526
Registered trials counted
373
Q11
What do 5783 spontaneous reports say about Escitalopram — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Escitalopram appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 5783 reaction mentions were counted: drug interaction 821; somnolence 622; suicide attempt 622; electrocardiogram qt prolonged 618. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL1200322 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
drug interaction
821
somnolence
622
suicide attempt
622
electrocardiogram qt prolonged
618
anxiety
564
depression
535
4 more recorded rows
serotonin syndrome
532
hyponatraemia
527
suicidal ideation
502
tremor
440
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q12
Escitalopram and CYP3A4 and CYP2C19: shared by which compounds?
CYP3A4 and CYP2C19 appear in Escitalopram's recorded interaction sentences, 3 in all. openfda-label+europepmc · 2026-08-30
Interpretation pharmacokinetics
Show the evidence
CYP2C19pharmacokinetics
In vitro studies using human liver microsomes indicated that CYP3A4 and CYP2C19 are the primary isozymes involved in the N-demethylation of escitalopram.
CYP3A4
pharmacokinetics
In vitro studies using human liver microsomes indicated that CYP3A4 and CYP2C19 are the primary isozymes involved in the N-demethylation of escitalopram.
pharmacokinetics
Drug-Drug Interactions In vitro enzyme inhibition data did not reveal an inhibitory effect of escitalopram on CYP3A4, -1A2, -2C9, -2C19, and -2E1.
recorded 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q13
Was Escitalopram studied with fasting and exercise?
fasting and exercise are named in Escitalopram's label sentences: "A randomized, two-way crossover study was conducted in 24 fasting healthy male volunteers of Indian origin to compare the bioavailability of two brands of a fixed dose combination of escitalopram oxalate (CAS 219861-08-2) 10 mg and clonazepam (CAS 1622-61-3) 0.5 mg tablets, using Estomine-zee as…" openfda-label+europepmc · 2026-08-30
2 recorded statements; fasting, exercise
Show the evidence
fasting
A randomized, two-way crossover study was conducted in 24 fasting healthy male volunteers of Indian origin to compare the bioavailability of two brands of a fixed dose combination of escitalopram oxalate (CAS 219861-08-2) 10 mg and clonazepam (CAS 1622-61-3) 0.5 mg tablets, using Estomine-zee as test and a commercially available formulation as the reference product.
exercise
UNWIND was a 12-week randomized clinical trial comparing exercise and escitalopram to placebo on measures of anxiety, depression, and CHD biomarkers.
recorded 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q14
What is recorded about Escitalopram and autophagy?
"Collectively, our cross-species study reveals that escitalopram, contrary to some other SSRIs, accelerates aging through impairment of the evolutionarily conserved IIS/autophagy axis, suggesting its potential pro-aging toxicity with long-term use." — where Escitalopram and autophagy appear together. Europe PMC · pathway abstract search · 2026-03-05
"Collectively, our cross-species study reveals that escitalopram, contrary to some other SSRIs, accelerates aging through impairment of the evolutionarily conserved IIS/autophagy axis, suggesting its potential pro-aging toxicity with long-term use."
mTORPMID 40849539
"Methylone's effect on neurite branching was blocked by inhibitors of monoamine transporters (reboxetine, escitalopram, JHW-007) whereas its effects on the length of the longest neurite per cell were mediated by trkB receptors or mTor signaling."
autophagyPMID 35179776
"As such, imipramine, maprotiline, fluoxetine and escitalopram were shown to induce autophagy, whereas nortriptyline, clomipramine and paroxetine were identified as autophagy inhibitors."
mTOR
PMID 24901414
"Increased phospho-mTOR induced by escitalopram, paroxetine or tranylcypromine was significantly blocked in the presence of specific PI3K, MEK or mTOR inhibitors, respectively."
PMID 24901414
"The mTOR inhibitor, rapamycin, significantly blocked these effects on escitalopram, paroxetine and tranylcypromine whereas fluoxetine, sertraline and imipramine effects were not affected."
recorded 2026-03-05 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 11 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.