Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 11;44(4):488–494. doi: 10.1002/clc.23536

TABLE 1.

Study characteristics of included trials

First author Year Region Type of study Follow‐up Participants Female sex (%) Treatment regimens
Wallentin 17 2009 Asia and Australia, Europe, Middle East, America multicenter 12 months 11 289 23.8 ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel
Tang 18 2016 Asia two‐center 6 months 400 28.0 ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel
Li 19 2018 Asia single‐center 12 months 442 21.7 ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel
Cai 20 2015 Asia single‐center 12 months 120 NA ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel
Zeng 21 2017 Asia single‐center 12 months 204 ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel
Zhang 22 2017 Asia single‐center 6 months 181 49.0 ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel
Motovska 16 2017 Czech Republic multicenter 12 months 1230 NA prasugre vs. ticagrelor
Patel 23 2018 Asia single‐center 12 months 1150 NA prasugre vs. ticagrelor
Schüpke 14 2019 Europe multicenter 12 months 4018 23.8 prasugre vs. ticagrelor
Trenk 24 2012 Europe and America multicenter 6 months 423 27.4 prasugre vs. clopidogrel
Wiviott 8 2007 Asia and Africa, Europe, Middle East, America multicenter 15 months 13 608 26.0 prasugre vs. clopidogrel
Brener 25 2014 Europe and America multicenter 12 months 452 26.1 prasugre vs. clopidogrel
Montalescot 26 2009 NA multicenter 15 months 3534 22.6 prasugre vs. clopidogrel
Welsh 15 2019 NA multicenter 12 months 9932 23.8

prasugre vs. ticagrelor &

ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel