| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submitted on May 1, 2006
From Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: malcolm{at}apoptosis.freeserve.co.uk.
Background and Purpose--Tirilazad is a candidate neuroprotective drug with reported efficacy in animal models of stroke that was, however, without benefit in clinical trials. This apparent contradiction might be explained if the animal studies were falsely positive, if the clinical trials were falsely negative, or if tirilazad was not tested under the same conditions in animal and clinical studies. Here we use systematic review and meta-analysis to describe the characteristics and limits to the neuroprotective action of tirilazad in animal models of stroke. Methods--Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies describing the efficacy of tirilazad in animal models of focal ischemia, in which outcome was measured as infarct volume and/or neurological score. Weighted mean difference random effects meta-analysis was used to measure overall efficacy in prespecified subgroups. Results--Eighteen studies describing outcome in 544 animals were identified. Study quality (median score, 5/10; interquartile range, 4 to 6) was similar to that seen in systematic reviews of other candidate neuroprotective drugs. Tirilazad reduced infarct volume by 29.2% (95% confidence interval 21.1% to 37.2%) and improved neurobehavioral score by 48.1% (95% confidence interval 29.3% to 66.9%). Conclusion--Tirilazad may have substantial efficacy in animal models of stroke, but this conclusion must be qualified because of the presence of potential sources of bias.
Revised on June 23, 2006
Accepted on July 17, 2006
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Tirilazad in Experimental Stroke
Emily Sena BSc;
Related Article:
Stroke 2007 38: 395-397.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. R. Macleod, H. B. van der Worp, E. S. Sena, D. W. Howells, U. Dirnagl, and G. A. Donnan Evidence for the Efficacy of NXY-059 in Experimental Focal Cerebral Ischaemia Is Confounded by Study Quality Stroke, October 1, 2008; 39(10): 2824 - 2829. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Minnerup, J. Heidrich, J. Wellmann, A. Rogalewski, A. Schneider, and W.-R. Schabitz Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor in Animal Models of Focal Cerebral Ischemia Stroke, June 1, 2008; 39(6): 1855 - 1861. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. A. Crossley, E. Sena, J. Goehler, J. Horn, B. van der Worp, P. M.W. Bath, M. Macleod, and U. Dirnagl Empirical Evidence of Bias in the Design of Experimental Stroke Studies: A Metaepidemiologic Approach Stroke, March 1, 2008; 39(3): 929 - 934. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. L. Gibson, L. J. Gray, P. M. W. Bath, and S. P. Murphy Progesterone for the treatment of experimental brain injury; a systematic review Brain, February 1, 2008; 131(2): 318 - 328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|
Stroke Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2007 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |