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.

Background/Objective: Piracetam was a candidate neuroprotective drug for acute stroke ineffective in clinical trial. Here we use systematic review and meta-analysis to describe the evidence supporting a protective effect of piracetam and its derivatives in animal models of stroke. Methods: We present a systematic review of reports describing the use of piracetam and its derivatives in animal models of focal ischaemia, where the outcome was measured as an infarct size or neurological score (Der Simonian and Laird random effects meta-analysis). Results: Only 2 studies, published 10 years after the first clinical trial of piracetam had been initiated, described its efficacy in animal models of stroke. A further 4 studies described the efficacy of related compounds. Piracetam and its derivatives improved the outcome by 30.2% (95% CI = 16.1–44.4). The median study quality was 4/10 (inter-quartile range = 4–6). Conclusion: Piracetam and its derivatives demonstrate neuroprotective efficacy in experimental stroke, but our findings raise concerns about the amount of available data, the quality of the studies and publication bias.