Evidence Hub

Role of histone deacetylases and sirtuins in the ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies

Majdi A, Yaraghi S, Moharrami A, Ghaffari Tabrizi A, Dojahani M, Alirezapour E, Mansori K, Eskandari M et al.

Stroke and vascular neurology, 2026

1 citation

Abstract

Background: Treatment of ischaemic stroke requires exploration of novel neuroprotective strategies owing to the constraints of thrombolytic therapy. Recent research implies that modulation of histone deacetylases (HDAC) or sirtuins (SIRT) could be beneficial in achieving this goal.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of HDAC/SIRT enzyme modulation in treating acute ischaemic stroke. It includes relevant studies but excludes human and in vitro research and non-primary studies. An electronic search was conducted across databases PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus until 20 March 2025. The methodological quality was assessed using a modified SYRCLE risk of bias tool. Infarct volume and neurological responses were extracted as key outcomes, and a random-effects meta-analysis of infarct volume was conducted for studies directly targeting HDAC/SIRT enzymes.

Results: A review of 71 studies involving over 1600 animals focused on ischaemic stroke treatments, predominantly using male rodents in a transient middle cerebral artery occlusion model. Most treatments were administered intraperitoneally, starting from the inception of ischaemia until 5 days afterwards. Non-selective HDAC inhibitors and SIRT1 modulators were targeted most frequently. The meta-analysis on infarct volume with 95% CI showed an overall effect estimate of -1.529 and suggested that non-selective HDAC inhibitors exhibit the most promise in reducing infarct size. Additionally,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free