Skip to main content
. 2025 Jul 24. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1159/000547277

Table 2.

Baseline characteristics of included studies

Author Year Country Drug Mechanism of action Animal Stroke method Therapy type Timing of administrations Outcome Assessment time points Significant improvements
Yang et al. [14] 2020 China ACEA CB1 agonist Sprague-Dawley rats MCAO/r Pre-treatment 30 min before injury Substantial reduction compared to control Day 1 Longa’s neurological deficit score
Bai et al. [15] 2017 China ACEA CB1 agonist Sprague-Dawley rats MCAO/r Post-treatment 1 h after MCAO Significant decrease compared to control Day 3 Garcia JH 18-point neurological deficit score
Caltana et al. [16] 2015 Argentina ACEA CB1 agonist C57Bl/6 mice MCAO Post-treatment 3, 24, and 48 h after injury Significant decrease compared to control Day 28 Neurological score
Sun et al. [17] 2013 China WIN55,212-2 CB1 agonist Sprague-Dawley rats MCAO Post-treatment 2 h after injury Significant decrease compared to vehicle treated Day 1 Neurological score
Yokubaitis et al. [18] 2021 USA BCP CB2 agonist C57Bl/6 mice Photo thrombosis Pre-/post-treatment 1 h prior to injury and 24 h post-injury Significant decrease compared to vehicle treated Day 3 Grip strength test
Yang et al. [19] 2017 China BCP CB2 agonist C57BL/6 mice MCAO/r Pre-/post-treatment 3 days before injury and 2 h post-injury Significant decrease compared to control Day 2 Longa’s neurological deficit score
Pottier et al. [20] 2017 France JWH-133 CB2 agonist Sprague-Dawley rats MCAO/r Post-treatment Daily from 1 h after MCAO to day 7 Significant improvement compared to non-treated samples Day 7 N/A
Ronca et al. [21] 2015 USA O-1966 CB2 agonist C57B/6 mice Photo thrombosis Pre-/post-treatment 1 h prior to injury and 2.5 days following or 1 h prior to injury and 2 days following Significant decrease compared to control Day 1, 3, and 7 Novel object recognition task, food-motivated operant task
Yu et al. [22] 2015 USA AM1241 CB2 agonist Sprague-Dawley rats MCAO/r Pre-/post-treatment 5 min before injury or from day 2–5 following Significant decrease compared to vehicle-treated (pre-treatment), non-significant improvement (post-treatment) Day 2 and 6 Bederson’s score
Choi et al. [23] 2013 South Korea TC CB2 agonist Sprague-Dawley rats MCAO/r Post-treatment 3 h after injury Significant decrease compared to control Day 1 N/A
Zarruk et al. [24] 2012 Spain JWH-133 CB2 agonist Swiss mice MCAO Post-treatment 10 min or 3 h post-injury Significant decrease compared to vehicle treated in both groups of treatment Day 2 mNSS
Shirazi et al. [25] 2021 New Zealand Novel N-acylethanolamine derivatives CB1/CB2 agonist C57BL/6J mice Photo thrombosis Post-treatment 1 h post-injury Significant decrease compared to vehicle treated (NAE-18:4n-6, NAE-18:5n-3); non-significant improvement compared to vehicle treated (NAE-22:5n-6, NAE-22:6n-3, NAE-20:5n-3, NAE-20:4n-6) Day 7 NAE-18:4n-6, NAE-18:5n-3
Murakami et al. [26] 2013 Japan TAK-937 CB1/CB2 agonist Sprague-Dawley rats Photo thrombosis Post-treatment Continuous administration from 3 h, 5 h, or 8 h–24 h Significant decrease compared to vehicle treated (3–24 h and 5–24 h); no improvement (8–24 h) Day 2 N/A
Suzuki et al. [27] 2012 Japan TAK-937 CB1/CB2 agonist Sprague-Dawley rats or cynomolgus monkeys MCAO/r or Thromboembolic MCAO Post-treatment Continuous infusion for 22 h following perfusion (rats), continuous infusion for 23.5 h following clot injection (monkeys) Significant decrease compared to vehicle-treated (rats), non-significant improvement compared to vehicle treated (monkeys) Day 1 Foot-fault test, Bederson’s score
Schmidt et al. [28] 2012 Germany KN38-72717 CB1/CB2 agonists Sprague-Dawley rats mMCAO Pre-/post-treatment 2 h before injury, during eMCAO, 30 min, 4 h, 3 days, 6 days after injury Significant decrease compared to vehicle treated in multiple timepoints Day 7 and 21 Ladder-rung walking test
Reichenbach et al. [29] 2016 USA SR141716A CB1 antagonist C57Bl/6 mice Photo thrombosis Pre-/post-treatment 1 h before or after injury Significant decrease compared to vehicle treated (pre-treatment); non-significant improvement (post-treatment) Day 1 Hata et al. five point neurological score
Jalin et al. [30] 2015 Spain Hinokiresinols CB1/CB2 antagonist Sprague-Dawley rats MCAO/r Post-treatment 2 h and 7 h after injury Significant decrease compared to vehicle treated Day 1 N/A
Bravo-Ferrer et al. [31] 2016 Spain JWH-133 or SR144528 CB2 agonist or CB2R antagonist (respectively) C57BL/6 mice MCAO Post-treatment 2 days following injury till day 6 No improvement compared to vehicle treated (both drugs) Day 14 and 28 NR
Zhang et al. [32] 2012 USA O-1966, SR141716A, both, or SR144528 CB2 agonist, CB1 antagonist, CB1 antagonist/CB2 agonist, or CB2 antagonist (respectively) C57BL/6 mice MCAO/r Pre-treatment 1 h before injury O-1966: significant decrease compared to control; SR141716A: significant decrease compared to control; O-1966 and SR141716A: significant decrease compared to control; SR144528: no improvement Day 1 N/A
Zhang et al. [33] 2009 USA O-1966 CB2 agonist C57BL/6 mice MCAO/r Pre-/post-treatment 1 h before injury Significant decrease with 5 mg dose only compared to vehicle treated Day 1 Significant improvement compared with vehicle group
Zhang et al. [34] 2007 USA O-3853, O-1966 CB2 agonist C57BL/6 mice MCAO/r Pre-/post-treatment 1 h before and after the injury Significant decrease in size with both pre- and post-treatment Day 1 Significant improvement with both pre- and post-treatment group
Zhang et al. [33] 2009 USA O-1966, SR141716A, SR144528 CB1 and CB2 antagonist C57BL/6 mice MCAO/r Pre-treatment 1 h before injury CB2 receptor activation and CB1 receptor inhibition were neuroprotective, with the greatest protection achieved by combining a CB2 agonist and CB1 antagonist Day 1 CB2 receptor activation and CB1 receptor inhibition were neuroprotective, with the greatest protection achieved by combining a CB2 agonist and CB1 antagonist
Hu et al. [36] 2010 China WIN 55,212-2, U0126 CB agonist, CB antagonist Sprague-Dawley rats MCAO/r Pre-treatment 1 day before the injury CB agonist has neuroprotective function while the antagonist proves the opposite effect Day 1, 3, 6 Pretreatment with CB agonist has protective function
Berger et al. [37] 2004 Germany SR141716A CB1 antagonist Wistar rats MCAO/r Post-treatment 30 min after injury CB1 antagonist reduces infarct size significantly Day 1 NR
Muthian et al. [38] 2004 USA WIN 55212-2, SR141716, LY320135 CB1 antagonist Wistar rats MCAO/r Pre-treatment 5 min pre-onset CB1 antagonist reduces infarct size significantly, while no effect with CB1 agonist Day 1 Significantly improved neurological function with CB1 receptor antagonist
Hayakawa et al. [39] 2007 Japan Delta(9)-THC, SR141716 CB agonist, CB antagonist ddY mice MCAO/r Pre-treatment Pre-onset Delta 9 THC significantly decreased the infarct volume Day 1 NR
Leker et al. [40] 2003 Jerusalem HU-210 CB antagonist Sprague-Dawley rats pMCAO Post-treatment 1, 2, 4, or 6 h Motor disability and infarct volumes were significantly reduced in animals treated with HU-210 Day 3 Motor disability and infarct volumes were significantly reduced in animals treated with HU-210

Pre-treatment, treatment administered before inducing stroke; post-treatment, treatment administered after inducing stroke; CB, cannabinoid; CB1, cannabinoid receptor type 1; CB2, cannabinoid receptor type 2; MCAO/r, middle cerebral artery occlusion with reperfusion; MCAO, middle cerebral artery occlusion; NR, not reported; N/A, not applicable; STAIR, Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable; h, hours; min, minutes.