Oliceridine is Associated with Reduced Risk of Vomiting and Need for Rescue Antiemetics Compared to Morphine: Exploratory Analysis from Two Phase 3 Randomized Placebo and Active Controlled Trials

Opioid Analgesics: Rise and Fall of Ligand Biased Signaling and Future Perspectives in the Quest for the Holy Grail

Opioid analgesics have been used for more than 5000 years and remain the main pain medications prescribed today. Although morphine is considered the gold standard of pain relief, this selective µ-opioid receptor (MOP) agonist provides only moderate relief for many chronic pain conditions and produces a number of unwanted effects that can affect the patient's quality of life, prevent adherence to treatment or lead to addiction. In addition to the lack of progress in developing better analgesics, there have been no significant breakthroughs to date in combating the above-mentioned side effects. Fortunately, a better understanding of opioid pharmacology has given renewed hope for the development of better and safer pain medications. In this review, we describe how clinically approved opioids were initially characterized as biased ligands and what impact this approach might have on clinical practice. We also look at the preclinical and clinical development of biased MOP agonists, focusing on the history of oliceridine, the first specifically designed biased analgesic. In addition, we explore the discrepancies between ligands with low intrinsic efficacy and those with biased properties. Finally, we examine the rationale behind the development of biased ligands during the opioid crisis.

Determination of ED90 and ED99 of Oliceridine combined with Propofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion: a biased coin up-and-down design

BACKGROUND

Gastroscopy is a common medical procedure, but the insertion of the endoscope often causes significant discomfort and anxiety in patients, necessitating effective sedation strategies. Traditional sedatives, such as propofol, are widely used for procedural sedation but can lead to adverse effects, including respiratory depression and cardiovascular instability at higher doses. Oliceridine, a novel opioid analgesic, has emerged as a potential alternative due to its biased agonist properties, which may provide effective analgesia with a more favorable side effect profile. The potential for its combination with propofol warrants further investigation.

METHODS

The ED90 and ED99 were calculated using a biased coin design and central ordered regression.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of body movements or coughing responses during gastroscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients were included in this study, with anesthesia successfully achieved in 45 cases and failed in 4 cases. The calculated ED90 and ED99 for Oliceridine combined with Propofol to suppress the response during gastroscopy were22.5 and 23.8 µg·kg- 1, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of 2 mg·kg- 1 Propofol and 23.8 µg·kg- 1 Oliceridine is effective in suppressing the responses during the gastroscopy procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400092318) on November 14, 2024.

Establishing the Median and 95% Effective Doses of Oliceridine for Immediate Post-Surgical Analgesia Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Double-Blind, Sequential Dose-Finding Study

Background

This investigation aimed to establish the optimal dosing parameters of oliceridine for postoperative pain control in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) procedures. Using Dixon and Massey's up-and-down sequential allocation method, the median effective dose (ED50) and the dose required for 95% effective dose (ED95) were determined, alongside an evaluation of the agent's safety profile.

Methods

In this prospective trial, 82 participants scheduled for LC were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either oliceridine or saline (control). Prior to surgical incision, the intervention group received varying doses of intravenous oliceridine, while control subjects received equivalent volumes of saline solution. Post-surgical pain management involved standardized multimodal analgesic protocols for both cohorts. Baseline demographic data was documented for all participants. Pain evaluations using the 11-point verbal numeric rating scale (NRS) at 15 min, 30 min, and 2h post-extubation. Using Dixon's up-and-down methodology, the ED50 and ED95 were determined. Hemodynamic variables were tracked and pain levels quantified throughout the procedure. The study protocol included monitoring post-anesthetic recovery characteristics and documenting adverse effects.

Results

Probability unit regression analysis indicated that the ED50 of oliceridine for the prevention of early postoperative pain was calculated to be 18.45 µg/kg (95% CI: 16.85-19.82 µg/kg), while the ED95 was determined to be 22.39 µg/kg (95% CI: 20.75-26.98 µg/kg). Statistical analysis showed comparable rates of adverse events between study groups (p > 0.05). Additional analyses demonstrated similar outcomes between oliceridine and control cohorts regarding hemodynamic stability, and adverse effect profiles. Pain management satisfaction assessment at 24 hours post-LC revealed high approval rates in the oliceridine group, with 90% of patients (36/40, p=0.31) and 97.5% of surgeons (39/40, p=0.03) expressing satisfaction, regardless of administered dose.

Conclusion

Our findings establish that for early postoperative pain management, oliceridine demonstrates optimal therapeutic efficacy at an ED50 of 18.45 ug/kg, with the ED95 determined to be 22.39 ug/kg.

Tolerability of different doses of oliceridine versus traditional opioids in acute pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aims to deliver a systematic review and meta-analysis to scrutinize the tolerability of different doses of oliceridine in acute pain patients. A comprehensive search was carried out in essential databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for relevant studies up to the most recent available date.We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared oliceridine with other interventions in acute pain management. Patients received an equi-analgesic dose of oliceridine relative to morphine, ensuring comparable Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID-48 or SPID-24) or mean pain score reductions across groups. The initial loading dose was 1.5 mg for oliceridine and 4 mg for morphine, followed by demand doses via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). For oliceridine, the demand doses were 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg, while for morphine, it was 1 mg.Utilizing the Review Manager 5.4, data on nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, pruritus, and hypoxemia were assembled and evaluated.We conducted sensitivity analyses to confirm the robustness of our findings. The preliminary search discovered 710 potential studies. Having gone through a careful screening process, a total of 7 RCTs met our inclusion benchmarks. Five distinct publications analyzed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). According to our meta-analysis findings, patients assigned to the oliceridine group experienced a notably lower rate of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) compared to the morphine group (PON: RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < 0.001; POV: RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.47, P < 0.001). Data from 4 documents examined sedation and dizziness. Our findings demonstrate that oliceridine recipients had a significant decline in the incidence of both sedation and dizziness (sedation: RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91, P = 0.01; dizziness: RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.88, P = 0.002).Moreover, the oliceridine group recorded a lower incident of hypoxemia showcasing a favorable safety profile (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.65, P < 0.001).Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that oliceridine is a well-tolerated and safe intravenous analgesic for acute pain patients, often reducing the incidence of adverse events in comparison to morphine.

Expecting medication misuse: a proactive approach to drug discovery to prevent fatal overdose

Misuse of central nervous system (CNS) depressants (alprazolam, fentanyl, etc.) is a major cause of fatal overdose, with a high prevalence of deaths involving polydrug interactions from the victim's own prescriptions. Thus, there is an urgent need to improve the safety of CNS depressants to prevent fatalities. Pharmacological pursuits aiming to prevent harm through the design of non-addictive alternatives have either failed before clinical trials or produced mediocre treatment alternatives. Therefore, we propose a new perspective for medicinal chemists: rather than aiming to prevent misuse, we must design new central nervous system (CNS) depressants under the expectation of misuse. By shifting the design focus to partial modulators rather than full agonists, we can develop novel chemical entities (NCEs) that intrinsically minimize physical harm caused by misuse without sacrificing therapeutic efficacy. In this perspective, we provide an overview of the two most widely misused classes of medications (opioid and GABAA receptor modulators) in relation to pharmacodynamic properties and clinical outcomes. We then suggest a drug discovery pathway focused on physiological parameters. It is our opinion that this approach would dramatically decrease the lethality of overdose and improve outcomes of treatments for pain, anxiety, and withdrawal from alcohol, benzodiazepines, and opioids.

A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of Oliceridine Research (2013-2024)

Purpose

To explore and analyze the current research progress, hotspots, and future trends in oliceridine research using bibliometric methods.

Patients and Methods

We searched the Web of Science (WOS) database utilizing the keywords TS = ("oliceridine*" OR "TRV 130*" OR "TRV-130*" OR "olinvyk*" OR "TRV130*" OR "C22H31CIN2O2S*") for relevant research literature on oliceridine from its inception to June 16, 2024. Bibliometric methods were applied, and analysis software such as VOSviewer and CiteSpace were used to visualize the publication timeline, authors, countries and regions, keywords, sources of literature, research hotspots, and co-cited documents related to oliceridine. Co-occurrence and aggregation analyses were conducted, and maps relevant to institutional cooperation were generated.

Results

A total of 151 relevant articles were retrieved and included in the final analysis. Most articles were published between 2020 and 2021. The United States has the highest number of publications and citations in this field. Molecular structure development is a pivotal point in this field. Research hotspots were diverse, including acute pain, opioid receptors, β-arrestin, postoperative pain, therapeutic window, respiratory depression, clinical trials, and chronic pain.

Conclusion

Oliceridine, a newly developed analgesic, has garnered global interest. The USA is a leading contributor to this field. Recent research has shifted from basic studies to clinical practice.

Comparison of Oliceridine to Remifentanil for Optimal Analgesia in Mechanical Ventilation (CO-ROAM): Study Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Critically ill patients often endure pain, a distressing experience that can trigger diverse pathophysiological consequences. While remifentanil, with its rapid kinetics, is commonly used for analgesia in intensive care units (ICU), it frequently leads to opioid-related adverse effects. A promising alternative has emerged in oliceridine, a novel G protein-biased μ-opioid receptor agonist. This new drug offers the potential for effective pain relief with fewer side effects. However, its efficacy and safety profile in mechanically ventilated ICU patients remain to be fully elucidated.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, single-blind, active-controlled trial conducted across 24 ICUs in China. A total of 292 mechanically ventilated patients requiring analgesia and sedation will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the oliceridine or remifentanil group. The oliceridine group will receive oliceridine (2-20 μg/kg/h), while the remifentanil group will receive remifentanil (1.5-12 μg/kg/h). Both groups will receive propofol for sedation if necessary. The target for analgesia is Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) < 3, and for sedation is Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) - 2 to 0.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

The primary outcome will be the percentage of time within target analgesia during study drug administration. Secondary outcomes will include gastrointestinal dysfunction, respiratory depression, sedative usage, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay length, extubation failure rate, etc. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06454292. Registered on June 11, 2024.

Global Trends in Oliceridine (TRV130) Research from 2013 to 2024: A Bibliometrics and Knowledge Graph Analysis

Purpose

The adverse effects and drug abuse issues associated with opioid drugs have made finding a safe and effective alternative a focus of research. Oliceridine has attracted attention for its lower adverse reactions, such as respiratory depression and gastrointestinal issues, compared to traditional opioids, and is considered a promising candidate for addressing the current limitations in opioid therapy. This article explored the knowledge structure of oliceridine through bibliometric analysis, highlighting its clinical applications in managing acute pain and its mechanisms that may reduce addiction risk. Our bibliometric analysis highlighted hotspots and trends in oliceridine research, guiding future studies on its safety and efficacy in pain management.

Methods

This study utilized the Web of Science Core Collection database to search for articles related to oliceridine from 2013 to 2024. Systematic analysis was conducted on publication, country, institution, author, journal, references, and keywords. The software Citespace, Vosviewer, and Bibliometrix were employed to visualize bibliometric analysis.

Results

From 2013 to 2024, 159 articles on oliceridine were published in 98 journals by 158 institutions from 28 countries. The United States has rapidly developed in this field, providing significant momentum. Keyword clustering analysis revealed that research on oliceridine primarily focused on exploring its molecular and pharmacological mechanisms and conducting clinical studies to evaluate its efficacy and safety in pain management. Analyses of the strongest citation bursts with references and keywords indicated that protein-biased ligands and oliceridine were hotspots. The emergence of divergent views regarding oliceridine's biased agonism will lead to future hotspots focusing on the underlying mechanisms of biased signaling by G protein-coupled receptors and drug design.

Conclusion

Bibliometric analysis provides insights into the current hotspots and emerging areas of oliceridine, which can guide future research. The widespread attention and clinical application of oliceridine lay a solid foundation for further drug development and clinical trials.

Gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with the use of intravenous oliceridine compared with intravenous hydromorphone or fentanyl in acute pain management utilizing adjusted indirect treatment comparison methods

Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of treatments versus a common comparator (either placebo or active treatment). For acute pain management, the effects of oliceridine have been compared in clinical trials to morphine but not to fentanyl or hydromorphone. Aim: To assess the comparative safety (specifically differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and opioid-induced respiratory depression [OIRD]) between oliceridine and relevant comparators (fentanyl and hydromorphone) through ITC analysis. Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized clinical trials with oliceridine versus morphine and morphine versus fentanyl or hydromorphone. The ITC utilized the common active comparator, morphine, for the analysis. Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials (oliceridine - 2; hydromorphone - 3; fentanyl - 1) were identified for data to be used in the ITC analyses. The oliceridine data were reported in two studies (plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery) and were also reported in a pooled analysis. The ITC focused on nausea and vomiting due to limited data for OIRD. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone in the ITC analysis, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting requiring antiemetics compared with hydromorphone (both orthopedic surgery and pooled data), while results in plastic surgery were not statistically significant. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone utilizing data from Hong, the ITC only showed a trend toward reduced risk of nausea and vomiting with oliceridine that was not statistically significant across all three comparisons (orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and combined). An ITC comparing oliceridine with a study of fentanyl utilizing the oliceridine orthopedic surgery data and combined orthopedic and plastic surgery data showed a trend toward reduced risk that was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In ITC analyses, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting or the need for antiemetics in orthopedic surgery compared with hydromorphone and a non-significant trend toward reduced risk versus fentanyl.

Novel Opioids in the Setting of Acute Postoperative Pain: A Narrative Review

Although traditional opioids such as morphine and oxycodone are commonly used in the management of acute postoperative pain, novel opioids may play a role as alternatives that provide potent pain relief while minimizing adverse effects. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms of action, findings from preclinical studies and clinical trials, and potential advantages of several novel opioids. The more established include oliceridine (biased ligand activity to activate analgesia and downregulate opioid-related adverse events), tapentadol (mu-opioid agonist and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), and cebranopadol (mu-opioid agonist with nociceptin opioid peptide activity)-all of which have demonstrated success in the clinical setting when compared to traditional opioids. On the other hand, dinalbuphine sebacate (DNS; semi-synthetic mu partial antagonist and kappa agonist), dual enkephalinase inhibitors (STR-324, PL37, and PL265), and endomorphin-1 analog (CYT-1010) have shown good efficacy in preclinical studies with future plans for clinical trials. Rather than relying solely on mu-opioid receptor agonism to relieve pain and risk opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs), novel opioids make use of alternative mechanisms of action to treat pain while maintaining a safer side-effect profile, such as lower incidence of nausea, vomiting, sedation, and respiratory depression as well as reduced abuse potential.

Bispecific sigma-1 receptor antagonism and mu-opioid receptor partial agonism: WLB-73502, an analgesic with improved efficacy and safety profile compared to strong opioids

Opioids are the most effective painkillers, but their benefit-risk balance often hinder their therapeutic use. WLB-73502 is a dual, bispecific compound that binds sigma-1 (S1R) and mu-opioid (MOR) receptors. WLB-73502 is an antagonist at the S1R. It behaved as a partial MOR agonist at the G-protein pathway and produced no/unsignificant β-arrestin-2 recruitment, thus demonstrating low intrinsic efficacy on MOR at both signalling pathways. Despite its partial MOR agonism, WLB-73502 exerted full antinociceptive efficacy, with potency superior to morphine and similar to oxycodone against nociceptive, inflammatory and osteoarthritis pain, and superior to both morphine and oxycodone against neuropathic pain. WLB-73502 crosses the blood-brain barrier and binds brain S1R and MOR to an extent consistent with its antinociceptive effect. Contrary to morphine and oxycodone, tolerance to its antinociceptive effect did not develop after repeated 4-week administration. Also, contrary to opioid comparators, WLB-73502 did not inhibit gastrointestinal transit or respiratory function in rats at doses inducing full efficacy, and it was devoid of proemetic effect (retching and vomiting) in ferrets at potentially effective doses. WLB-73502 benefits from its bivalent S1R antagonist and partial MOR agonist nature to provide an improved antinociceptive and safety profile respect to strong opioid therapy.

Oliceridine for the Management of Moderate to Severe Acute Postoperative Pain: A Narrative Review

Despite current advances in acute postoperative pain management, prevalence remains high. Inadequate treatment could lead to poor outcomes and even progression to chronic pain. Opioids have traditionally been the mainstay for treatment of moderate to severe acute pain. However, their use has been associated with opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs), such as respiratory depression, sedation, nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and decreased bowel motility. In addition, their liberal use has been implicated in the current opioid epidemic. As a result, there has been renewed interest in multimodal analgesia to target different mechanisms of action in order to achieve a synergistic effect and minimize opioid usage. Oliceridine is a novel mu-opioid receptor agonist that is part of a new class of biased ligands that selectively activate G-protein signaling and downregulate β-arrestin recruitment. Since G-protein signaling has been associated with analgesia while β-arrestin recruitment has been associated with ORAEs, there is potential for a wider therapeutic window. In this review, we will discuss the clinical evidence behind oliceridine and its potential role in acute postoperative pain management. We have systematically searched the PubMed database using the keywords oliceridine, olinvyk, and trv130. All articles identified were reviewed and evaluated, and all clinical trials were included.

Opioid tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia: Is TrkB modulation a potential pharmacological solution?

Opioids are widely prescribed for moderate to severe pain in patients with acute illness, cancer pain, and chronic noncancer pain. However, long-term opioid use can cause opioid tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH), contributing to the opioid misuse and addiction crisis. Strategies to mitigate opioid tolerance and OIH are needed to reduce opioid use and its sequelae. Currently, there are few effective pharmacological strategies that reduce opioid tolerance and OIH. The intrinsic tyrosine kinase receptor B (TrkB) ligand, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), has been shown to modulate pain. The BDNF-TrkB signaling plays a role in initiating and sustaining elevated pain sensitivity; however, increasing evidence has shown that BDNF and 7,8-dihydroxyflavone (7,8-DHF), a potent blood-brain barrier-permeable ligand to TrkB, exert neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant effects that may protect against opioid tolerance and OIH. As such, TrkB signaling may be an important therapeutic avenue in opioid tolerance and OIH. Here, we review 1) the mechanisms of pain, opioid analgesia, opioid tolerance, and OIH; 2) the role of BDNF-TrkB in pain modulation; and 3) the neuroprotective effects of 7,8-DHF and their implications for opioid tolerance and OIH.

A critical review of oliceridine injection as an IV opioid analgesic for the management of severe acute pain

INTRODUCTION

Oliceridine is a G protein-selective (biased) agonist at the μ-opioid receptor, with less recruitment of β-arrestin-2, a signaling pathway associated with opioid-related adverse events. Nonclinical evidence showed that oliceridine elicits a rapid systemic analgesic effect while attenuating opioid-related adverse events.

AREAS COVERED

Three pivotal studies in patients with moderate to severe acute pain, including two randomized, double-blind, placebo- and morphine-controlled efficacy studies following either orthopedic surgery-bunionectomy or plastic surgery-abdominoplasty; and an open-label safety study following a surgical procedure or due to a medical condition.

EXPERT OPINION

Poorly controlled acute postoperative pain is associated with poorer recovery, longer hospitalization, increased complications, and worse healthcare outcomes. Recently, oliceridine intravenous injection was approved for use in adults for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an intravenous opioid analgesic and for whom alternative treatments are inadequate. Introduction of this new IV opioid provides a valuable option to manage postoperative pain.

Budget impact and pharmacy costs with targeted use of oliceridine for postsurgical pain in patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events

BACKGROUND

Oliceridine, a new class of μ-opioid receptor agonist, may be associated with fewer opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) due to its unique mechanism of action. Thus, it may provide a cost-effective alternative to conventional opioids such as morphine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using a decision tree with a 24-hour time horizon, we calculated costs for medication and management of the three most common AEs (oxygen saturation <90%, vomiting, somnolence) following postoperative oliceridine or morphine in high-risk patients. Costs were enumerated as differences in cost of analgesics and resource utilization in the first 24 hours post-surgery. An economic model compared expected AEs and costs in a blended cohort where elderly/obese patients at higher risk for ORAEs received oliceridine while those presumed to be at lower risk received morphine with a cohort that received morphine alone.

RESULTS

In high-risk patients, use of oliceridine resulted in overall savings of $363,944 (in 1,000 patients). Implementing a targeted approach of oliceridine utilization in patients with high risk for ORAEs can save a typical hospital system $122,296 in total cost of care.

CONCLUSION

Use of oliceridine in postoperative care among patients at high risk provides a favorable health economic benefit compared to the use of morphine.

Sedation/analgesia techniques for nonoperating room anesthesia: new drugs and devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to review new drugs and devices for nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA).

RECENT FINDINGS

Remimazolam is an ultra-short-acting, water-soluble intravenous benzodiazepine with a fast onset and offset that has been approved recently for use in procedural sedation. Phase III trials have established the effectiveness of remimazolam sedation compared with placebo and midazolam in gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. More research is required investigating remimazolam in real-world NORA settings, including comparisons with propofol sedation. Oliceridine is a μ-agonist with selectivity for the G protein pathway and low potency for β-arrestin recruitment. As such it may be associated with less nausea, vomiting and respiratory depression than traditional opioids used. Although no studies have been published about oliceridine use in NORA to date, results from surgical studies indicate a potential place in nonoperating room practice. Research continues into alternative methods of drug delivery, such as patient-controlled sedation but no new devices are described.

SUMMARY

Further studies are required before these new drugs and devices are embraced in NORA.

Oliceridine Exhibits Improved Tolerability Compared to Morphine at Equianalgesic Conditions: Exploratory Analysis from Two Phase 3 Randomized Placebo and Active Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

In the management of postoperative acute moderate-to-severe pain, opioids remain an important component. However, conventional opioids have a narrow therapeutic index and are associated with dose-limiting opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) that can result in worse patient outcomes. Oliceridine, a new intravenous µ-opioid receptor agonist, is shown in nonclinical studies to be biased for G protein signaling (achieving analgesia) with limited recruitment of β-arrestin (associated with ORAEs). In two phase 3 randomized controlled studies of patients with moderate-to-severe acute pain following hard or soft tissue surgery, in which analgesia was measured using Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID) from baseline over 48 and 24 h (SPID-48 and -24 respectively, oliceridine at demand doses of 0.1, 0.35, or 0.5 mg was highly effective compared to placebo, with a favorable safety profile compared to morphine. This exploratory analysis was conducted to determine whether the safety benefits seen with oliceridine persisted when adjusted for equal levels of analgesia compared to morphine.

METHODS

Presence of at least one treatment-emergent ORAE (based on Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities [MedDRA]-coded events: hypoxemia, nausea, vomiting, sedation, pruritus, or dizziness) was used as the composite safety endpoint. A logistic regression model was utilized to compare oliceridine (pooled regimens) versus morphine, after controlling for analgesia (using SPID-48 or SPID-24 with pre-rescue scores carried forward 6 h). This analysis excluded patients receiving placebo and was repeated for each study and for pooled data.

RESULTS

At a given level of SPID-48 or SPID-24, patients receiving oliceridine were less likely to experience the composite safety endpoint. Although not statistically significant at the 0.05 level in the soft tissue model, the odds ratio (OR) showed a consistent numerical trend for oliceridine, being approximately half that observed with morphine in both the hard (OR 0.499; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.255, 0.976; p = 0.042) and soft (OR 0.542; 95% CI 0.250, 1.175; p = 0.121) tissue studies. Results from the pooled data were consistent with those observed in the individual studies (OR 0.507; 95% CI 0.304, 0.844; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Findings from this exploratory analysis suggest that at comparable levels of analgesia, patients receiving oliceridine were less likely to experience the composite safety endpoint consisting of ORAEs compared to patients treated with morphine. Oliceridine Exhibits Improved Tolerability Compared to Morphine at Equianalgesic Conditions: Exploratory Analysis from Two Phase 3 Randomized Placebo and Active Controlled Trials- A Video (MP4 99188 kb).

Preclinical Discovery and Development of oliceridine (Olinvyk®) for the Treatment of Post-Operative Pain

INTRODUCTION

Opioids acting at the MOP(mu:µ) receptor produce analgesia but also side-effects. There is debate suggesting opioid receptors produce analgesia via G-protein and side-effects via β-arrestin-2 pathways. Opioids targeting G-proteins over the arrestins (bias) offer potential therapeutic advantages. Oliceridine is a putative MOP, G-protein biased agonist.

AREAS COVERED

Oliceridine is selective for MOP receptors with greater activity at G-proteins over arrestins. A substantial body of evidence now points to a simpler pharmacological descriptor of partial agonist. Pre-clinical in vivo data indicates a robust antinociceptive response of shorter duration than morphine. Apollo trials (Phase-III RCT-bunionectomy/abdominoplasty) describe good analgesic efficacy that was non-inferior to morphine with good tolerability and side-effect profile. There is evidence for improved respiratory safety profile. Oliceridine is approved by the FDA.

EXPERT OPINION

Oliceridine will be an important addition to the clinical armamentarium for use for the management of acute pain severe enough to require an intravenous opioid analgesic and for whom alternative treatments are inadequate. Respiratory advantage and the possibility of reduced abuse potential are possible advantages over the use of traditional opioids. Based on a number of excellent, highly detailed studies, oliceridine should be described as a partial agonist; this 'label' does not matter.

Biased Opioid Ligands: Revolution or Evolution?

Opioid are the most powerful analgesics ever but their use is still limited by deleterious side effects such as tolerance, dependence, and respiratory depression that could eventually lead to a fatal overdose. The opioid crisis, mainly occurring in north America, stimulates research on finding new opioid ligands with reduced side effects. Among them, biased ligands are likely the most promising compounds. We will review some of the latest discovered biased opioid ligands and see if they were able to fulfill these expectations.

Clinical Pharmacology, Toxicity, and Abuse Potential of Opioids

Opioids were the most common drug class resulting in overdose deaths in the United States in 2019. Widespread clinical use of prescription opioids for moderate to severe pain contributed to the ongoing opioid epidemic with the subsequent emergence of fentanyl-laced heroin. More potent analogues of fentanyl and structurally diverse opioid receptor agonists such as AH-7921 and MT-45 are fueling an increasingly diverse illicit opioid supply. Overdose from synthetic opioids with high binding affinities may not respond to a typical naloxone dose, thereby rendering autoinjectors less effective, requiring higher antagonist doses or resulting in a confusing clinical picture for health care providers. Nonscheduled opioid drugs such as loperamide and dextromethorphan are associated with dependence and risk of overdose as easier access makes them attractive to opioid users. Despite a common opioid-mediated pathway, several opioids present with unique pharmacodynamic properties leading to acute toxicity and dependence development. Pharmacokinetic considerations involve half-life of the parent opioid and its metabolites as well as resulting toxicity, as is established for tramadol, codeine, and oxycodone. Pharmacokinetic considerations, toxicities, and treatment approaches for notable opioids are reviewed.

Oliceridine: A Novel Drug for the Management of Moderate to Severe Acute Pain - A Review of Current Evidence

Optimal pain relief requires a balance between adequate analgesia and risk of adverse effects. Opioids remain the cornerstone for managing moderate to severe pain, but are associated with opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) and gastrointestinal complications. Opioids exert their analgesic effects predominantly via G-protein signaling, however, adverse effects including OIRD are mediated by the β-arrestin pathway. Oliceridine is the first of a new class of biased opioid agonists that preferentially activate G-protein signaling over β-arrestin, which would theoretically improve analgesia and reduce the risk of adverse effects. Oliceridine is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain. The efficacy of Oliceridine was mainly established in two randomized controlled Phase III clinical trials of patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after bunionectomy (APOLLO-1) and abdominoplasty (APOLLO-2). The results of the APOLLO studies demonstrate that Oliceridine, when administered via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) demand boluses of 0.35mg and 0.5mg, provides superior analgesia compared to placebo, and is equianalgesic to PCA morphine 1mg demand boluses, without significant difference in the incidence of respiratory complications. In a more pragmatic trial of surgical and non-surgical patients, the ATHENA observational cohort study reported rapid onset of analgesia with Oliceridine given with or without multimodal analgesia. However, these studies were designed to evaluate analgesic efficacy, and it is still uncertain if Oliceridine has a better safety profile than conventional opioids. Although several post hoc analyses of pooled data from the APOLLO and ATHENA trials reported that Oliceridine was associated with lower OIRD and gastrointestinal complications compared to morphine, prospective studies are needed to elucidate if biased agonists such as Oliceridine reduce the risk of adverse effects compared to conventional opioids.

Oliceridine for the Management of Acute Postoperative Pain

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacological characteristics, clinical evidence, and place in the management of acute postoperative pain severe enough to require an intravenous opioid.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed (January 2000 to December 1, 2020). Key search terms included oliceridine or acute postoperative pain. Other sources were derived from product labeling and ClinicalTrials.gov.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All English-language articles identified from the data sources were reviewed and evaluated. Phase I, II, and III clinical trials were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Oliceridine is a novel selective µ-receptor G-protein pathway modulator. It has the property of activating G-protein signaling while causing low β-arrestin recruitment to the µ-receptor. Intravenous oliceridine showed statistically superior analgesia than placebo in patients with moderate or severe pain after surgery, with a favorable safety and tolerability profile regarding respiratory and gastrointestinal adverse effects, compared with morphine.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

The analgesic capacity of oliceridine is at least comparable to that of morphine at clinically relevant dosages, with a rapid onset of action. Also, it may be associated with a lower incidence of adverse events at dosing regimens associated with comparable analgesia. These data suggest that oliceridine may provide an important new treatment option for the management of moderate to severe postoperative pain where an intravenous opioid is warranted.

CONCLUSION

Oliceridine has obvious analgesic effects in patients with moderate or severe pain after surgery; additionally, it has a favorable safety and tolerability profile.