Clinical Evaluation of Biased μ-Opioid Receptor Agonists: A Narrative Comparative Review from Oliceridine to Tegileridine and Mechanistic Reappraisal.
- 1Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, People's Republic of China.
- 2The First School of Clinical Medicine, Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
Background
Managing moderate-to-severe postoperative pain remains a major clinical challenge. Traditional opioids are constrained by dose-limiting opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs), including respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.Objective
Biased μ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonists were developed to preferentially activate G-protein signaling, which mediates analgesia, while attenuating β-arrestin-2 recruitment, which has been associated with adverse effects. This review narratively compares the translational pharmacology, clinical efficacy, safety, and mechanistic uncertainty of the two approved biased MOR agonists, oliceridine (US FDA, 2020) and tegileridine (China NMPA, 2024).Methods
We narratively synthesized evidence from pivotal Phase II/III trials, meta-analyses, open-label studies, and the single available head-to-head comparison. Because no reproducible systematic search, eligibility screening, or risk-of-bias assessment was performed, this work is presented as a narrative comparative review rather than a systematic review.Results
Oliceridine has the larger international evidence base. In pivotal trials, its analgesic efficacy was generally comparable to morphine at the studied doses, but respiratory safety burden differences were not statistically significant, and possible ORAE advantages were most evident at low-to-moderate patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) doses. Tegileridine was superior to placebo. In a meta-analysis, tegileridine showed weaker 24-hour analgesia than morphine at the studied regimens, while pooled nausea/vomiting was lower. The only head-to-head trial (n = 75) showed no significant difference in the primary 24-hour endpoint; 48-hour secondary outcomes favored tegileridine, but PONV was not statistically significant (P = 0.117). The mechanistic basis of clinical advantages remains unresolved, and low intrinsic efficacy may contribute.Conclusion
Oliceridine has the larger evidence base, with possible ORAE advantages at low-to-moderate doses. Tegileridine is superior to placebo and shows preliminary possible advantages in some secondary outcomes, but current comparative evidence is limited and no adequately powered head-to-head trial exists. The biased agonism mechanism remains contested, and clinical decisions should be based on pragmatic outcome evidence.
Related
- Expression Characteristics of SERINC1 and TDO2 in Diabetic Kidney Disease: Historical Candidate Reappraisal, Cross-Cohort Evaluation, Single-Cell Analysis, and a Mouse Model Study
- Ferric pyrophosphate in precision iron fortification: mechanistic insights into food-system suitability, bioavailability modulation, and evaluation strategies.
- Synthesis, Cytotoxicity, and Mechanistic Evaluation of Thiazolium-Based Gold(I) Bis‑N‑Heterocyclic Carbene Complexes
- Pre-incision versus pre-closure intravenous tegileridine for analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, double-blind, three-arm trial
- Identification and evaluation of 41 risk loci for juvenile idiopathic arthritis informs precision medicine: mechanistic implications of DNA topology and an HLA-A*02:01-ERAP2 interaction
BibTeX
@article{xu2026clinical,
title = {{Clinical Evaluation of Biased μ-Opioid Receptor Agonists: A Narrative Comparative Review from Oliceridine to Tegileridine and Mechanistic Reappraisal.}},
author = {Houren Xu and Yu Wang and Na Hu and Qian Lei and Xinyu Guo and Maolin Zhong},
journal = {Drug design, development and therapy},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.2147/dddt.s646263},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42948332},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Clinical Evaluation of Biased μ-Opioid Receptor Agonists: A Narrative Comparative Review from Oliceridine to Tegileridine and Mechanistic Reappraisal.
AU - Houren Xu
AU - Yu Wang
AU - Na Hu
AU - Qian Lei
AU - Xinyu Guo
AU - Maolin Zhong
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/23
JO - Drug design, development and therapy
DO - 10.2147/dddt.s646263
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42948332
AB - Background Managing moderate-to-severe postoperative pain remains a major clinical challenge. Traditional opioids are constrained by dose-limiting opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs), including respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.Objective Biased μ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonists were developed to preferentially activate G-protein signaling, which mediates analgesia, while attenuating β-arrestin-2 recruitment, which has been associated with adverse effects. This review narratively compares the translational pharmacology, clinical efficacy, safety, and mechanistic uncertainty of the two approved biased MOR agonists, oliceridine (US FDA, 2020) and tegileridine (China NMPA, 2024).Methods We narratively synthesized evidence from pivotal Phase II/III trials, meta-analyses, open-label studies, and the single available head-to-head comparison. Because no reproducible systematic search, eligibility screening, or risk-of-bias assessment was performed, this work is presented as a narrative comparative review rather than a systematic review.Results Oliceridine has the larger international evidence base. In pivotal trials, its analgesic efficacy was generally comparable to morphine at the studied doses, but respiratory safety burden differences were not statistically significant, and possible ORAE advantages were most evident at low-to-moderate patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) doses. Tegileridine was superior to placebo. In a meta-analysis, tegileridine showed weaker 24-hour analgesia than morphine at the studied regimens, while pooled nausea/vomiting was lower. The only head-to-head trial (n = 75) showed no significant difference in the primary 24-hour endpoint; 48-hour secondary outcomes favored tegileridine, but PONV was not statistically significant (P = 0.117). The mechanistic basis of clinical advantages remains unresolved, and low intrinsic efficacy may contribute.Conclusion Oliceridine has the larger evidence base, with possible ORAE advantages at low-to-moderate doses. Tegileridine is superior to placebo and shows preliminary possible advantages in some secondary outcomes, but current comparative evidence is limited and no adequately powered head-to-head trial exists. The biased agonism mechanism remains contested, and clinical decisions should be based on pragmatic outcome evidence.
SN - 1177-8881
ER -