Objective  To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economy of oliceridine injection for postoperative analgesia by rapid health technology assessment (rHTA), and to provide evidence-based support for clinical decision-making.

Methods  PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP databases and official websites of health technology assessment (HTA) institutions were electronically searched to collect HTA reports, systematic reviews/Meta-analysis, and pharmacoeconomic studies of oliceridine injection for postoperative analgesia from inception to April 10, 2025. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted information and performed quality assessment of the included studies, and then summarized and comprehensively analyzed the results.

Results  A total of 4 articles were included, comprising 2 systematic reviews/Meta-analysis and 2 pharmacoeconomic studies. In terms of efficacy, the proportion of treatment responders and analgesic effect of oliceridine in treating patients were comparable to those of morphine. In terms of safety, compared with morphine, the incidences of adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness, pruritus, and respiratory adverse events caused by oliceridine were lower, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). In terms of economy, the use of oliceridine after surgery could effectively reduce total medical costs, and had more economic advantages compared to morphine.

Conclusion  Based on the current limited evidence, compared with morphine, oliceridine for postoperative analgesia has good efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness, but its economic benefits in China need further research.

1.Gan TJ, Habib AS, Miller TE, et al. Incidence, patient satisfaction, and perceptions of post-surgical pain: results from a US national survey[J]. Curr Med Res Opin, 2014, 30 (1): 149-160. DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2013.860019.

2.Gan TJ. Poorly controlled postoperative pain: prevalence, consequences, and prevention[J]. J Pain Res, 2017, 10: 2287-2298. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S144066.

3.Daksla N, Wang A, Jin Z, et al. Oliceridine for the management of moderate to severe acute postoperative pain: a narrative review[J]. Drug Des Devel Ther, 2023, 17: 875-886. DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S372612.

4.Gelman D, Gelmanas A, Urbanaitė D, et al. Role of multimodal analgesia in the evolving enhanced recovery after surgery pathways[J]. Medicina (Kaunas), 2018, 54(2): 20. DOI: 10.3390/medicina54020020.

5.Echeverria-Villalobos M, Stoicea N, Todeschini AB, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS): a perspective review of postoperative pain management under eras pathways and its role on opioid crisis in the United States[J]. Clin J Pain, 2020, 36(3): 219-226. DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000792.

6.Al-Hasani R, Bruchas MR. Molecular mechanisms of opioid receptor-dependent signaling and behavior[J]. Anesthesiology, 2011, 115(6): 1363-1381. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318238bba6.

7.DeWire SM, Yamashita DS, Rominger DH, et al. A G protein-biased ligand at the μ-opioid receptor is potently analgesic with reduced gastrointestinal and respiratory dysfunction compared with morphine[J]. J Pharmacol Exp Ther, 2013, 344(3): 708-717. DOI: 10.1124/jpet.112.201616.

8.Tan HS, Habib AS. Safety evaluation of oliceridine for the management of postoperative moderate-to-severe acute pain[J]. Expert Opin Drug Saf, 2021, 20(11): 1291-1298. DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2021.1965989.

9.余剑鹏, 刘颖, 陈诗怡, 等. 奥赛利定的临床应用进展 [J]. 实用药物与临床, 2025, 28(2): 156-160. [Yu JP, Liu Y, Chen SY, et al. Research progress on the clinical application of oliceridine[J]. Practical Pharmacy and Clinical Remedies, 2025, 28(2): 156-160. ] DOI: 10.14053/j.cnki.ppcr.202502015.

10.Urits I, Viswanath O, Orhurhu V, et al. The utilization of mu-opioid receptor biased agonists: oliceridine, an opioid analgesic with reduce adverse effects[J]. Curr Pain Headache Rep, 2019, 23(5): 31. DOI: 10.1007/s11916-019-0773-1.

11.唐惠林, 门鹏, 翟所迪. 药物快速卫生技术评估方法及应用[J]. 临床药物治疗杂志, 2016, 14(2): 1-4. [Tang HL, Men P, Zhai SD. Introducing and exploring the method of rapid review on drugs[J]. Clinical Medication Journal, 2016, 14(2): 1-4.] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3384.2016.02.001.

12.李慧玲, 段银银, 李倩倩, 等. 托法替布治疗溃疡性结肠炎的快速卫生技术评估[J]. 药物流行病学杂志, 2024, 33(12): 1414-1424. [Li HL, Duan YY, Li QQ, et al. Tofacitinib for the treatment of ulcerative colitis: a rapid health technology assessment[J]. Chinese Journal of Pharmacoepidemiology, 2024, 33(12): 1414-1424.] DOI: 10.12173/j.issn.1005-0698. 202408086.

13.Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: a checklist for HTA reports[J]. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2003, 19(1): 1-7. DOI: 10.1017/s0266462303000011.

14.Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both[J]. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.

15.Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations[J]. Health Policy Open, 2022, 3: 100063. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpopen.2021.100063.

16.黄格日勒, 栗玉杰, 张文静, 等. 艾加莫德α治疗全身型重症肌无力的快速卫生技术评估[J]. 药物流行病学志, 2024, 33(10): 1156-1163. [Huang GRL, Li YJ, Zhang WJ, et al. Efgartigimod alfa in the treatment of generalized myasthenia gravis: a rapid health technology assessment[J]. Chinese Journal of Pharmacoepidemiology, 2024, 33(10): 1156-1163.] DOI: 10.12173/j.issn.1005-0698.202408007.

17.Niu J, Hu W, Lu Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of oliceridine treatment in patients with postoperative pain: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol, 2023, 16(6): 589-599. DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2023.2213889.

18.Liu Y, Zhu Y, Fu H. Tolerability of different doses of oliceridine versus traditional opioids in acute pain management: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Sci Rep, 2025, 15(1): 11470. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-95978-9.

19.Simpson KN, Fossler MJ, Wase L, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of oliceridine in the treatment of acute pain[J]. J Comp Eff Res, 2021, 10(15): 1107-1119. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2021-0107.

20.Simpson KN, Fossler MJ, Wase L, et al. Budget impact and pharmacy costs with targeted use of oliceridine for postsurgical pain in patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events[J]. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 2022, 22(4): 671-681. DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2022.2038137.

21.Jarzyna D, Jungquist CR, Pasero C, et al. American Society for Pain Management Nursing guidelines on monitoring for opioid-induced sedation and respiratory depression[J]. Pain Manag Nurs, 2011, 12(3): 118-145. e110. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2011.06.008.

22.Oderda GM, Senagore AJ, Morland K, et al. Opioid-related respiratory and gastrointestinal adverse events in patients with acute postoperative pain: prevalence, predictors, and burden[J]. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother, 2019, 33(3-4): 82-97. DOI: 10.1080/15360288.2019.1668902.

23.Nicholson BD. Economic and clinical burden of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting[J]. Postgrad Med, 2017, 129(1): 111-117. DOI: 10.1080/00325481.2017.1243004.

24.Tan HS, Habib AS. Safety evaluation of oliceridine for the management of postoperative moderate-to-severe acute pain[J]. Expert Opin Drug Saf, 2021, 20(11): 1291-1298. DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2021.1965989.

25.Soergel DG, Subach RA, Burnham N, et al. Biased agonism of the μ-opioid receptor by TRV130 increases analgesia and reduces on-target adverse effects versus morphine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy volunteers[J]. Pain, 2014, 155(9): 1829-1835. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.06.011.

26.Singla NK, Skobieranda F, Soergel DG, et al. APOLLO-2: a randomized, placebo and active-controlled phase III study investigating oliceridine (TRV130), a G protein-biased ligand at the μ-opioid receptor, for management of moderate to severe acute pain following abdominoplasty[J]. Pain Pract, 2019, 19(7): 715-731. DOI: 10.1111/papr.12801.