Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Previously submitted to: JMIR Medical Informatics (no longer under consideration since Nov 05, 2026)

Date Submitted: Nov 4, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Nov 5, 2026 - Nov 5, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint

Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).

Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.

Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).

Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.

Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.

Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Oliceridine versus Conventional Opioids for the Incidence of Respiratory Depression in Patients with Acute Postoperative Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Guanghan Wu; 
  • Yufei Li; 
  • Hui Han; 
  • Yalei Gao; 
  • Xiaobao Wang; 
  • Jianbo Wu

ABSTRACT

Background:

Background:

Conventional opioids remain widely used for acute postoperative pain but are limited by adverse effects, particularly respiratory depression. Oliceridine (TRV130), a G protein-biased μ-opioid receptor agonist, was developed to provide analgesia with potentially fewer opioid-related respiratory adverse events. However, the comparative respiratory safety of oliceridine and conventional opioids remains uncertain.

Objective:

Objective:

To compare the incidence of respiratory depression associated with intravenous oliceridine versus conventional opioids in adult surgical patients.

Methods:

Methods:

Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous oliceridine with conventional opioids for postoperative analgesia in adults. The primary outcome was respiratory depression. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic. Publication bias was explored using funnel plots, Egger’s test, Begg’s test, and trim-and-fill analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.

Results:

Results:

Fourteen randomized controlled trials involving 2,345 participants were included in the systematic review, and 11 studies reporting respiratory depression were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed a lower risk of respiratory depression with oliceridine than with conventional opioids, although the difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.794, 95% CI 0.554–1.139; p = 0.185). This corresponded to an estimated relative risk reduction of 20.6%. Heterogeneity was substantial (I² = 70.2%). Leave-one-out analyses did not materially change the direction of the pooled effect. No statistically significant publication bias was detected (Egger’s p = 0.846; Begg’s p = 0.938).

Conclusions:

Conclusions:

In the available randomized evidence, oliceridine was associated with a numerically lower incidence of respiratory depression than conventional opioids, but the difference was not statistically significant. Given the heterogeneity in outcome definitions and treatment protocols across studies, the current evidence remains inconclusive. Larger trials using standardized respiratory safety endpoints are needed.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Wu G, Li Y, Han H, Gao Y, Wang X, Wu J

Oliceridine versus Conventional Opioids for the Incidence of Respiratory Depression in Patients with Acute Postoperative Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

JMIR Preprints. 04/11/2026:116131

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.116131

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/116131

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.