ReviewCNS drugs2025
Opioid Analgesics: Rise and Fall of Ligand Biased Signaling and Future Perspectives in the Quest for the Holy Grail.
Review in CNS drugs, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oliceridine versus Sufentanil for Postoperative Recovery and Opioid-Related Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Thoracoscopic Lobectomy: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
- Establishing the Median Effective Dose of Tegileridine for Immediate Postoperative Analgesia Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Sequential Dose-Finding Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- Autonomic nervous system modulation by G protein-biased mu-opioid receptor agonists: A translational scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
- The neural circuits and signalling pathways of opioid use disorder.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40169527What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.