Talk:Xylazine

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 one external links on Xylazine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/horses/facts/00-063.html.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed link in article. DferDaisy (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Xylazine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150407160416/http://www.merckmanuals.com:80/404.html to http://www.merckmanuals.com/404.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070302155131/http://www.rompun.com:80/ to http://www.rompun.com/.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable citation in Pharmacodynamics?
I was interested in learning more about the following claim from the article: Unfortunately I wasn't able to verify this from the citation. It seems the claim has been repeated almost verbatim in a series of papers, all ultimately relying on a source from 1982 which I was unable to locate.

The wiki citation (Ruiz-Colón et al, 2014) mentions these receptors only once in the introduction: The citation here is Hoffmann et al, 2001 which almost identically states: Which leads to the citation I wasn't able to find: I also searched pubchem which has 2,275 bioassays for xylazine. Despite this I found only:
 * Inactive at Serotonin 1A, 2A, 5A
 * Inactive at Dopamine D1, D2, D3
 * Inactive at α1 adrenergic

No conclusion can be drawn about the original claim's veracity, but given the context and general lack of information I wonder if:
 * The primary source may have demonstrated partial reversal of xylazine's effects, and speculated that the remaining effects are due to an unknown mechanism (perhaps cholinergic, serotonergic, dopaminergic, etc).
 * This was misquoted by a citing author as evidence of a secondary mechanism, and this misquote was cited by all subsequent papers.


 * There is also repetitive language, and childish usage in the "quotes" that makes this part of the article a load of nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd be interested if anyone is aware of another source for these claims, or more detailed information on xylazine's activity in general. Jamedeus (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Since it's been over a year now I went ahead and removed this line from the article. I'd still be interested if anyone has access to the 1982 Kitzman et al paper. Jamedeus (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

FDA should immediately ban this drug.
This chemical is causing havoc and taking young lives. FDA should ban it immediately and search for any traces left in any corner of any country. WikiEditorZairrahMurtazaRizvi (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the DEA should schedule it?
 * Because it clearly has veterinary uses. 108.60.63.241 (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not a place for discussing that. WPEditor42  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This page is for talking about the article. Bveracka (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate reference to animal study
Ref name=Xiao is to an animal study, strictly confined to monkeys, of hyperglycemia following xylazine injection. Other properties, uses and side effects are mentioned, but this paper is not itself a review of the drug in general, or a review of human use. Xylazine in street drugs is much in the news currently, so most users reading this article are likely interested in human (ab)use, rather than legitimate veterinary usage. This cite should be replaced in most cases by a more appropriate one, or state clearly that it is only an animal study.

There are half a dozen references to this source scattered through the article; the first cite is in section History just after the lead and explicitly ties it to humans, so that one definitely needs to be fixed. It looks a bit complicated to review them all, find a better reference, and redact. I will do the clean-up if another editor doesn't jump in first, but I'll have to postpone it. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Further, ref name Veilleux-Lemieux is another animal study cited inappropriately in the last sentence of sub-section Pharmacology>Pharmacokinetics in humans, implying that the rat study applies to humans. It appears that the pharmacokinetics vary considerably with species, so animal studies should not be cited as though they applied to humans. The information—that various factors can impact the pharmacokinetics—may well be correct, but the cite should be to a human study, or the sentence be qualified, e.g. "Animal studies suggest that other factors, including sex, nutrition,..." etc. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion and Offer to Edit Important Info
Two things I'd like to address:

Firstly, it is important that everyone who views this article knows about the issue of xylazine's use as a recreational drug—both on its own or in combination with fentanyl, but especially with the latter in the USA. The seriousness of this issue cannot be understated. Thus, I strongly believe that the second paragraph in the top section of the page should be swapped with the third. Furthermore, a short and concise description of xylazine's use as a fentanyl augmentation should be mentioned at the beginning of that paragraph.

Secondly, use of the term "tranq" has become cloudy among both users and health professionals, just as many slang terms for drugs tend to do. The term can mean a number of things, but in the USA it generally refers to any fentanyl that has been mixed with either xylazine or novel benzodiazepines, or occasionally both. Unlike in Puerto Rico many years ago, xylazine is very rarely used on its own in the USA, and this should also be made clear to the reader (again, in a concise manner).

Finally, the NIH / PubMed paper cited about xylazine abuse in Puerto Rico was published more than twelve years ago, therefore it's my belief that the focus of the header paragraphs should be on the basics of the drug itself and its current use as a combination drug with fentanyl, now known as "tranq" (among other names). Normally I'd simply edit the article myself, but this one is written very well—as many scientific, medical, etc. articles tend to be—so I thought it would be nice to talk about it first. Bveracka (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Xylazine does have a specific antidote..
As a veterinary clinician, it's extremely pertinent that you carry yohimbine with you if you are to administer xylazine in any capacity for the sole reason that it rapidly reverses sedation in the event of accidental administration. In much the same way naloxone is to be carried with etorphine, you can never be sure that you won't accidentally jab yourself when dealing with large, unpredictable animals, and so bring a specific antidote at all times. Much is this article is hysteria ridden with way over the top descriptions (Ranitidine, aka Zantac, as part of treatments used?) and is far too informed by its newly designated status as a drug of concern while being under-informed on the true place and usage of such drugs. I'll work on it here and there, but this page has multiplied since I read it first about 10 years ago, with some information being a great addition (ex. it's testing in the 60's for humans, and subsequent rejection due to bradycardia, which I had to find on my own back then), and some being I'm sure well meaning, but detrimental to it's adequate widespread understanding. Additivefreesb (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)