Background/Objectives: Philadelphia has experienced a surge in illicit fentanyl adulterated with alpha-2 agonist sedatives. Initially, xylazine (“tranq”) was the predominant adulterant, and a novel multimodal withdrawal protocol was effective at mitigating symptoms. However, since mid-2024, medetomidine—a more potent sedative—has largely supplanted xylazine. Clinicians
[...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Philadelphia has experienced a surge in illicit fentanyl adulterated with alpha-2 agonist sedatives. Initially, xylazine (“tranq”) was the predominant adulterant, and a novel multimodal withdrawal protocol was effective at mitigating symptoms. However, since mid-2024, medetomidine—a more potent sedative—has largely supplanted xylazine. Clinicians have reported more severe, treatment-resistant opioid withdrawal during this transition. To assess whether a previously effective withdrawal management protocol retained efficacy after the emergence of medetomidine as the primary fentanyl adulterant in a community.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving protocol-based opioid withdrawal treatment at two emergency departments in Philadelphia between September 2022 and April 2025. Patients were divided into the xylazine era (September 2022–July 2024) and medetomidine era (August 2024–April 2025). The primary outcome was a change in Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score from pre- to post-treatment. Secondary outcomes included rates of discharge against medical advice (AMA) and ICU admission, as well as the impact of a revised treatment protocol.
Results: Among 1269 encounters with full data, 616 occurred during the xylazine era and 770 during the medetomidine era. Median COWS reduction was greater in the xylazine group (−9.0 vs. −4.0 points,
p < 0.001), with more patients achieving symptom relief (COWS ≤ 4: 65.6% vs. 14.2%,
p < 0.001). ICU admission occurred in 8.5% of xylazine era patients and 16.8% of medetomidine era patients (
p < 0.001). Rates of AMA were higher during the medetomidine era as well (6.5% vs. 3.6%) (
p = 0.038). Revision of treatment protocols showed promise.
Conclusions: The protocol was significantly less effective during the medetomidine era, though a protocol change may be helping. Findings highlight the need to adapt withdrawal treatment protocols in response to changes in the illicit drug supply.
Full article