 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Herpes / May 2007Acyclovir - holding the enemy at the gate
When I feel an episode beginning I seem to have 2 choices. 1. Allow things to break out, go through the process and heal up then be OK for quite a few months. 2. Take acyclovir to prevent it, which it does, but afterwards things seem to come back much more quickly, even as short as a week or two. I'm then left with the same choice. It's as though the little b........ds are waiting to have their way no matter what and won't rest until they do. The acyclovir only seems to hold them at the gate and when I stop taking it they walk right on through. Of course this is not always the case as the virus acts in unpredictable ways as you all know. Does anyone else experience this ? >The acyclovir only seems to hold >them at the gate and when I stop taking it they walk right on through. Of >course this is not always the case as the virus acts in unpredictable ways >as you all know. >Does anyone else experience this ? I've seen/heard others describe the same thing. And as you correctly observe, ya jus never know. And to that I'll add, over time (years) outbreaks often become less frequent and more preventable with early use of Acyclovir ("gate" stays closed longer). M2 >>The acyclovir only seems to hold >>them at the gate and when I stop taking it they walk right on through. Of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > M2 Maybe acyclovir needs to be used for longer after the symptoms recede till things really calm down. I'll try this next time. The only problem is if you're doing this all the time, it's almost as though you're on suppressive therapy again. >Maybe acyclovir needs to be used for longer after the symptoms recede It's worth a try. Couldn't hurt. >The only problem is if >you're doing this all the time, it's almost as though you're on suppressive >therapy again. Yup. If episodes are frequent, it could be exactly the same. But if they're that frequent, suppressive therapy might be the way to go anyway. Let us know how it works out for you. M2 Just on suppressive therapy, I was on it for a year when I was first diagnosed and it held off completely. Then when I came off it started for real. I get the impression that it's not good to stay on acyclovir for too long because of side affects, which I never had (as far as I know). Are some people on it for years and if so is it OK on the body ? >>Maybe acyclovir needs to be used for longer after the symptoms recede > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > M2 > Just on suppressive therapy, I was on it for a year when I was first > diagnosed and it held off completely. Then when I came off it started for > real. There is a phenomenon known as viral rebound that gets tossed around at scientific conferences related to this happening. Its fairly hotly debated as to what it means. > I get the impression that it's not good to stay on acyclovir for too > long because of side affects, which I never had (as far as I know). Are some > people on it for years and if so is it OK on the body ? Yes some people are on it for years. A large scale study followed people up to 10 years on the drug - that was published in 1995. This paper is a review of the long term safety issues (the 20 years is the drug's period clinical use not citing 20 Year continuous use people - though I imagine there may be a few out there). Tyring SK, Baker D, Snowden W. Valacyclovir for herpes simplex virus infection: long-term safety and sustained efficacy after 20 years' experience with acyclovir. J Infect Dis. 2002 Oct 15;186 Suppl 1:S40-6. Review THis review summarises long term use of the drug as most frequent rate of side effects in the first year of around 5% of patients reporting nausea, Adverse efects after year 1 they describe as follows based on data from one of Baker's earlier (1995) publications; "For the rest of the study to year 10, acyclovir continued to be well tolerated. Adverse events were rare and mild and generally not thought to be related to treatment. There was no evidence of serious adverse drug reactions or cumulative toxicity." So yes, people are on it for years.... Tim  SignatureWhen playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 That's really interesting. Thanks for that. I'll be off for another prescription then, see you later .............. ! >> Just on suppressive therapy, I was on it for a year when I was first >> diagnosed and it held off completely. Then when I came off it started for [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Tim > That's really interesting. Thanks for that. I'll be off for another > prescription then, see you later .............. ! Last time I looked most countries had comments inthe prescribing book to review at regular intervals (be it 6 months or 1 year). I havent actually looked that up for a few years though. Even if still in place its just a good idea if you are taking anything long term. Last thing you need is if you do fall into the wrong side of the stats is to have no safety net. Tim SignatureWhen playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 To be honest, I don't think I will go on suppressive therapy long term. The info though is useful in that I'd be more comfortable about taking more and for longer to prevent outbreaks when I feel one coming on. I'm lucky in that its worked well for me so far in totally preventing outbreaks and symptoms once I start taking it. >> That's really interesting. Thanks for that. I'll be off for another >> prescription then, see you later .............. ! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tim |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.