Post by LymeEnigma on Sept 2, 2007 20:41:02 GMT -8
Treatment length is probably one of the most controversial issues in the Lyme debate. The IDSA says 21-28 days of doxycycline is enough to treat just about any case of Lyme disease. ILADS says it many cases can take years to treat, and many alternative doctors mix up different combinations every six months or so to "shake things up." Some doctors claim that certain antimicrobials can combat the cystic form of the spirochete, while others blame Borrelia's slow reproduction rate for its seeming long-term presence in some patients' bodies.
After only six months of treatment with azithromycin, I decided to stop treatment for the time being. The azithromycin eliminated a number of terrible symptoms, but I hit a plateau only a few months into treatment. There are a few points that I feel are important to add:
Might long-term antibiotic therapy be nothing more than a short-term band-aid? Given the dangers of long-term antibiotic use, not to mention the issues of antibiotic resistance, there have got to be more options ... right?
I have no idea whether or not my decision to go off antibiotics will cause me, in the coming months, to slowly accrue once again the many menacing symptoms the azithromycin knocked out just a few months ago. Time will tell.
I'm interested to hear others' experiences with long-term antibiotics, from those who have experienced persistent symptoms despite years of antibiotic therapy, and others who feel that they are at a crossroads in their treatment.
After only six months of treatment with azithromycin, I decided to stop treatment for the time being. The azithromycin eliminated a number of terrible symptoms, but I hit a plateau only a few months into treatment. There are a few points that I feel are important to add:
- I've talked to people who have taken antibiotic c0cktails for over four years, and still relapse whenever they go off the antibiotics. Four years?! What's wrong with this picture?
- Azithromycin works several times faster than many other antibiotics; a typical course for a simple infection is usually only a few days, as opposed to a week or two typically prescribed for other antibiotics. Might it be reasonable to consider that six months of azithromycin might be able to do what a year or two of another antibiotic might be able to accomplish?
- If six months of azithromycin isn't enough to rid me of all major symptoms, can I really expect another six months to be of any real benefit?
- Does treatment for other diseases that require long-term antibiotic therapy, such as antibiotic resistant tuberculosis, leprosy, and Q-fever entail "switching up" various antibiotics every six months, or is there a specific set of antibiotics patients of those diseases take for the full two+ years they are being treated?
Might long-term antibiotic therapy be nothing more than a short-term band-aid? Given the dangers of long-term antibiotic use, not to mention the issues of antibiotic resistance, there have got to be more options ... right?
I have no idea whether or not my decision to go off antibiotics will cause me, in the coming months, to slowly accrue once again the many menacing symptoms the azithromycin knocked out just a few months ago. Time will tell.
I'm interested to hear others' experiences with long-term antibiotics, from those who have experienced persistent symptoms despite years of antibiotic therapy, and others who feel that they are at a crossroads in their treatment.
