I'm curious why some folks are taking acyclovir and not valacyclovir? Gacek clearly states the latter is preferable, and many studies show it is more effective. Is it cost, doctors, etc.?
I've been using acyclovir because my insurance wouldn't cover 3 valacyclovir pills a day to start. They wanted to charge me 400 bucks for the first month of medicine. The acyclovir was sufficient to put the MM on the run, for me at least.
I cannot source valacyclovir in my country, therefore I take acyclovir. Acyclovir alone is expensive for Serbian average standard anyway, and not covered by insurance if prescribed for MM.
It is my understanding that cost/insurance coverage plays a large part. And also some people have adverse side effects for valacyclovir. I take the valacyclovir (valtrex) and when I had insurance issues because I needed a specific manufacturer I was able to get sourced thru Costco for cash. It was around $65/month - at that time I was already down to 1x day.
I take Acyclovir because the Valacyclovir tore up my stomach within the first 5 days. I stayed on it another 5 days hoping it would pass because I still have symptoms with Acyclovir. My stomach got worse so I had to go off it and Dr Gracek recommended I stay on 1200 mg of Acyclovir indefinitely. About 3 months ago I added 3000 mg a day of Lysine also.
Sharon have you thought of trying famvir? Dr Derebery at House Ear Clinic in CA uses it for MM and feels it is excellent for MM.
That's a good point Vicki. For som reason I thought Famvir was the same as Valacyclovir. I need to read up on it more and see if my insurance covers it. I would really like to find something that didn't require me to take so many pills a day at such high doses. I will definitely research Famvir. Thanks as always.
Doesn't Dr. Gacek's paper suggest Acyclovir first then Valacyclovir if it Acyclovir doesn't have an effect? That's what I read, not the other way around.
Currently Dr. Gacek now prescribes valcyclovir first. and acyclovir second if someone has an issue with val.