Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
waasted

Get In Here If Youve Tried Doxcycline..... Question

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, just got some doxy perscrbied from the doc, im to take 100mg ed. ive read a few posts on here and have seen people are getting inital breakouts. is this common with this product and will i defienetly get an inital break out?

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can tell that for sure, it can work different on others. I've had a friend who was completely cured with doxy, while for me it just wasted 3 months of my life, it didn't help one bit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk about others but mine became worse after a week of doxy....... And now am on accutane...has helped a lot...have you considered talking to your derm about that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see why people would get IB's from Doxy. Doxy is an antibiotic, itll kill the bacteria causing inflamed pimples, but it wont necessarily purge your pores (which causes an IB).

If youre acne isnt that bad I really wouldnt suggest accutane. Thats an extreme measure for what could be a not so extreme case of acne.

Are you using any other products with the doxy? Almost always doctors prescribe doxy while another medication purges your pores (like a retnoid), and in that case the antibiotic is used to help you through that process. I havent heard of many people getting scripts for antibiotics and antibiotics alone to treat their acne. Usually that doesnt do much to help, anyway.

I dont know your condition, and I dont know your regimine, so I cant do much to help you with your situation. However, I will tell you this, if you do decide to start using the doxy here are some things ive learned

1.) ALWAYS wear sunscreen. Doesnt matter if youre just going out for a three minute walk, ALWAYS WEAR SUNSCREEN.

2.) Get a probiotic to use as well, itll keep your stomach and gut in check (or at least will help them)

3.) Seriously, wear some damn sunscreen.

4.) If you dont see any improvement on the antibiotics after a month or two, talk to your doctor IMMEDIATLY about getting off of them. Long term antibiotic use can lead to a resistance toward antibiotics, which can then get you into some serious trouble if you were to get an antibiotic resistant infection (such as MRSA [which is suprirsingly common these days] which can be deadly).

oh...and use sunscreen.

You seriously dont understand how sensitive doxy makes your skin toward the sun.

Oh and dont get a tattoo while youre on the doxy, it hurts like 10x more (learned that one the hard way)

Edited by runzmc
Link to post
Share on other sites

MY dermatologist put me on it on March mine was 100mg and I'm having to take two pills per day. It took 8 weeks for it to actually start showing results but it did work on me and I didn't get any initial breakouts like i heard it did. But i truly believe they work!!smile.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't break out initially, but it also has not helped me much. I've been on it for 2 months and I feel like I would have seen some change by now. I'm thinking about stopping this week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on Doxycycline and it helped me a LOT. I took one course of it (one bottle, 100 mg/day) then stopped, then started a month or two later because I was going to be a bridesmaid and wanted to clear up completely. I never cleared COMPLETELY or had an IB but it did help a lot. HOWEVER, (and I don't want to freak you out or burst your bubble) I have now been off it for about four months and my acne is back. I will never go on antibiotics for acne again because it really is just a short term solution. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on Doxy for 5 months and I was totally clear and now my face is a pimpled mess. It came back with a nasty vengeance, so I'll never go back to using it cause its only a temporary fix so I found out and than boom, it comes creeping back worse so I also found out. crazy.gifhuh.pngcrazy.gifangry.pngcry.gifcry.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on Doxy for 5 months and I was totally clear and now my face is a pimpled mess. It came back with a nasty vengeance, so I'll never go back to using it cause its only a temporary fix so I found out and than boom, it comes creeping back worse so I also found out. crazy.gifhuh.pngcrazy.gifangry.pngcry.gifcry.gif

did you ween off of it? or stop it cold turkey? How many mgs were you on? Most people who are on the average dose of 100-200 mg a day, ween down to a low dose of about 50mg. Thats what im going to do. Im on 350mg right now, going to 200mg in a few days and while i dont have any active pimples at the moment, im staying on it until i go back to the derm for a re visit. Ill ask about lowering to a maintance dose of 50mg to maintain clear skin. I supplement with probiotics so im not concerned about the bacteria issue. Also, ill risk the kidney issues for clear skin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on Doxy for 5 months and I was totally clear and now my face is a pimpled mess. It came back with a nasty vengeance, so I'll never go back to using it cause its only a temporary fix so I found out and than boom, it comes creeping back worse so I also found out. crazy.gifhuh.pngcrazy.gifangry.pngcry.gifcry.gif

did you ween off of it? or stop it cold turkey? How many mgs were you on? Most people who are on the average dose of 100-200 mg a day, ween down to a low dose of about 50mg. Thats what im going to do. Im on 350mg right now, going to 200mg in a few days and while i dont have any active pimples at the moment, im staying on it until i go back to the derm for a re visit. Ill ask about lowering to a maintance dose of 50mg to maintain clear skin. I supplement with probiotics so im not concerned about the bacteria issue. Also, ill risk the kidney issues for clear skin.

I just stopped it cold turkey. I was taking 300mg a day. My Derm told me to just stop, so I listened. Anyway, it was a great 5 months and I still have pills left and I know I shouldnt, but I might start taking them again. eusa_think.gif Good luck in your acne fight!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been on Doxycycline for almost 7 months now with pretty decent results. Not perfect results, but decent enough compared to where I was when I was using Atralin. Next time I see my derm (in mid-August), I'm going to ask about tapering off (maybe going to 150mg to 100mg to 50mg over the next few months?). I've read some things about people taking a smaller dose (50mg a day) and having good results while lessening side effects and risks of antibiotic resistance, so I'll ask him about that possibility.

I'm not really using any topicals at the moment, just a gentle cleanser (Acne.org) and moisturizer (CeraVe), so I'll also see if I can add either BP or sulfur to my regimen to hopefully prevent my face from breaking out again as I lower the dose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth I already have Crohn's Disease and before being prescribed antibiotics my dermatologist called my gastroenterologist to see if it was okay for me to take them. My gastro told my derm that not only was it not a problem, but that oral antibiotics are sometimes even prescribed to treat certain types of IBDs like Crohn's.

So take the antibiotics warnings with a grain of salt. Correlation (which is what those studies seem to present) does not imply causation. Further, let's be honest, a lot of acne medications carry risks with long-term use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was prescribed the same amount, and there was a breakout. I took it for like a month and a half and it did not do anything. The worst for me. I hope thatit does actually work for you.

I am on the regimen now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth I already have Crohn's Disease and before being prescribed antibiotics my dermatologist called my gastroenterologist to see if it was okay for me to take them. My gastro told my derm that not only was it not a problem, but that oral antibiotics are sometimes even prescribed to treat certain types of IBDs like Crohn's.

So take the antibiotics warnings with a grain of salt. Correlation (which is what those studies seem to present) does not imply causation. Further, let's be honest, a lot of acne medications carry risks with long-term use.

yea they are saying there is a link, so its more of an association(when you see one(lots of antibiotics), the other tends to be present as well(ibd) )so im not so sure about any claims to a causative relationship, but it could mean there is a causative relationship, just not enough data to come to that conclusion yet.

correlation i think is either inverse, direct, or parabolic.

they seem to be saying that the more antibiotics that are prescribed and even the type of antibiotic, can be used to predict who will get ibd or crohns disease, so that suggest some causative role, but doesnt firmly support that conclusion yet, but then again, what study will absolutly 100% absolutely confirm teh cause of crohns disease? science may only provide probabale evidence, and never be able to provide absolutly conclusive evidence,because we cannot turn the entire world into a laboratory, life happens outside the lab, how can we simulate that? we do come close though.

but there is more evidence that further support a causative relationship, which i can also provide.

long term antibiotics are now being linked to the development of inflammatory bowel disease.

http://dermatology.j...full/2010/917/4

http://www.nature.co...jg2011304a.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20940708

Define long term

probably more then a week.

Edited by AutonomousOne1980
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also worth noting that at least one of those studies was done by a group of doctors who were acting as consultants to attorneys representing accutane companies.

I understand the warnings and respect your opinion, but the jury is still well out on this one, and a lot of good doctors with no skin in the game have no problem prescribing the long-term use of antibiotics for a wide variety of illnesses. The frustrating thing about this discussion (and no disrespect here) is that almost every treatment discussed on these forums has people who come along with this study or that study that proves why that treatment is not only ineffective but also very dangerous to future health.

The only advice I'd give to the OP is to do your own research. There are no absolutes with antibiotics or any other treatment. Know the risks and also know the benefits and come to a decision you feel comfortable with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also worth noting that at least one of those studies was done by a group of doctors who were acting as consultants to attorneys representing accutane companies.

I understand the warnings and respect your opinion, but the jury is still well out on this one, and a lot of good doctors with no skin in the game have no problem prescribing the long-term use of antibiotics for a wide variety of illnesses. The frustrating thing about this discussion (and no disrespect here) is that almost every treatment discussed on these forums has people who come along with this study or that study that proves why that treatment is not only ineffective but also very dangerous to future health.

The only advice I'd give to the OP is to do your own research. There are no absolutes with antibiotics or any other treatment. Know the risks and also know the benefits and come to a decision you feel comfortable with.

just because two of the studies authors served as consultants to legal representatives of accutane manufacturers, does not mean they are dishonest people or that they are liars or that the simply go around using their credibility to lie for money, but i do understand your concern for any potential bias. quite frequently, professionals in their field of study are asked to participate on all sides of litigation, whether its prosecution or defense. And the accutane lawyers have a good argument against claims that accutane is involved with the development of crohn's disease, most people who have taken accutane, have already been exposed to lots of antibiotics, so how do we know that the antibiotics arent to blame rather then the accutane for people who developed ibd? more evidence must be gathered to come to some probable explanation/conclusion then soley someones scientifically/medically untrained anecdotal testimony "oh, it was the accutane!", although the person may be right, they are more likely to be wrong, and the most fair evaluation and investigation must take place, we do not want to unfairly hold accutane responsible for the cases of ibd that are associated with its use, when antibiotics are simultaneously found at the scene of the crime.

Also, bad side effects such as diarrhea or c. difficile infection leading to psuedomembraneous colitis is a well established side effect of antibiotics, why couldnt inflammatory bowel disease be added to that list of rare side effects?

Edited by AutonomousOne1980
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also worth noting that at least one of those studies was done by a group of doctors who were acting as consultants to attorneys representing accutane companies.

I understand the warnings and respect your opinion, but the jury is still well out on this one, and a lot of good doctors with no skin in the game have no problem prescribing the long-term use of antibiotics for a wide variety of illnesses. The frustrating thing about this discussion (and no disrespect here) is that almost every treatment discussed on these forums has people who come along with this study or that study that proves why that treatment is not only ineffective but also very dangerous to future health.

The only advice I'd give to the OP is to do your own research. There are no absolutes with antibiotics or any other treatment. Know the risks and also know the benefits and come to a decision you feel comfortable with.

just because two of the studies authors served as consultants to legal representatives of accutane manufacturers, does not mean they are dishonest people or that they are liars or that the simply go around using their credibility to lie for money, but i do understand your concern for any potential bias. quite frequently, professionals in their field of study are asked to participate on all sides of litigation, whether its prosecution or defense. And the accutane lawyers have a good argument against claims that accutane is involved with the development of crohn's disease, most people who have taken accutane, have already been exposed to lots of antibiotics, so how do we know that the antibiotics arent to blame rather then the accutane for people who developed ibd? more evidence must be gathered to come to some probable explanation/conclusion then soley someones scientifically/medically untrained anecdotal testimony "oh, it was the accutane!", although the person may be right, they are more likely to be wrong, and the most fair evaluation and investigation must take place, we do not want to unfairly hold accutane responsible for the cases of ibd that are associated with its use, when antibiotics are simultaneously found at the scene of the crime.

Also, bad side effects such as diarrhea or c. difficile infection leading to psuedomembraneous colitis is a well established side effect of antibiotics, why couldnt inflammatory bowel disease be added to that list of rare side effects?

I think you just gave a great argument as to why we shouldn't jump to conclusions on antibiotics as well. Nothing is conclusive at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was prescribed it by my Dr and it did a good job for a while. No breakouts or side effects (apart from a slight headache). Cleared my skin up for a few months but it came back again, so i was finally put on Roaccutane.

Doxycycline cleared my brothers skin right up though and he never seemed to suffer with acne half as bad after his course. Wish it had the same results for me but we all respond to treatments differently.

Good luck :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also worth noting that at least one of those studies was done by a group of doctors who were acting as consultants to attorneys representing accutane companies.

I understand the warnings and respect your opinion, but the jury is still well out on this one, and a lot of good doctors with no skin in the game have no problem prescribing the long-term use of antibiotics for a wide variety of illnesses. The frustrating thing about this discussion (and no disrespect here) is that almost every treatment discussed on these forums has people who come along with this study or that study that proves why that treatment is not only ineffective but also very dangerous to future health.

The only advice I'd give to the OP is to do your own research. There are no absolutes with antibiotics or any other treatment. Know the risks and also know the benefits and come to a decision you feel comfortable with.

just because two of the studies authors served as consultants to legal representatives of accutane manufacturers, does not mean they are dishonest people or that they are liars or that the simply go around using their credibility to lie for money, but i do understand your concern for any potential bias. quite frequently, professionals in their field of study are asked to participate on all sides of litigation, whether its prosecution or defense. And the accutane lawyers have a good argument against claims that accutane is involved with the development of crohn's disease, most people who have taken accutane, have already been exposed to lots of antibiotics, so how do we know that the antibiotics arent to blame rather then the accutane for people who developed ibd? more evidence must be gathered to come to some probable explanation/conclusion then soley someones scientifically/medically untrained anecdotal testimony "oh, it was the accutane!", although the person may be right, they are more likely to be wrong, and the most fair evaluation and investigation must take place, we do not want to unfairly hold accutane responsible for the cases of ibd that are associated with its use, when antibiotics are simultaneously found at the scene of the crime.

Also, bad side effects such as diarrhea or c. difficile infection leading to psuedomembraneous colitis is a well established side effect of antibiotics, why couldnt inflammatory bowel disease be added to that list of rare side effects?

I think you just gave a great argument as to why we shouldn't jump to conclusions on antibiotics as well. Nothing is conclusive at this point.

Im not jumping to conclusions.

the definition of , jumping, would be to come to a conclusion without a certain amount of investigation/observations, so what i am saying is, i have investigated this myself. There is alot of good evidence that supports the idea that a massive disruption in the bacterial flora, one that would lead to the elimination of a certain bacterial species that are absolutly essential to normal intestinal function, could lead to chronic bacterial infections and chronic inflammation. antibiotics are capable of contributing to such a massive disruption, the evidence that exists seems to be MORE supportive for antibiotics to be involved in IBD then for accutane to be involved in ibd.

Edited by AutonomousOne1980
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also worth noting that at least one of those studies was done by a group of doctors who were acting as consultants to attorneys representing accutane companies.

I understand the warnings and respect your opinion, but the jury is still well out on this one, and a lot of good doctors with no skin in the game have no problem prescribing the long-term use of antibiotics for a wide variety of illnesses. The frustrating thing about this discussion (and no disrespect here) is that almost every treatment discussed on these forums has people who come along with this study or that study that proves why that treatment is not only ineffective but also very dangerous to future health.

The only advice I'd give to the OP is to do your own research. There are no absolutes with antibiotics or any other treatment. Know the risks and also know the benefits and come to a decision you feel comfortable with.

just because two of the studies authors served as consultants to legal representatives of accutane manufacturers, does not mean they are dishonest people or that they are liars or that the simply go around using their credibility to lie for money, but i do understand your concern for any potential bias. quite frequently, professionals in their field of study are asked to participate on all sides of litigation, whether its prosecution or defense. And the accutane lawyers have a good argument against claims that accutane is involved with the development of crohn's disease, most people who have taken accutane, have already been exposed to lots of antibiotics, so how do we know that the antibiotics arent to blame rather then the accutane for people who developed ibd? more evidence must be gathered to come to some probable explanation/conclusion then soley someones scientifically/medically untrained anecdotal testimony "oh, it was the accutane!", although the person may be right, they are more likely to be wrong, and the most fair evaluation and investigation must take place, we do not want to unfairly hold accutane responsible for the cases of ibd that are associated with its use, when antibiotics are simultaneously found at the scene of the crime.

Also, bad side effects such as diarrhea or c. difficile infection leading to psuedomembraneous colitis is a well established side effect of antibiotics, why couldnt inflammatory bowel disease be added to that list of rare side effects?

I think you just gave a great argument as to why we shouldn't jump to conclusions on antibiotics as well. Nothing is conclusive at this point.

Im not jumping to conclusions.

the definition of , jumping, would be to come to a conclusion without a certain amount of investigation/observations, so what i am saying is, i have investigated this myself. There is alot of good evidence that supports the idea that a massive disruption in the bacterial flora, one that would lead to the elimination of a certain bacterial species that are absolutly essential to normal intestinal function, could lead to chronic bacterial infections and chronic inflammation. antibiotics are capable of contributing to such a massive disruption, the evidence that exists seems to be MORE supportive for antibiotics to be involved in IBD then for accutane to be involved in ibd.

Exactly, in your opinion, it could contribute to long-term digestive problems and it seems to be worse in that regard than Accutane. And there are a lot of doctors who have looked very closely at the research and know more about the human body that disagree with your interpretation of the research.

It's not worth arguing about anymore. All I'm saying is that your original post implied that the jury was in on this topic. Not only is that not true, but it contributed to unfairly knocking this thread completely off-topic. If this crusade is something you feel strongly about, why not start your own thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also worth noting that at least one of those studies was done by a group of doctors who were acting as consultants to attorneys representing accutane companies.

I understand the warnings and respect your opinion, but the jury is still well out on this one, and a lot of good doctors with no skin in the game have no problem prescribing the long-term use of antibiotics for a wide variety of illnesses. The frustrating thing about this discussion (and no disrespect here) is that almost every treatment discussed on these forums has people who come along with this study or that study that proves why that treatment is not only ineffective but also very dangerous to future health.

The only advice I'd give to the OP is to do your own research. There are no absolutes with antibiotics or any other treatment. Know the risks and also know the benefits and come to a decision you feel comfortable with.

just because two of the studies authors served as consultants to legal representatives of accutane manufacturers, does not mean they are dishonest people or that they are liars or that the simply go around using their credibility to lie for money, but i do understand your concern for any potential bias. quite frequently, professionals in their field of study are asked to participate on all sides of litigation, whether its prosecution or defense. And the accutane lawyers have a good argument against claims that accutane is involved with the development of crohn's disease, most people who have taken accutane, have already been exposed to lots of antibiotics, so how do we know that the antibiotics arent to blame rather then the accutane for people who developed ibd? more evidence must be gathered to come to some probable explanation/conclusion then soley someones scientifically/medically untrained anecdotal testimony "oh, it was the accutane!", although the person may be right, they are more likely to be wrong, and the most fair evaluation and investigation must take place, we do not want to unfairly hold accutane responsible for the cases of ibd that are associated with its use, when antibiotics are simultaneously found at the scene of the crime.

Also, bad side effects such as diarrhea or c. difficile infection leading to psuedomembraneous colitis is a well established side effect of antibiotics, why couldnt inflammatory bowel disease be added to that list of rare side effects?

I think you just gave a great argument as to why we shouldn't jump to conclusions on antibiotics as well. Nothing is conclusive at this point.

Im not jumping to conclusions.

the definition of , jumping, would be to come to a conclusion without a certain amount of investigation/observations, so what i am saying is, i have investigated this myself. There is alot of good evidence that supports the idea that a massive disruption in the bacterial flora, one that would lead to the elimination of a certain bacterial species that are absolutly essential to normal intestinal function, could lead to chronic bacterial infections and chronic inflammation. antibiotics are capable of contributing to such a massive disruption, the evidence that exists seems to be MORE supportive for antibiotics to be involved in IBD then for accutane to be involved in ibd.

Exactly, in your opinion, it could contribute to long-term digestive problems and it seems to be worse in that regard than Accutane. And there are a lot of doctors who have looked very closely at the research and know more about the human body that disagree with your interpretation of the research.

It's not worth arguing about anymore. All I'm saying is that your original post implied that the jury was in on this topic. Not only is that not true, but it contributed to unfairly knocking this thread completely off-topic. If this crusade is something you feel strongly about, why not start your own thread?

doctors diagnose medical conditions and treat them, thats their job.

they hardly ever do any research.

i also have crohns and i also have taken tons of doxycycline, it was a waste of my time and may have damaged my health.

ill stop helping you as respect to your request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for jumping down your throat as I'm sure your intentions were pure in your posting. I just think that there is a lot of conflicting information out there coming from a lot of people who purport to have all of the answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×