How long have you been on it
He started me out wth .5 two times a day .l,ve been doubling up it just don,t work.
It's been over a week..
I wake up 3-4 time a night
It doesn't matter how long dwb was on it because Ativan is quick release and only lasts around 8 hours. There is no build up effect to get results.
How many did you take and what dosage? I would be surprised if it doesn't work from my conversations with my pharmacist who described it sort of as the only guaranteed panic killer. I am not a pharmacist so would suggest you call yours or your doc about this problem though.
How long have you taken Zanax and how frequently?
Are you saying it works for a while but not long enough? When do you take the doubled up doses which amounts to 4 per day and how many hours later do you wake up with a problem?
I just seam like its not workingI get up 4-4 times a night.
I,ve been taking azanex for for years and just stopped 3 months ago. But the attacks are back.
my job is really stressful.
70-80 hour a week keeping 60-70 men working on top of all bull*** paperwork.. stress :
I told the DR zanax work best for me but she wanted me to try this first.
It don't work for me.....
I told the DR zanax work best for me but she wanted me to try this first.
It don't work for me.....
Well, you need to speak with your doctor. Doubling up on the dose isn't the answer and will only cause you to feel worse. Have you ever tried any other approaches to manage stress? MANY people have very stressful lives and high demand jobs who work a lot of hours, and don't require taking an anti-anxiety medication, certainly not regularly.
A short term benzo taken regularly will end up causing you more problems than you started with, due to tolerance and dependency. It's also a bit worrisome that you'd be willing to self medicate and try to double your dose.
You definitely need to speak with your doc and try to find a more reasonable long term solution, IMO.
There is no "guaranteed panic killer." Drugs affect different people differently, and some people just don't metabolize certain drugs well. That's why there's so many drugs in the same class out there. Nor does this drug last 8 hours -- short acting benzos might last a half hour, might last an hour, might last longer, it depends on the individual. Only klonopin is a long-lasting benzo, but that also makes it take longer to work and works best when taken regularly. If this is being taken for sleep, benzos aren't very good for that -- they're for seizures and anxiety, not sleep, and they interfere with REM sleep. Taken regularly, short acting benzos are quite hard to stop taking (so is klonopin, but people who take that one generally take it for a long period of time anyway). Their approved purpose is to get one through a short-term period of anxiety, and if you keep taking them the way you are these are addictive drugs and doubling up on them will make them harder to stop taking. It's possible you're having a problem abruptly stopping the Xanax, as one drug doesn't necessarily stop withdrawal problems from a different drug even in the same class of drugs. Pharmacists are only trained in generalizations about drugs -- what did studies show, etc. They don't monitor patients, so they don't have that awareness of seeing patients with vastly different reactions to the same drug. This is what psychiatrists are supposed to do, assuming they're doing the job properly, which is a big assumption. So if Xanax works better for you, that's your drug, but taking it regularly for sleep won't work long-term, it won't reduce the stress from your job, and it will become hard to stop taking, which may have already happened. Do you have an anxiety problem, or a stress problem? The two are quite different, and if the stress of your job is more than you can handle and it's not a generalized irrational anxiety problem the only solution is to develop ways to lessen the stress or realize this might not be the right job for you. It's tough, I know, drugs are easier to turn to, but they're not magic pills and they don't alter the reality of your life.
I should say, when I say ways to lessen the stress, this doesn't just involve changing the job environment, it could just be altering your perception of the job. Techniques include meditation, taking short breaks, exercise, breathing exercises. These can be learned by seeing a psychologist who specializes in treating stress and anxiety. As for sleep, there are natural methods that aren't addictive, such as melatonin, and relaxation techniques as well. If they work, and there's no guarantee, they won't interfere with REM sleep and won't put you into rebound insomnia, which long-term use of drugs to sleep can.
From wikipedia in the formulation section it appears this does last around 8 hours.
" A clinically relevant lorazepam dose will normally be effective for six to 12 hours, "
Anyway, it says not to take it longer than 4 weeks and dwb has used it a week plus took Zanax before.
Wikipedia is not a recognized peer reviewed source for information, so I wouldn't rely on that particular source for anything. But my point is not how long a drug stays in the system but how long it works for most people. I don't think you'd find very many people who will find the anti-anxiety effect of short-acting benzos lasting very long. Perhaps you can find people for whom these drugs do last that long. As for how long to stay on it, that depends on the quality of life a person is aiming for. If somebody's life is so badly damaged and the only thing that helps is a short-acting benzo, then that's probably what a psychiatrist will keep them on in the US, whereas benzos in general are very hard to get in the UK, where more research has been done on the difficulty of stopping them when taken regularly. Doctors are allowed to use drugs off-label, which means for purposes and for durations not covered by FDA approval or research studies, and most of us are taking these drugs off-label. As an example of duration, Prozac can stay in the system for about a month, but if you stop taking it, certainly it doesn't keep working for a month for almost all of us, but I'm sure there are some people who metabolize it so well it does keep working to some extent. We're just so different it's very hard to generalize, and drugs are usually only tested on a very few people for a very short period of time, and then once on the market doctors can use them any way they want and everything changes in practice.
I consider most doctors are competent to do their jobs. In a recent survey, doctors stated they use wikipedia more than any other source. Heard that on the CBC radio yesterday. Also, a scientist friend referred me to wikipedia saying it is where he looks to get his info too.
The wikipedia article I provided had 94 references at the bottom. All wikipedia articles are reviewed by experts in the field which is a major step up from the credibility a person should place on a chat line forum dealing with anonymous people of no verified background. Nothing personal should be construed from that statement - I am just providing information that says wikipedia has more credibility.
I took Ativan and got 8 or so hours effect from it and my doc said it lasts in that range. That matches the wikipedia information.
Respectfully, Paxiled has a very valid point.
Just for your information:
Many people don't know that articles from wikipedia are NOT required to be independently verified, and certainly they are not all reviewed by an expert. In fact, anyone can edit a wiki article (kind of scary huh?). You could go make a wiki page right now (as could I).
While some of the info is okay, it's certainly not the best source of reference. ANY info gleamed from a wiki article should be independently checked for accuracy using VERIFIABLE sources.
Just something to think about when you're citing sources. For medical information, there are countless resources that are verified and expert checked, that would be more optimal than wiki.
Your comment leaves out the important part of the wikipedia quality of information safeguard (that I explain below) so your further extrapolation of the risks are not valid.
Anyone can edit wikipedia but it doesn't get POSTED on their site until someone at wiki approves it. That ensures that scary garbage does not appear there. That safeguard does not exist on a chat line forum.
No personal offence is intended toward anyone who reads my comments. There is a reason the survey says doctors rely on wikipedia for information more than any other source.
Reading the bottom part of the link you provided does indicate errors existed in 2005 so if that is still correct today, wikipedia isn't foolproof.
However, given wikipedia's ability to be corrected and factoring in that numerous eyes rove it, I am inclined to believe that an old med like Ativan has had its information foolproofed by now.
I think you're missing the point, but that's okay. I don't want to hijack this thread with this discussion. I'm not personally saying to use wiki or not use it, the point that was being made was that when it comes to citing sources, it's not the best choice. You can feel free to do as you choose of course. And, no one was arguing wiki versus an online forum like this, it was a discussion about references, cited sources.
One last point is, that you have to remember that the "moderators" who approve the edits are only volunteers, certainly not independently hired experts in the subject matter, so that argument is moot IMO.
I think you are also missing a point - that wikipedia is more reliable than a forum because at least you get 94 resources listed so if you think the moderator volunteers read all that background but have no skills in what they have read that is different than my opinion.
I don't want to hijack the thread either, and won't comment further, but it is useful to get a full discussion on wikipedia (just this once) instead of just a terse dismissive statement that "wikipedia is unreliable because it is not peer reviewed." In that vein, I could say my pharmacist and doc are unreliable because their comments are not taped and sent for peer review.
Thanks all for the wikipedia comments and I am done with that subject. The next step is for dwbcowboy to write back if any new concerns or events have occurred.