abandoned after 4 children were found to have elevated TSH

October 1, 2010

Ran across the below and wondered if lugols would work better in topical

applications? How does povidone-iodine differ from lugols? Are they both

absorbed 12% as calculated by dr Abrams?

Any comments appreciated.

561

The 1994 FDA Tentative Final Monograph for Healthcare Antiseptic Drug Products

recognizes only 2 biocides as safe and effective for use as antiseptic hand

washing agents: povidone-iodine (5% to 10%) and ethanol (60% to 95%).15 These 2

agents, at clinically achievable concentrations, demonstrate better bactericidal

activity against MRSA than do other commonly used antiseptics.19

Two studies compared the effectiveness of various antiseptics at reducing MRSA

colony counts on experimentally contaminated fingertips. Povidone-iodine (7.5%

to 10%) and ethanol (70% to 80%) consistently eliminated more than 99% of

bacteria; chlorhexidine (4%) and plain liquid soap achieved bacterial reductions

of 96% to 99%; and simply rinsing with tap water eliminated 95.2% of

bacteria.20,21

Povidone-iodine. This agent has good antimicrobial activity against MRSA, but

its use is frequently associated with skin irritation.15 In addition, concerns

about systemic toxicity persist.

In 1980, Block22 reported using topical povidone-iodine in a family of 7

persons, each of whom had severe recurrent furunculosis. Family members applied

povidone-iodine to their entire body surface and anterior nares 3 times daily

and used it for hand washing. This regimen was associated with a " very marked

decrease in frequency of recurrence of staphylococcal furuncles in all family

members. " However, it had to be abandoned after 4 children were found to have

elevated serum concentrations of thyroid-stimulating hormone. This report served

as a warning that systemic absorption of iodine can occur with topical use of

povidone-iodine, not only in neonates and burn victims but also in older

children with intact skin.

Recommended Posts