Tag: iodine

Iodine Deficiency Is Creeping Back. Vegans, Vegetarians and Pregnant Women Are Most at Risk

Credit: Pixabay CC0

José Miguel Soriano del Castillo, Universitat de València

Iodine deficiency is often seen as a problem of the past, but this isn’t entirely true. During the 20th century, the iodisation of salt became one of the most effective public health interventions for preventing conditions caused by a lack of this mineral, including goiter (enlargement of the thyroid gland) and preventable damage to neurological development.

The World Health Organization (WHO) still views iodised salt as a safe and effective strategy, while UNICEF notes that it is the most widely used way of improving iodine intake worldwide.

However, the success of this simple measure means iodine has all but disappeared from public debate. And today, in several countries, signs of insufficient intake are once again being detected in certain groups, particularly in pregnant or breastfeeding women and people on restrictive or poorly planned diets.

What we are witnessing is not a dramatic resurgence of the most severe symptoms everywhere, but rather a silent risk of deficiency in contexts where vigilance has waned.

Iodine’s role in the body

Iodine is an essential micronutrient for the synthesis of thyroxine (T4) and triiodothyronine (T3), hormones that regulate metabolism, growth, and many physiological processes. Adequate intake during pregnancy and early childhood is particularly important for the normal development of the central nervous system and for the early stages of brain maturation.

In addition, the body’s needs increase during pregnancy and breastfeeding due to increased maternal production of thyroid hormones, greater renal excretion of iodine, and the transfer of this mineral to the fetus and the infant.

Why deficiency is on the rise again

The issue is not that people have stopped consuming salt, but rather that the type of salt they consume has changed, as have the sources of sodium in their diet. In recent years, iodised salt has been replaced in many households by “gourmet” or “natural” salts. These include sea salt, pink Himalayan salt, flaked salt and kosher salt, which are often perceived as more sophisticated or healthier, even though they are not always iodised.

In a way, iodised salt has an image problem. Compared to the culinary prestige of its trendy rivals, it has come to be viewed as something ordinary, outdated even.

Today, lot of our salt intake also comes from processed and ultraprocessed foods, meaning the use of iodised salt cannot be guaranteed. For this reason, the World Health Organization has called for coordination between policies that aim to reduce sodium intake and those that promote iodised salt.

The makeup of our diets has also changed a lot. Iodine is naturally present in all seafood, some dairy products and in eggs, though the quantity may vary from one region or food system to another. When a person reduces or cuts out several of these sources at once while not also consuming iodised salt or fortified foods, the risk of deficiency increases.

The result is that a basic, inexpensive, and effective micronutrient has fallen out of the spotlight just as certain groups are once again at risk of not getting enough iodine.

Plant-based diets

Vegetarian and vegan diets can be healthy, but they must take iodine into consideration. A 2023 review in the British Journal of Nutrition concluded that people following a plant-based diet, especially vegans, may find it hard to get the recommended amount of iodine from these foods alone.

This does not mean a plant-based diet is inherently lacking – and the solution is straightforward. Just as vitamin B12 is is commonly recommended for those who reduce their consumption of fish or dairy – or when people replace animal products with unfortified plant-based alternatives – so too should iodine.

Pregnancy and breastfeeding

Iodine deserves special attention during pregnancy. There is strong evidence that a severe deficiency of this micronutrient can affect fetal development and thyroid function, which is why many organisations use specific thresholds to assess iodine status in pregnant women. The US National Institutes of Health states that a urinary concentration of 150–249 micrograms per liter (μg/L) in pregnant women is considered adequate for the general population.

But there is a caveat to this. Concerns about mild or moderate deficiency are legitimate, but there is no conclusive evidence as to the cognitive benefits of supplementing all pregnant women who show a mild deficiency. Reviews and trials have indicated that there is plausible biological concern, and some studies suggest an association with poorer outcomes, but controlled experiments have not unanimously shown clear improvements in infant neurodevelopment.

Nevertheless, several scientific societies have adopted a cautious stance. The American Thyroid Association, for instance, states that women who are planning to conceive, pregnant or breastfeeding should receive 150 μg of iodine daily in prenatal or multivitamin supplements, usually in the form of potassium iodide, to help meet increased requirements.

Why ‘more salt’ is not the answer

Another important clarification is needed here. Advocating for iodised salt does not mean recommending a higher salt intake. The WHO maintains its recommendation to reduce sodium intake due to its link with high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. In terms of public health, the solution is not “more salt”, but less – though the salt we do eat should be iodised.

In fact, the WHO itself has emphasised that reducing salt intake and fortifying salt with iodine are compatible, provided the concentration of the mineral is properly adjusted and salt used by the food industry is also fortified.

This point is key because it avoids two common pitfalls: turning the issue into a nostalgic defence of table salt, or the other extreme of assuming that any reduction in sodium intake will automatically solve all health problems without any nutritional consequences. But it is possible to strike a balance between preventing cardiovascular disease and iodine deficiency.

José Miguel Soriano del Castillo, Catedrático de Nutrición y Bromatología del Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universitat de València

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Hypersensitivity Link Between MRI and X-Ray Contrast Agents

Photo by Mart Production on Pexels

People with a history of hypersensitivity to iodine-based contrast agents for X-ray based scans, are also susceptible to similar reactions from commonly used MRI contrast agents, according to a large, eight-year cohort study. The study, published in the journal Radiology, also found that premedication or switching to a different MRI contrast agent may reduce risk in patients who have had previous contrast agent reactions.

For a long time, gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) have been used to enhance visualisation of organs, tissues and blood vessels on MRI and provide a more accurate depiction of disease. Though GBCA are relatively safe, recent studies have reported several adverse reactions related to their use, including allergic-like hypersensitivity reactions, such as rash and flushing.

These reactions are increasing in incidence with the widespread use of GBCA, prompting an urgent need for research into risk factors, according to the study’s senior author Hye-Ryun Kang, MD, PhD.

Analysing more than 330 000 cases of GBCA exposure in 154 539 patients over an eight-year period, the researchers found 1304 cases of allergic-like hypersensitivity reactions, for a rate of 0.4%. In patients who had a previous GBCE reaction, the average recurrence rate was 15%.

Acute allergic-like hypersensitivity reactions, or those that occur within one hour of contrast administration, accounted for 1178 cases, while a far smaller number of 126 cases were delayed allergic-like hypersensitivity reactions, or those that occur beyond the first hour and mostly within one week after exposure.

The risk of allergic-like hypersensitivity reactions to GBCAs was higher in those with a history of similar reactions to iodinated contrast media. Normally, having a history of iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity was not thought to be a risk factor for hypersensitivity to GBCAs and vice versa, because of their structural and compositional differences.

“The results of our study challenge this idea,” Dr Kang said.

An underlying predisposition to drug allergies in susceptible patients could be the cause, Dr Kang said, as opposed to any cross-reactivity associated with structural similarities between iodinated contrast media and GBCA. In fact, the risk of hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media was also higher in those who previously experienced a similar reaction to GBCA.

“Thus, physicians should be aware that patients with a history of hypersensitivity to one of iodinated contrast media or GBCA are at greater risk of developing hypersensitivity reactions to the other,” she said.

Analysis of the data showed that premedication, typically with steroids and antihistamines, and changing the GBCA showed preventive effects in patients with a history of acute allergic-like hypersensitivity reactions. Patients who received premedication and before MRI or were switched to a different GBCA showed the lowest rate of recurrence. Only premedication significantly reduced the incidence of reactions in patients with a history of delayed reactions.

“As the most important preventive measure is avoidance of the culprit agent, a precise record of previously used GBCA should be kept for all patients,” Dr. Kang said. “Physicians should discuss appropriate premedication strategies with their patients prior to MRI procedures.”

Dr Kang nevertheless stressed that contrast-enhanced MRI examinations are invaluable in the diagnosis and follow-up of various diseases, and the overall risk remains low.

“As most of these reactions are mild, we believe the benefits of MRI outweigh the potential risks associated with GBCA use,” she said.

Dr Kang recommended that in all patients receiving an MRI with GBCA exposure, a detailed history of previous hypersensitivity allergic reactions be conducted, and when necessary, appropriate prevention measures should be implemented, such as using premedication and switching to different GBCA types.

Future work would be to perform studies with larger populations to identify possible risk factors and effective preventive strategies for delayed hypersensitivity reactions to GBCA.

Source: Radiological Society of North America

Now Iodine is the In-thing for COVID

A dangerous new trend has emerged on social media, which involves a new COVID ‘cure’ by gargling the widely used antiseptic, povidone-iodine (PVP).

This trend has been sparked by an online video in Thai which has been widely shared on social media, featuring someone who claims to be a doctor. However this has been debunked. The trend is also cause for concern as the PVP may accidentally be swallowed. 

PVP, also sold under the name Betadine, is used for disinfection in surgical procedures and wound treatment. Gargling with 0.5% PVP has been shown to reduce the symptoms of sore throat associated with COVID, but has not been adequately shown to relieve any other symptoms.  
The immediate side effects of ingesting any PVP antiseptic include nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and diarrhoea. In severe cases, PVP ingestion can result in acute renal failure, cardiovascular collapse, liver function impairment, shortness of breath, low blood pressure, and even death.

In one study, researchers assessed the usage of 0.5% povidone-iodine mouthwash in patients as a way of reducing viral load during dental procedures, reducing possible exposure of healthcare workers. However, there is no evidence beyond in vitro testing that it actually reduces viral load in the throat. 

An official statement on the Betadine website reads as follows: “Betadine® Antiseptic First Aid products have not been approved to treat coronavirus. Products should only be used to help prevent infection in minor cuts, scrapes and burns. Betadine Antiseptic products have not been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 or any other viruses.”

Source: Newsweek