Vitamin Drips and IV Therapy: Nourishing from Within

In my work I often talk about layers: cream acts on the surface, biorevitalisation in the dermis, filler deeper still, surgery on the structure. That’s the logic of the treatment scale, and it helps us understand how deep a problem sits.

Infusion therapies — “drips” — don’t sit on that scale. They sit on a completely different axis: they don’t work on one area of the body, they work on the body as a whole. And it’s precisely this difference that generates the most misunderstanding, in both directions: those who expect a drip to do what an aesthetic treatment does, and those who think drips are never useful for anything.

The truth comes down to a simple principle, which is also the criterion I work by: measure first, supplement second.

Local and systemic: two axes that don’t replace each other

There’s a question I’m often asked: “Is a vitamin drip better, or biorevitalisation?” It’s like asking whether it’s better to water a plant or change its soil: they’re different actions, at different levels.

The local axis is that of skin treatments. Biorevitalisation delivers hyaluronic acid and active ingredients directly into the dermis, where they’re needed, in useful concentrations and with a measurable effect on the hydration, radiance and texture of a specific area.

The systemic axis is that of the whole body. An intravenous infusion introduces nutrients into the bloodstream, where they distribute everywhere. It has no specific skin target: it supports general functions, and only if there’s something to support.

Put plainly: a drip doesn’t restore lost volume, doesn’t smooth a wrinkle and doesn’t improve the texture of a cheek. And, equally, no skin treatment can correct an iron or vitamin B12 deficiency. These are tools that answer different questions.

When it makes sense to look at the systemic picture

In the logic of regenerative medicine, skin quality isn’t an isolated fact: it reflects the general state of the body. A significant iron deficiency shows — in your complexion, in hair quality, in your energy levels. Chronic malabsorption leaves marks that no cream can correct.

So there are situations where it’s worth widening the view from the face to the whole:

• Suspected nutritional deficiencies, especially alongside persistent fatigue, hair loss, pallor or brittle nails
• Intestinal malabsorption conditions (coeliac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, after bariatric surgery)
• Prolonged restrictive diets or highly selective eating patterns, where certain nutrients are structurally lacking
• Periods of significant weight loss, where reduced intake can be accompanied by genuine deficiencies
• Documented increased requirements, for example at certain life stages or in specific clinical conditions

In all these cases the starting point isn’t the drip: it’s understanding whether there’s actually something to correct.

What gets measured, before infusing anything

This is the part that distinguishes a therapy from a generic treatment, and it’s the step I never skip.

The tests I request, depending on the clinical picture:

• Full blood count, ferritin, serum iron, transferrin — iron status, the most frequently altered parameter and the most easily corrected
• Vitamin D (25-OH) — an extremely common deficiency at our latitudes
• Vitamin B12 and folate — especially in strict vegetarian/vegan diets, atrophic gastritis, or long-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors or metformin
• Kidney and liver function — not out of curiosity: these are the organs that handle what we infuse, and they determine its safety
• Electrolytes — to infuse safely
• G6PD — essential if high-dose vitamin C is being considered (in G6PD deficiency it can cause haemolysis)

If the tests are normal and the diet is balanced, the honest answer is often: you don’t need a drip. Saying so is part of the job.

Types of infusion therapy and their indications

Here are the main ones, ordered — not by chance — from those with the most solid medical indication to those with the most debated evidence.

Intravenous iron

The most established indication. It’s used in documented iron deficiency when the oral route isn’t tolerated, isn’t effective or isn’t sufficient (malabsorption, gastric intolerance, chronic losses). When the indication is there, the benefit is concrete and measurable through follow-up tests. It requires prescription and monitoring.

Vitamin B12

Indicated in documented deficiency, typically from malabsorption (atrophic gastritis, bariatric surgery, long-term medication) or insufficient intake in strict vegan diets. The intramuscular route is often used rather than intravenous. Here too: I start from the blood level, not from a feeling of tiredness.

Multivitamin complexes (the “Myers’ cocktail” type)

These generally contain B vitamins, vitamin C, magnesium and calcium. It’s the most widespread formulation in commercial settings. There’s a rationale in situations of increased requirement or reduced absorption; the evidence of benefit in healthy people without deficiencies, however, is limited. Excess water-soluble vitamins are largely eliminated in the urine: giving more doesn’t mean the body uses more.

High-dose vitamin C

Vitamin C has a genuine biological role in collagen synthesis — it’s a necessary enzymatic cofactor — and it’s an antioxidant. Hence the interest in aesthetics. But it needs saying precisely: the fact that it’s necessary doesn’t mean that giving an excess intravenously produces more collagen in someone who isn’t deficient. There are also concrete safety considerations: it’s contraindicated in G6PD deficiency and requires careful assessment in anyone with a history of oxalate kidney stones.

Glutathione

An endogenous antioxidant, heavily promoted for a supposed skin-lightening effect. This is the area where I urge the greatest caution: intravenous use for skin lightening is not an approved indication, the evidence of efficacy is scarce, and international regulatory authorities have issued warnings about the risks associated with uncontrolled preparations and dosages.

NAD+

The star of longevity trends. The underlying biology is fascinating and research is active, but human clinical data is still preliminary: we’re in the realm of promise, not certainty. It’s also worth noting that the infusion, if given too quickly, can cause nausea, cramps and a feeling of chest tightness. I place it among the options to be discussed honestly regarding the current limits of the evidence, not as an anti-ageing solution.

Hydration and amino acids

These make sense in cases of genuine dehydration or documented increased requirements. In a healthy, well-hydrated person, the additional benefit of an infusion over simply drinking is, quite simply, marginal.

What a drip cannot do

This section matters to me as much as the previous ones.

It doesn’t “detoxify”. The liver and kidneys perform this function extremely efficiently. In a healthy person there’s no generic “toxin” that an infusion removes: the detox concept is a commercial simplification, not a physiological mechanism.

It doesn’t replace nutrition, sleep and movement. No infusion compensates for chronically insufficient sleep or an unbalanced diet. It’s a support, never a shortcut.

It doesn’t correct a structural aesthetic problem. If the issue is lost volume, a wrinkle or skin laxity, the answer lies on the treatment scale — not in a vein.

It has no “preventive” value without a documented deficiency. Giving nutrients to someone who already has enough doesn’t produce surplus wellbeing: in most cases, it produces more expensive urine.

It isn’t for everyone. Anyone with heart or kidney failure, electrolyte abnormalities, certain haematological conditions or particular drug therapies needs a specific assessment — and sometimes the answer is no.

Where drips fit in a regenerative journey

When I do use them, infusion therapies enter the plan with a precise logic: supporting the body where it’s genuinely deficient, while working on the skin with the tools suited to skin. They’re not the centre of the journey and they’re not a “menu” service: they’re a tool that makes sense when a laboratory finding justifies it.

It’s the same principle I apply to polynucleotides, exosomes or any other fashionable technology: assess with medical judgement, be transparent about the limits of the available evidence, and have the honesty to say when something isn’t needed. Serious regenerative medicine isn’t about adding as many treatments as possible — it’s about choosing the right gesture, in the right measure.

If you’re wondering whether an infusion therapy might make sense in your case, the first step isn’t booking a drip: it’s an assessment with your test results in hand. From there we work out together whether it’s needed, what’s needed and — just as often — what isn’t needed at all.