Seoul
Chief MD, Gangnam
Duk-ha Kim
The trust our patients have placed in this clinic was built on conviction and principle. We intend to hold to both, unchanged, through the next hundred years.
Regulatory status and reported harms
Antioxidant IV
An antioxidant IV menu is the intravenous administration of injectable drug products, sold under cosmetic headings such as glutathione, vitamin, Cinderella and licorice injections. The regulatory records cited on this page do not contain a cosmetic indication for that route: the FDA states it has never approved an injectable product for skin whitening or brightening, and the Korean product record cited here lists poisoning and chronic liver disease indications only. This page is written to help you judge that gap, not to recommend a booking.
- Regulatory position on lightening injections
- FDA: no injectable product has ever been approved for skin whitening or brightening
- Korean approval record cited
- Reduced glutathione injection — drug and alcohol poisoning, liver function in chronic liver disease; record withdrawn November 2020
- Intravenous evidence base
- One placebo-controlled trial: 1200 mg twice weekly for 6 weeks, response 37.5% vs 18.7%, effect lost within 6 months
- Reported harms
- Adverse events in 32% of that trial; endotoxin recall with at least 30 people reporting fever, chills or sepsis-like symptoms (FDA, 27 August 2026)
What is actually being administered when a clinic lists an antioxidant IV?
An injectable drug product, delivered into a vein, listed under a cosmetic heading. The Gangnam reservation menu carries Glutathione Injection, Vitamin Injection, Cinderella Injection, Licorice Injection and a combined Glutathione and Vitamin item. Whatever the heading says, the act being booked is intravenous administration: a needle in a vein, a product prepared and hung by clinical staff, and a period during which the whole dose enters the circulation and cannot be taken back. That is the reason this page reads regulatory records and published case reports rather than treatment brochures. The two questions that follow from the route — what exactly is in the bag, and under what indication is it being given — run through every section below.
Sources: FDA consumer update — injectable skin lightening and skin bleaching productsMFDS drug product record — reduced glutathione injection (approved indications)
Is skin lightening an approved use for an injection?
No. The FDA consumer update on injectable skin lightening and skin bleaching products states that the agency has never approved an injectable product for skin whitening or brightening, and it names the substances that turn up in such products: glutathione, vitamin C, collagen and placenta. That is a statement about the whole product class defined by its purpose, not about one brand that failed a review. The Korean record cited in the next section points the same way from a different direction: the indications listed there are clinical, and appearance is not among them. So when a menu presents brightening, glow or antioxidant benefit as the purpose of an infusion, that purpose sits outside what any authority cited here has evaluated and approved for administration into a vein.
Sources: FDA consumer update — injectable skin lightening and skin bleaching productsMFDS drug product record — reduced glutathione injection (approved indications)
What has a glutathione injection been approved to treat in Korea?
The product record cited here lists drug poisoning and alcohol poisoning, and improvement of liver function in chronic liver disease. It lists nothing about skin tone, brightening, antioxidant benefit or anti-ageing, and its adverse-reaction section includes anaphylactoid symptoms and rash. Two limits on how far that can be carried. First, the specific record cited was withdrawn in November 2020, so it shows the scope that the approved indications took rather than the current status of anything now in circulation. Second, approval is granted product by product: whichever product a clinic actually holds has its own authorisation, and that has to be confirmed against the current national listing rather than inferred from this page. What the record does show is the shape of the gap — the approved wording sat in clinical territory, and the cosmetic wording on a menu was never part of it.
Sources: MFDS drug product record — reduced glutathione injection (approved indications)FDA consumer update — injectable skin lightening and skin bleaching products
Do oral, topical and intravenous glutathione rest on the same evidence?
No, and treating them as one body of evidence is the most common error in how these menus are described. A 2025 narrative review in Cureus sets the three routes side by side. Oral: double-blind, placebo-controlled studies using 500 mg per day for four to eight weeks reported a significant reduction in melanin index, although one of the studies found no effect. Topical: a 2% preparation applied twice daily for ten weeks was reported to reduce mMASI by 67.4%. Intravenous: covered in the next section, and the weakest of the three. A result obtained from a capsule or a cream describes a different dose, a different absorption path and a different safety profile, so it cannot be offered as the expected result of an infusion. When a brightening figure is quoted at a consultation, the first question is which route produced it.
Sources: Narrative review of oral, topical and intravenous glutathione, Cureus 2025
How much placebo-controlled evidence stands behind the intravenous route?
One trial, with a modest difference, a short-lived effect and a high adverse-event rate. In the placebo-controlled study described in that review, 1200 mg was given twice weekly for six weeks; a lightening response was recorded in 37.5% of the treated group against 18.7% on placebo; the effect was lost within six months; and adverse events occurred in 32% of participants, including abnormal liver function tests and one case of anaphylaxis. The same review records that no standard dosing regimen for intravenous glutathione has been established. Put those together and the picture is specific: a single controlled comparison rather than a body of replicated work, a difference that does not persist past half a year, roughly one participant in three reporting an adverse event, and no agreed protocol governing what any individual clinic decides to administer.
Sources: Narrative review of oral, topical and intravenous glutathione, Cureus 2025
How long does the effect of an antioxidant IV actually last?
The one controlled figure on this page answers this directly, and the answer is short: in the placebo-controlled trial of intravenous glutathione, 1200 mg twice weekly for six weeks produced a lightening response in 37.5% of the treated group against 18.7% on placebo, and that difference was lost within six months. That is not a side note — it is the entire controlled evidence base for the intravenous route, so there is no larger or longer trial to check it against. The oral and topical routes are not a substitute answer for how long an infusion holds, because they rest on different evidence entirely: the oral studies used 500 mg daily for four to eight weeks, and the topical study used a twice-daily 2% preparation for ten weeks, and neither trial reported what happens to melanin index or mMASI after the product was stopped. So beyond the six-month intravenous result, none of the sources cited here gives a persistence figure for any route, and the one result that exists already shows the effect fading rather than holding. What determines how long any visible change looks maintained is not covered by these trials either: continued dosing itself, since the tested regimen was twice weekly rather than a single infusion, and the same review notes that no standard dosing schedule has been established for intravenous glutathione at all. The consultation question that follows is what schedule and total course a clinic is proposing against that six-month fade point, and whether the improvement being promised depends on repeating the infusion indefinitely rather than one course producing a lasting change.
Sources: Narrative review of oral, topical and intravenous glutathione, Cureus 2025
What serious reactions have been reported after these infusions?
Published case reports describe outcomes at the severe end. A 2025 report in Journal of Burn Care and Research describes a 33-year-old woman who developed Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis after an infusion of glutathione with vitamin C and vitamin D at a wellness clinic. A 2025 Cureus report describes a patient who, within an hour of receiving a high-dose intravenous glutathione product, went into shock with a systolic pressure of 50 to 60 mmHg and a temperature above 41 degrees Celsius, with acute liver and kidney dysfunction and coagulopathy, requiring vasopressor support. Both are single case reports. They establish that these events have occurred and been documented in the medical literature; they carry no information about how often such events happen, and no rate can be derived from them. The reason to read them is to see what the reported upper end looks like before deciding whether the stated benefit is worth that tail.
Sources: J Burn Care Res 2025;46(3):652 — SJS/TEN after IV glutathione and vitamin infusionCureus 2025 — systemic inflammatory response after high-dose IV glutathione
Is the quality of the injected product itself a documented problem?
Yes, and the FDA addressed it directly on 27 August 2026, reminding compounders not to use dietary supplement grade glutathione to prepare injectable products. The background to that reminder is concrete: two pharmacies in Texas recalled products after endotoxin levels exceeded limits, and at least 30 people who received intravenous glutathione experienced fever, chills and shock or sepsis-like symptoms, with some requiring hospitalisation. This is a different failure mode from the ones above. It is not about what the substance does in the body but about what was in the bag — material intended for oral supplements does not carry the sterility and endotoxin controls that injectables require. Because the issue is grade and sourcing, the practical questions are which product is being used, who manufactured it, and whether it is a finished licensed injectable or something prepared on the premises.
Sources: FDA — compounders should not use dietary supplement grade glutathione injectables (2026-08-27)
What does the evidence say about wellness vitamin drips?
A 2025 Cureus review of wellness intravenous vitamin therapy concludes that the efficacy claims made for it in healthy people are anecdotal and self-reported rather than based on well-designed randomised controlled trials. The same review lists risks that follow from the route rather than from any vitamin: infection and sepsis, phlebitis and vascular injury, electrolyte disturbance and fluid overload, and anaphylaxis. One specific interaction deserves naming because it is invisible without testing. A 2019 paper in Critical Care on intravenous vitamin C and G6PD deficiency reports haemolysis in G6PD-deficient patients at very high doses, above 60 g, and its authors argue that a level around 6 g per day is difficult to regard as a contraindication. That paper does not address the dose range used on cosmetic menus, so it cannot be cited as reassurance about them; what it does establish is that the interaction is dose-dependent and that G6PD status is worth knowing before anything containing vitamin C goes into a vein.
Sources: Cureus 2025 — wellness intravenous vitamin therapy reviewCritical Care 2019 — IV vitamin C and G6PD deficiency
What should you settle before agreeing to an infusion?
Settle what is being given, under what indication, and who is accountable if something goes wrong. Ask for the composition and dose in writing. Ask whether the product is a finished licensed injectable or compounded on site, given the FDA reminder of 27 August 2026 about supplement-grade material in compounded injectables. Ask which indication it is being administered under, since cosmetic lightening is not an approved indication in the records cited here. Ask who stays with you during the infusion, how long you are monitored afterwards, and what the clinic has on hand for anaphylaxis. Disclose any drug allergy or previous reaction, liver or kidney disease, pregnancy or breastfeeding, known G6PD deficiency, and every medicine and supplement you take. Ask how to contact the clinic from abroad if something appears days later. And ask what change is expected and for how long, given that the controlled data reports the effect gone within six months.
Sources: FDA — compounders should not use dietary supplement grade glutathione injectables (2026-08-27)Narrative review of oral, topical and intravenous glutathione, Cureus 2025Cureus 2025 — wellness intravenous vitamin therapy reviewCritical Care 2019 — IV vitamin C and G6PD deficiency
Oral, topical, intravenous or a vitamin drip: what does each record actually show?
This table separates four things that marketing usually merges. The rows come from different studies with different designs, sample sizes and endpoints, so nothing here ranks one against another. The point of the layout is the opposite: a result obtained by one route cannot be carried across to a different one, and the harms column is part of the reading rather than a footnote.
| Route or option | What the cited evidence reports | Harms recorded in the same sources | What this row cannot be used to claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral glutathione | Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies at 500 mg per day for four to eight weeks reported a significant reduction in melanin index; one of the studies reported no effect (Cureus 2025 review) | Not detailed for the oral route in the review as cited here | It cannot support an infusion. A swallowed dose and an intravenous dose are different exposures with different risk profiles, and the FDA has not approved any injectable for whitening or brightening |
| Topical glutathione 2% | Applied twice daily for ten weeks, mMASI reduced by 67.4% in the same review | Not detailed for the topical route in the review as cited here | It cannot be quoted as the expected outcome of an injection, and it says nothing about what remains after use stops |
| Intravenous glutathione | One placebo-controlled trial: 1200 mg twice weekly for six weeks, lightening response 37.5% against 18.7% on placebo, effect lost within six months; the review states no standard dosing regimen has been established | Adverse events in 32% of that trial, including abnormal liver function and one anaphylaxis; separate case reports of SJS/TEN and of shock with acute organ dysfunction within an hour; FDA recall of endotoxin-contaminated compounded product, with at least 30 people reporting fever, chills or sepsis-like symptoms | It cannot be presented as an approved treatment for skin tone. The FDA states it has never approved an injectable product for skin whitening or brightening, and the Korean record cited here carries no cosmetic indication |
| Wellness vitamin infusion | A 2025 review concludes that efficacy claims in healthy people are anecdotal and self-reported rather than based on well-designed randomised controlled trials | Infection and sepsis, phlebitis and vascular injury, electrolyte disturbance and fluid overload, anaphylaxis; haemolysis reported in G6PD deficiency at very high vitamin C doses above 60 g | It cannot be described as a demonstrated health or appearance benefit, and the G6PD paper does not address the dose range used on cosmetic menus |
Case reports show that an event occurred and was documented; they cannot be read as a frequency. The Korean approval record cited on this page was withdrawn in November 2020 and is used to show the scope of the indications it listed, not the status of any product now in circulation. Nothing in this table replaces an in-person assessment by a clinician who knows your history.
Sources: Narrative review of oral, topical and intravenous glutathione, Cureus 2025FDA consumer update — injectable skin lightening and skin bleaching productsFDA — compounders should not use dietary supplement grade glutathione injectables (2026-08-27)J Burn Care Res 2025;46(3):652 — SJS/TEN after IV glutathione and vitamin infusionCureus 2025 — systemic inflammatory response after high-dose IV glutathioneCureus 2025 — wellness intravenous vitamin therapy reviewCritical Care 2019 — IV vitamin C and G6PD deficiencyMFDS drug product record — reduced glutathione injection (approved indications)
Medical care at Abijou
Care is provided by the medical team at the branch you select. These clinicians lead the three branches linked from this guide; confirm the doctor assigned to your visit with that branch.
Chief MD, Myeongdong
Cheol-su Yoon
I want to be thinking about how the patient feels right up to the last moment of the procedure.
Chief MD, Hongdae
Jae-wook Kim
I will give my best with the attentiveness to catch even the smallest change.
Listed branch medical team — not a medical-review byline for this article.
Frequently asked questions
What does antioxidant IV mean as a menu category?
It is a commercial heading rather than a defined medical treatment. Under it sit items such as glutathione injection, vitamin injection, a combined glutathione and vitamin item, and nicknamed products; what they share is not a common ingredient list but a route, namely an injectable drug product delivered into a vein. The FDA consumer update on injectable skin lightening and skin bleaching products names glutathione, vitamin C, collagen and placenta as substances found in that product class, and states that no injectable product has ever been approved for skin whitening or brightening. So the category label is the beginning of a question about composition and indication, not a description of either.
Is an infusion like this a cosmetic procedure or a medical one?
Medically it is drug administration, whichever menu it appears on. The product is prescribed, prepared and given into a vein by clinical staff, and the drug records that exist for it are clinical records: the Korean product record cited on this page lists drug poisoning, alcohol poisoning and improvement of liver function in chronic liver disease as its indications, with anaphylactoid symptoms and rash among the listed adverse reactions. That record was withdrawn in November 2020, so it shows the scope those indications took rather than the current status of any marketed product, which has to be confirmed separately. Being sold beside facials does not change the route or the fact that a prescription medicine is being administered.
How is an intravenous antioxidant supposed to act, and what does the published record establish?
The record establishes the regimens that were tested and what happened, not a validated mechanism for changing appearance. For the intravenous route the 2025 Cureus review reports one placebo-controlled trial at 1200 mg twice weekly for six weeks, a lightening response in 37.5% of the treated group against 18.7% on placebo, loss of the effect within six months, adverse events in 32%, and no established standard dosing regimen. A mechanism described at a consultation should therefore be matched to a route and a dose before it is accepted: ask whether the explanation being offered comes from intravenous data or has been borrowed from oral or topical studies.
Tablet, cream or drip — which route has the stronger evidence?
On the record cited here, the controlled results sit with the oral and topical routes and the intravenous route is the weakest of the three. Oral glutathione at 500 mg per day for four to eight weeks reported a significant reduction in melanin index in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, with one study finding no effect. Topical 2% twice daily for ten weeks reported a 67.4% reduction in mMASI. The intravenous route rests on a single placebo-controlled trial with a response of 37.5% against 18.7%, an effect lost within six months and adverse events in 32%. Each figure belongs to its own route and its own study population; none of them predicts an individual result, and the oral and topical numbers are not available to justify an infusion.
Is cosmetic brightening an approved indication, or off-label use of a drug?
It is not an approved indication in either record cited here. The FDA consumer update states the agency has never approved an injectable product for skin whitening or brightening, and it identifies glutathione, vitamin C, collagen and placenta as substances appearing in such products. The Korean product record cited lists only drug and alcohol poisoning and liver function in chronic liver disease, with no cosmetic wording of any kind, and that record was withdrawn in November 2020, so the authorisation held by any product currently in use must be confirmed separately. The practical step is to ask under which indication the infusion is being given to you, and to have that stated in writing alongside the composition.
How does an infusion compare with a topical brightening agent?
They differ both in what has been shown and in what can go wrong. In the review cited here, topical 2% glutathione applied twice daily for ten weeks reported a 67.4% reduction in mMASI, while the intravenous route rests on one placebo-controlled trial with a 37.5% versus 18.7% response, loss of effect within six months and adverse events in 32%. The harms differ in kind as well as degree: the serious events documented for the intravenous route — Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in one case report, shock with acute liver and kidney dysfunction in another, and sepsis-like illness from endotoxin-contaminated compounded product — all follow from putting a preparation into the bloodstream. Prescription topical agents are a separate clinical decision made on your diagnosis, not a weaker version of a drip.
Does it hurt, and is there downtime afterwards?
The sources used on this page do not report pain scores or recovery times, so no figure can honestly be quoted. What they do report is what can happen around an infusion: phlebitis and vascular injury at the access site, electrolyte disturbance and fluid overload, infection and sepsis, and anaphylaxis, with one case report describing shock within an hour of a high-dose glutathione infusion. Rather than accepting a statement that there is no downtime, ask how long you will be observed after the line comes out, who observes you, and what the clinic does if a reaction begins while you are still there.
What symptoms afterwards mean I should get help?
This is general post-infusion safety guidance rather than a finding of the studies cited elsewhere on this page. Seek emergency care immediately for difficulty breathing, swelling of the lips, mouth, tongue or throat, fainting, chest pain, or a rapid weak pulse. Contact the clinic urgently for fever or chills in the hours or days after an infusion, since the FDA reminder describes fever, chills and shock or sepsis-like symptoms in at least 30 people who received intravenous glutathione from contaminated compounded product; also for a spreading rash, blistering or peeling skin, or sores in the mouth or eyes, which is the pattern described in the Stevens-Johnson case report; and for yellowing of the eyes or skin, dark urine, reduced urine output, or pain, redness or swelling along the vein that was used. Before flying home, ask how to reach the clinic from abroad.
How many sessions are usual, and is there an agreed schedule?
No standard dosing regimen for intravenous glutathione has been established, which the 2025 review states directly. The one placebo-controlled schedule described is 1200 mg twice weekly for six weeks, which is roughly twelve infusions, and the effect reported in that trial was gone within six months. A package of repeated sessions is therefore a commercial arrangement rather than a protocol drawn from a guideline. Ask what schedule is being proposed and on what basis, what is expected to happen when it stops, and whether the answer to that question is being taken from intravenous data or from studies of a different route.
Who should avoid these infusions or be particularly careful?
That is a clinical decision, and nothing on this page substitutes for it, but the sources point to several things that must be disclosed before anything is administered. A previous drug allergy or anaphylaxis matters: one anaphylaxis case appears in the intravenous trial, anaphylactoid symptoms and rash appear in the adverse-reaction section of the Korean product record, and anaphylaxis is listed among the risks in the wellness infusion review. Liver and kidney conditions matter, since abnormal liver function appeared in the trial and acute liver and kidney dysfunction in a case report. Any condition where a fluid load is a problem matters, because fluid overload and electrolyte disturbance are listed risks. G6PD deficiency matters wherever vitamin C is involved: the 2019 Critical Care paper reports haemolysis above 60 g and argues that around 6 g per day is difficult to regard as contraindicated, but it does not address cosmetic dosing, so this must be raised with the clinician rather than settled from that paper. Pregnancy and breastfeeding should be disclosed as a matter of course.
What adverse effects have actually been documented?
Documented harms sit at three levels, and they should not be collapsed into one. At trial level, adverse events occurred in 32% of participants in the placebo-controlled intravenous study, including abnormal liver function tests and one case of anaphylaxis. At case-report level, a 33-year-old woman developed Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis after an infusion of glutathione with vitamin C and vitamin D, and a separate patient went into shock within an hour of a high-dose intravenous glutathione product, with systolic pressure of 50 to 60 mmHg, a temperature above 41 degrees Celsius, acute liver and kidney dysfunction, coagulopathy and a need for vasopressors. At product level, two Texas pharmacies recalled preparations over endotoxin limits, with at least 30 people reporting fever, chills and shock or sepsis-like symptoms. Case reports document that an event happened; they are not incidence figures and cannot be converted into a personal risk percentage.
Does an FDA statement about these products apply in Korea?
No — each regulator decides for its own market, and this page cites both. The FDA consumer update states that no injectable product has been approved for skin whitening or brightening, and a separate FDA communication of 27 August 2026 tells compounders not to use dietary supplement grade glutathione in injectable preparations. The Korean side is a domestic record: the product record cited lists poisoning and chronic liver disease indications only, carries no cosmetic indication, and was withdrawn in November 2020. Neither document makes a finding about the other jurisdiction, and neither shows that any product currently in use is approved for appearance. Ask which specific product the clinic holds and under which national authorisation it is being given.
How should I compare quotes for these infusions between clinics?
Align the contents before comparing anything else, because the menu name does not define them. Ask each clinic for the active ingredients and the dose per session in writing; the number of sessions and the interval included; whether the preparation is a finished licensed injectable or compounded on site, which is the subject of the FDA reminder of 27 August 2026 about supplement-grade material; whether consultation, monitoring time and management of a reaction are included; and what happens if you miss a session or stop partway. Two quotes carrying the same heading may contain different substances at different doses, so comparing totals alone compares nothing.
Who is this actually suitable for?
That is a judgement for a clinician who examines you, and the published record cited here does not support presenting an infusion as an appearance treatment for healthy people. The regulatory records contain no cosmetic indication for the intravenous route; the strongest controlled result for that route is a single trial with a 37.5% versus 18.7% response, an effect lost within six months and adverse events in 32%; and the review of wellness vitamin infusions concludes that benefit claims in healthy people are anecdotal and self-reported rather than based on well-designed randomised trials. If you are still considering it, bring your medical history, current medicines and supplements, allergy history and any known G6PD deficiency, and ask the clinician to state the indication for administering it to you specifically.
How Abijou works
We started in Gangnam in 2006 and the network now runs 17 branches across Korea. The line we work to is skin transformation woven into everyday life — care you can keep up with, rather than one dramatic change.
- Across the 17 branches in Seoul, Gyeonggi, Incheon and Busan: over 1,000 medical professionals and more than 350 certified medical devices
- Authentic products only, in appropriate amounts — the treatment is fitted to the condition, not to a package
- Prices are quoted from each branch’s published price list as it stands
Contact and location
- Phone
- 1544-0377
Free Consultation
Booking happens at the branch
There is no inquiry form on this page. Once you have picked a branch above, open that branch’s site or the official reservation center and choose a time yourself.
- No deposit and no online prepayment — everything is paid at the visit
- Per-treatment prices are published for each branch on the official reservation center
- English, Japanese and Chinese are supported alongside Korean