What is the difference between vit d and vit d2

However, in some cases, additional data that detailed absolute changes in serum 25 OH D concentrations, alongside data already reported, would have proved helpful to understand the outcomes and implications of these studies to a greater degree. Two studies did not fully report on all outcomes that were measured 14 , 15 , which, for both studies, centered on markers of bone health that were not detailed, despite being stated as measured in the study design and methodology.

A concern for all studies was the lack of consensus in the analysis of serum 25 OH D concentrations. ELISA and chemiluminescence were implemented but lacked details on sensitivity apart from one study that reported an intraassay CV of 2.

The competency of individuals who conducted the assays that measured serum markers was invariably given little detail, which only added to concerns for an additional potential bias when it was not known in full whether all studies had serum analysis carried out by individuals or contracted laboratories that followed rigorous procedures.

Furthermore, in one study 14 , because of the large passage of time 2 y between the completion of the 2 intervention groups, the serum analysis was completed by 2 different laboratories that used 2 different techniques chemiluminescence and ELISA , which was a major contributory factor in the decision to remove this study from the final meta-analysis.

The approach to statistical analysis in all studies generally appeared sound, although in some areas, there was a lack of specific details. For only one study, there was an estimated sample size required to detect a treatment effect Omissions of power calculations caused great concern because of the relatively small sizes of intervention groups for all the studies included in this review.

Eight intervention studies showed that, no matter the dosage, the frequency or administration oral compared with intramuscular of cholecalciferol supplementation produced a significantly greater absolute increase from baseline of serum 25 OH D compared with ergocalciferol 4 , 5 , 12 , 13 , 14 — Two studies 6 , 7 showed that ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol were equally efficacious.

Ten studies were available for the meta-analysis; however, only 7 studies had sufficient and available data to be included in the primary analysis by using the random effects model. Overall, the analysis showed that the greater absolute change in serum 25 OH D from baseline favored the cholecalciferol intervention, with a weighted mean difference of Random-effects meta-analysis comparing the effects of daily and bolus supplementation of D3 with that of D2 on net changes in serum 25 OH D concentrations.

The forest plot indicates that the absolute change in 25 OH D from baseline favored the D3 intervention. With the use of a random-effects model, overall, there was a significantly greater effect in the raising of serum 25 OH D concentrations over time for D3 supplementation than for D2 supplementation mean difference: Separate analyses were performed to determine whether the frequency of dosage had any effect on the favoring of either ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol supplementation.

Four studies used either a single or multiple weekly or monthly bolus dosage of 50,—, IU with anywhere from 4 wk to 1 y of follow-up 5 , 13 , 15 , Three of these studies had data available that showed that bolus doses favored cholecalciferol with a weighted mean difference of When we focused on studies that chose daily supplementation 4 , 6 , 7 , 12 , 15 , 16 , the differentiation between the 2 forms of vitamin D was not as clear cut.

Random-effects meta-analysis comparing the effects of bolus supplementation of D3 with that of D2 on net changes in serum 25 OH D concentrations. The forest plot indicates that the absolute change in 25 OH D from baseline favored the D3 intervention when administered as a bolus dose. With the use of a random-effects model, overall, there was a significantly greater effect in the raising of serum 25 OH D concentrations over time for D3 supplementation as a bolus dosage single and multiple bolus than for D2 supplementation mean difference: Random-effects meta-analysis comparing the effects of daily supplementation of D3 with that of D2 on net changes in serum 25 OH D concentrations.

The forest plot indicates that the absolute change in 25 OH D from baseline favored the D3 intervention as a daily supplement. With the use of a random-effects model, overall, there was no significant difference between D2 and D3 interventions in the raising of serum 25 OH D concentrations when taken as a daily supplement mean difference: 4. To our knowledge, our reported work is the first-ever systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparative effectiveness of ergocalciferol compared with cholecalciferol in the raising of serum 25 OH D concentrations.

We consider this study to be a key investigation because of the widespread perception that ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol are equally efficacious in their respective abilities to raise serum 25 OH D concentrations As shown in our meta-analysis results, after we reviewed all known studies, there was a clear favoring of cholecalciferol supplementation in the raising of serum 25 OH D concentrations compared with that of ergocalciferol supplementation Figure 2.

We have also shown that, regardless of whether supplementation with vitamin D was in small daily doses or in larger and more infrequent bolus dosages, the favoring toward cholecalciferol was still evident. The reasons why cholecalciferol is much more proficient than ergocalciferol at raising serum 25 OH D concentrations must be examined. Evidence has been accumulating that specifically looks at the metabolism of vitamin D, especially that focuses on the hydroxylation steps at the liver and kidney that were required to convert the inert ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol to the active calcitriol 1,dihydroxyvitamin D.

As described in the review of Houghton and Vieth 8 of the evidence in , it is clear that there are stark differences in the metabolic fates of ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol that should not be ignored.

By centering on the differences in side chains between the 2 forms of vitamin D [ergocalciferol has an additional methyl group on carbon 24 22 ], there have been reports that this difference directly affects the rate of ergocalciferol conversion to serum 25 OH D 9 , 23 , 24 and also its affinity for vitamin D binding protein and VDR 8 , which are all critical steps involved in the activation of vitamin D.

Once the 2-step hydroxylation process has been completed and 1,dihydroxyvitamin D has been formed, an additional step occurs that involves hydroxylation at the kidney to form 1,24,25 OH 3 D [1,24,trihydroxyvitamin D; 25 OH D can also be converted to 24,dihydroxyvitamin D at this point] 8.

As reported by Horst et al 25 , it is this hydroxylation step that truly demarcates the impact of ergocalciferol compared with that of cholecalciferol. This differentiation between ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol is due to the fact that once 1,24,25 OH 3 D 2 has been formed, ergocalciferol has been deactivated and, therefore, is irretrievable In contrast, cholecalciferol [now 1,24,25 OH 3 D 3 ] retains its capacity to bind to the VDR 8 and still requires an additional side-chain oxidation to become deactivated Thus, this additional step gives a vast advantage and potential for cholecalciferol to remain biologically active and, thus, maintain vitamin D status, which only strengthen the hypothesis that cholecalciferol is the preferred substrate compared with ergocalciferol.

This complication in the hydroxylation and deactivation processes of ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol that could impact efficacy is explored to some degree in a small number of the clinical trials included in this review. Armas et al 13 and Heaney et al 17 showed that, over a time course, cholecalciferol induced a quicker response in the production of serum 25 OH D that was sustained for longer and at higher concentrations than did ergocalciferol.

In Heaney et al 17 , weekly doses of 50, IU for 12 wk induced AUC values for cholecalciferol that were significantly higher than those for ergocalciferol; Heaney et al 17 also noted that, once the doses of vitamin D were stopped at week 12, there was evidence of far greater rates of degradation of serum 25 OH D 2 ergocalciferol than serum 25 OH D 3 cholecalciferol over a 6-wk time period.

Armas et al 13 chose a single bolus of 50, IU that again showed a significantly greater AUC for cholecalciferol than for ergocalciferol, with serum 25 OH D 2 concentrations that fell rapidly back to baseline after only 14 d, whereas serum 25 OH D 3 concentrations peaked at the same time point and had not returned to baseline at the end of the d intervention. When the evidence from the studies that focused on vitamin D metabolism at the cellular level is compared with the evidence from clinical trials, it is clear that, overall, there was consistency in the results that shows cholecalciferol appears to have advantageous biological qualities that allows it to sustain its systemic influence for far longer and at far greater concentrations than does ergocalciferol.

However, not all the clinical trials agree with this outcome, and 2 clinical trials showed no difference in the efficacy of ergocalciferol compared with cholecalciferol 6 , 7 , which indicated the possibility that the not all possible influences on vitamin D metabolism have been accounted for in the research completed to date.

The main limitation of this review was the small number of studies available within the literature, which, in turn, limited, to some degree, the ability to extrapolate the outcomes of this review toward realistic public health recommendations when referring to ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol supplementation. In addition, as described previously, the small number of studies also limited, to some degree, the confidence in our knowledge of the metabolism of vitamin D and whether all influences have been examined and quantified.

The intervention strategy across all studies was diverse with respect to the chosen dosage of vitamin D, the frequency of supplementation, and the method of administration used oral compared with intramuscular , which inevitably contributed to the high levels of heterogeneity Figure 2.

In addition, there were recurring issues across all studies in terms of the depth and detail of reporting. Many omissions were shown in the reporting of the randomization strategy, power calculations, and subject compliance.

In scientific reporting, this lack of detail is unacceptable, especially given the crucial role of such studies in establishing key data within the vitamin D field.

A lack of serious bias was only assured because of the clear detail that referred to the blinding of subjects and investigators and the overall attention to detail when methodologies were reported. It was also noted that all studies gave ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol supplementation dosages far above the amount currently recommended [Recommended Dietary Allowance of IU for males and females aged 1—70 y 26 ].

Although this strategy can be a useful methodology to force a physiologic change and, thus, to possibly piece together a mechanism of action , these studies offered little information for lower doses, which are more realistic in terms of what individuals are likely to be able to consume within their daily diet and gain from sunlight exposure and the concentrations of ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol available in commercial supplements.

In conclusion, our results suggest a favoring toward cholecalciferol rather than ergocalciferol supplementation with respect to the more effective improvement of vitamin D status. Far larger, more robust trials are now required that not only monitor serum 25 OH D concentrations but also explore much further the potential mechanism behind this apparent discrepancy in effectiveness between the 2 forms of vitamin D available.

This mechanistic approach should encompass the obvious need for a description of genetic polymorphisms linked to vitamin D metabolism and, also, the critical enzymes involved in the hydroxylation process.

These studies would provide an ideal opportunity to identify the levels of enzymatic activity microsomal cytochrome P 2R1, mitochondrial cytochrome P 27A1, and cytochrome P 27B1 and the spectrum of vitamin D metabolites that are produced as part of the hydroxylation process that would be able to account for the deactivation process of ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol that appears to be the central cause for the discrepancy between efficacies at this point in time.

None of the authors had a conflict of interest. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Am J Clin Nutr. Published online May 2. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Corresponding author. E-mail: ku. Received Nov 18; Accepted Feb See " Vitamin D in food and supplements. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract Background: Currently, there is a lack of clarity in the literature as to whether there is a definitive difference between the effects of vitamins D 2 and D 3 in the raising of serum hydroxyvitamin D [25 OH D]. Mushrooms are a good natural source of vitamin D2, while fatty fish are good source of vitamin D3. The body produces vitamin D in response to sun exposure.

Vitamin D has a range of benefits. It protects the teeth and bones and defends against…. A vitamin D deficiency is common, and it can lead to further health issues.

Still, many people with the deficiency have no symptoms. Learn more here. Vitamin D is an essential nutrient, but it can be difficult for people to know if they are getting the right amount. Some people will be able to get…. People need vitamin D for muscle and bone health. Limited sun exposure and low dietary intake can lead to brittle bones, mood changes, and chronic…. In this Honest Nutrition feature, we explore the practice of "clean eating," and why this concept has been a controversial one for researchers.

What is the difference between vitamin D2 and D3? Vitamin D Vitamin D2 vs. What is vitamin D? Benefits of vitamin D2 vs benefits of D3.

Foods that are high in vitamin D2. Foods that are high in vitamin D3. Exposure to air pollutants may amplify risk for depression in healthy individuals. Costs associated with obesity may account for 3. Related Coverage. What are the health benefits of vitamin D? Medically reviewed by Debra Sullivan, Ph. What are the symptoms of a vitamin D deficiency?

Medically reviewed by Kevin Martinez, MD. Are you getting enough vitamin D? Medically reviewed by Dena Westphalen, Pharm. One study found that vitamin D3 was twice as effective at increasing vitamin D levels than D2 supplements. You can discover your D2 and D3 status with a simple Vitamin D at-home test kit. Our testing service will provide you with a personalised supplementation plan and a complimentary DLux Vitamin D spray to help you on your journey to optimal vitamin D levels.

Skip to main content. Posted on September 27, With numerous subcategories of the main vitamin D, it is easy to get lost between vitamin D2 vs D3 and which ones we need on a daily basis.

Let us guide you through vitamin D2 vs D3, to see which one you need, the benefits, and how you can source them. View Product Add to basket. Vegan Health Oral Spray Trustpilot. Share this article using the buttons below Facebook Twitter AddThis. Related articles. Return to Health Hub. Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website.