Comparison of vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 supplementation in raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D status: a systematic review and meta-analysis
By L. Tripkovic, H. Lambert, K. Hart, Colin P. Smith, G. Bucca, S. Penson, G. Chope, E. Hyppönen, J. Berry, R. Vieth and 1 more. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2012
736 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Background: Currently, there is a lack of clarity in the literature as to whether there is a definitive difference between the effects of vitamins D2 and D3 in the raising of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]. Objective: The objective of this article was to report a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have directly compared the effects of vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 on serum 25(OH)D concentrations in humans. Design: The ISI Web of Knowledge (January 1966 to July 2011) database was searched electronically for all relevant studies in adults that directly compared vitamin D3 with vitamin D2. The Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number register, and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for any unpublished trials. Results: A meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that supplementation with vitamin D3 had a significant and positive effect in the raising of serum 25(OH)D concentrations compared with the effect of vitamin D2 (P = 0.001). When the frequency of dosage administration was compared, there was a significant response for vitamin D3 when given as a bolus dose (P = 0.0002) compared with administration of vitamin D2, but the effect was lost with daily supplementation. Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicates that vitamin D3 is more efficacious at raising serum 25(OH)D concentrations than is vitamin D2, and thus vitamin D3 could potentially become the preferred choice for supplementation. However, additional research is required to examine the metabolic pathways involved in oral and intramuscular administration of vitamin D and the effects across age, sex, and ethnicity, which this review was unable to verify.
Subfields: Nutrition and Dietetics, Orthodontics, Pathology and Forensic Medicine
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f2032c5ef80db582ca093fd5b4a9d0543257ed6a
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Nutrition and Dietetics
In Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Citations in the corpus
- Vitamin D for Health: A Global Perspective (2013, neutral): “However, some have argued for caution before increasing 25(OH)D levels and associated dosing regimens beyond quantities clearly supported by RCTs and meta-analyses.(7,97,103) There are now several observational studies reporting a U- or J-shaped association between some cancers and serum 25(OH)D and”
- Vitamin D and Immune Function (2013, background): “However, a review with a global perspective found that 6 to 47% of vitamin D intake may come from dietary supplements [13,14].”
- The nonskeletal effects of vitamin D: an Endocrine Society scientific statement. (2012, background): “RXR binds to the upstream half site, whereas VDR binds to the downstream site (36).”
- Vitamin D Metabolism, Mechanism of Action, and Clinical Applications (2014, background): “Therefore, unless given daily, D2 supplementation does not result in as high a blood level of 25OHD as comparable amounts of D3 (Tripkovic et al., 2012).”
- Global Consensus Recommendations on Prevention and Management of Nutritional Rickets (2016, neutral): “no significant differences were seen with daily doses (73).”