The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement

Author affiliations (2)

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84(4), 694-697, 2006

DOI 10.1093/ajcn/84.4.694 PMID 17023693

Abstract

Supplemental vitamin D is available in 2 distinct forms: ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) and cholecalciferol (vitamin D3). Pharmacopoeias have officially regarded these 2 forms as equivalent and interchangeable, yet this presumption of equivalence is based on studies of rickets prevention in infants conducted 70 y ago. The emergence of 25-hydroxyvitamin D as a measure of vitamin D status provides an objective, quantitative measure of the biological response to vitamin D administration. As a result, vitamin D3 has proven to be the more potent form of vitamin D in all primate species, including humans. Despite an emerging body of evidence suggesting several plausible explanations for the greater bioefficacy of vitamin D3, the form of vitamin D used in major preparations of prescriptions in North America is vitamin D2. The case that vitamin D2 should no longer be considered equivalent to vitamin D3 is based on differences in their efficacy at raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, diminished binding of vitamin D2 metabolites to vitamin D binding protein in plasma, and a nonphysiologic metabolism and shorter shelf life of vitamin D2. Vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol, should not be regarded as a nutrient suitable for supplementation or fortification.

Topics

vitamin D2 vs vitamin D3 supplementation efficacy, ergocalciferol cholecalciferol bioefficacy comparison, 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum levels vitamin D supplementation, Vieth vitamin D3 potency superiority, vitamin D binding protein ergocalciferol metabolism, vitamin D2 shorter shelf life nonphysiologic metabolism, cholecalciferol supplementation primate species humans, vitamin D fortification form ergocalciferol critique, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D biomarker vitamin D status, rickets prevention vitamin D equivalence historical studies
PMID 17023693 17023693 DOI 10.1093/ajcn/84.4.694 10.1093/ajcn/84.4.694

Cite this article

Houghton, L. A., & Vieth, R. (2006). The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement. *The American journal of clinical nutrition*, *84*(4), 694-697. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/84.4.694

Related articles