Skip to content

Ergocalciferol

  • Nutrient
  • Given by a clinician
  • Identity checked
  • Sources last checked 2026-09-04

This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.

What Ergocalciferol does in the body

Rare inherited or surgical disorders of calcium and phosphate, and, at lower strengths, correcting vitamin D deficiency

This molecule does nothing by itself. The liver adds one chemical group to it and the kidney adds a second, and only then does it act, by switching on the genes that pull calcium out of food. The fungal version goes through the same two steps as the human version, but the carrier protein in blood holds onto its half-finished form less tightly, so it disappears faster and less of it is left to be activated.

What happened in people

A significant meta-analytic advantage for D3 over D2 in raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (P=0.001), present for bolus dosing and absent for daily dosing

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.

The limit that matters most

It remains the only plant-derived vitamin D, and therefore the form in vegan supplements and many fortified foods

Where it acts
Fat stores and circulation as the inactive precursor; the liver and kidney where it is activated; the nucleus of intestinal cells where the activated form acts
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
Supervision
Not usually supervised: sold as a supplement or food ingredient where recorded. That is a legal category, not a safety judgement.

What the registries record it as

  • The substance registry classes this as chemical.

    FDA substance registry · VS041H42XC · read 2026-08-29

  • The supplement label database classes it as vitamin, under the name Vitamin D.

    NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database · 1538 · read 2026-08-29

Where each sentence above came from

No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.

Shown as the opening line on this page.

A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.

The four opening statements run to 120 words.

Words this page uses

Four words worth knowing first

Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.

Stand-in result

A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.

Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.

What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.

A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.

Randomisation

Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.

Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.

What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.

Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.

Absolute difference

An absolute difference is how many more people in a hundred were affected.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like counting heads in two rooms of a hundred.

Where that stops being true. Heads are easy to count. Study results carry a margin of error too.

What people get wrong. It is confused with a percentage change, which can look far larger.

The arithmetic difference in event rates between arms.

Confidence interval

A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.

Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.

What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.

An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.

What happened in peopleRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What was measured, goal by goal

One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.

Registered studies list 40 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.

There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.

Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
GoalLife outcomeWhat a body can doHow a person feelsA test resultA step in the bodyHarmsHow longWho was studied
Blood sugarNothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.Only a number moved5 registered test measure.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
CholesterolNothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.Only a number moved1 registered test measure.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
StrengthNothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.Waiting for a reviewer1 registered performance measure of this kind.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Blood sugar
glycated hemoglobin; development of diabetes type 2; insulin secretion rate; insulin sensitivity index; 2 hr post load glucose; fasting glucose
Cholesterol
ldl cholesterol
Strength
muscular strength and functionality

Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.

What each mark on this table means
Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
Only a number moved
5 registered test measure.
Not recorded
Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.
Waiting for a reviewer
Who was studied is listed further down the page.

What happened in peopleRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What happened in people

Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.

All non-vertebral fracture

The study did not show it

Who was studied
Smith 2007 — annual intramuscular ergocalciferol in the general population
How many people
9440
Study design
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three years
Compared against
A dummy treatment
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Any first fracture hazard ratio 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.28, P=0.29); hip 1.49 (1.02 to 2.18, P=0.04); falls 0.98 (0.93 to 1.04)
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated

What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.

The limits of this study, and where it came from

Main limit. The hip fracture result is a significant increase on treatment. No protective effect appeared in any subgroup by sex, age, previous fracture or mobility.

How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.

Form and route. Oral capsule and oral solution, including a 50,000 IU prescription strength; an intramuscular form has been used in trials

Interval reported. 95% CI 0

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.

Incidence of first fracture, intention to treat

The study did not show it

Who was studied
Lyons 2007 — four-monthly oral ergocalciferol in institutional care
How many people
3440
Study design
Pragmatic randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three years
Compared against
A dummy treatment
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
205 against 218 first fractures; hazard ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.15) — not significant
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated

What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.

The limits of this study, and where it came from

Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.

How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.

Form and route. Oral capsule and oral solution, including a 50,000 IU prescription strength; an intramuscular form has been used in trials

Interval reported. 95% CI 0

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.

Area under the curve of the rise in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D above baseline

The study showed what it set out to show

Who was studied
Armas 2004 — single-dose comparison of ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol
How many people
20
Study design
Pharmacokinetic comparison in healthy male volunteers, 28 days
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
60.2 ng·d/mL for D2 against 204.7 for D3 to day 28 (P<0.002); relative potency D3:D2 of 9.5 to 1
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated

What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.

The limits of this study, and where it came from

Main limit. Both forms looked identical for the first three days. A study that sampled only early would have concluded they were equivalent, which is what the field had assumed for decades.

How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.

Form and route. Oral capsule and oral solution, including a 50,000 IU prescription strength; an intramuscular form has been used in trials

Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.

What we know
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.

What happened in peopleRead from sources, not yet reviewed

How close this is to real life

The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.

  1. Living longer, or avoiding a major event Evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.2 registered measures of this kind. No reviewed result.
  2. What a body can do day to day Evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.1 registered measure of this kind.
  3. Measured performance Evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.1 registered measure of this kind.
  4. Symptoms and quality of life No evidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.No registered study measures this.
  5. A number that stands in for health Evidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.15 registered measures of this kind.
  6. A step measured inside a person Evidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
  7. Animals No evidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.No animal record is stored.
  8. Cells in a dish Evidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.Stored mechanism abstracts describe steps measured in cells or tissue.
  9. A guess from software No evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.

Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.

What it changes in the bodyRead from sources, not yet reviewed

The path through the body

From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.

  1. Start

    Ergocalciferol

    What a person takes: Oral capsule and oral solution, including a 50,000 IU prescription strength; an intramuscular form has been used in trials.

    The measurement behind this step

    Taken by mouth, usually with food since it is fat-soluble. The very high strengths exist for the labelled rare disorders and are widely used off that label for deficiency repletion, which is where the potency and dosing-schedule questions on this page bite.

  2. Getting in

    It is made by shining ultraviolet light on a fungal sterol

    Yeast and mushrooms contain a cholesterol-like molecule. Ultraviolet light snaps one of its rings open, and the result is this vitamin. Human skin performs the same trick on a different starting molecule and makes the other form.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    Ultraviolet B opens the B ring of ergosterol to previtamin D2, which thermally isomerises to ergocalciferol. Over-irradiation converts previtamin D onward to tachysterol and lumisterol, both inert — the same photochemical safety valve that prevents sun exposure from causing vitamin D toxicity in skin.

  3. Getting in

    Swallowed and absorbed as well as the other form

    Absorption is not where the two forms differ. The same dose of each gets into the blood equally well.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    Single 50,000 IU doses of D2 and D3 produced similar rises in serum concentration of the administered vitamin, indicating equivalent absorption, and similar initial rises in 25-hydroxyvitamin D over the first three days. Everything that separates them happens after this point.

  4. Reaching the cell

    The liver adds the first hydroxyl

    The liver converts it into the storage form — the one measured by a vitamin D blood test. Both forms go through this step.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    Hepatic CYP2R1 and related enzymes 25-hydroxylate the molecule to 25-hydroxyvitamin D2. Most laboratory assays report a total 25-hydroxyvitamin D that combines the D2 and D3 species, which is why the difference between the forms is invisible on a routine result and requires an assay that separates the analytes.

  5. The change it makes

    The carrier protein holds it less tightly, and it disappears

    This is where the two forms part company. The blood protein that carries the storage form around grips the fungal version less well, so it is cleared faster and less of it survives to be activated.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    The C22-C23 double bond and C24 methyl of the D2 side chain lower the affinity of 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 for vitamin D binding protein. Consequently 25-hydroxyvitamin D fell rapidly after a D2 dose and was back to baseline by day 14, while after a D3 dose it kept rising to a day-14 peak. Area under the curve to day 28 was 60.2 against 204.7, with a calculated relative potency of 9.5 to 1.

  6. What it acts on

    The kidney adds the second hydroxyl, and only then is it a hormone

    Whatever survives is finished off by the kidney into the active hormone, which switches on the genes that absorb calcium from food.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    Renal CYP27B1 performs the 1-alpha-hydroxylation to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D2, which binds the vitamin D receptor and, with the retinoid X receptor, occupies vitamin D response elements. This step is tightly regulated by parathyroid hormone, FGF23 and calcium — which is why native vitamin D is largely self-limiting and calcitriol, which bypasses it, is not.

  7. What that does for a person

    The blood number moves; the fractures did not

    It raises the number a vitamin D test reports, less than the other form does. In the two large trials that used it, fractures did not fall — and in the injected trial, hip fractures rose.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    Smith 2007, 9440 people, annual 300,000 IU intramuscular: any first fracture hazard ratio 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.28), hip 1.49 (1.02 to 2.18, P=0.04). Lyons 2007, 3440 care-home residents, four-monthly 100,000 IU oral: first fracture hazard ratio 0.95 (0.79 to 1.15). Both trials used bolus dosing, which is the schedule at which D2 is furthest behind D3.

No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.

What we know
The record describes 6 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Felt, measured, or meaningful

Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.

Felt

Things a person could notice without a test.

No registered study measured anything of this kind.

Measured

Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.

  • bone mineral density in the lumbar spine
  • hip trochanter bone mineral density at 12 months
  • plasma 25 hydroxyvitamin d levels
  • bone mineral density
  • bone mineral density t from baseline to 12 months
  • glycated hemoglobin
  • blood pressure
  • ldl cholesterol
  • 25 d3 serum levels
  • 24 hour urine calcium

and 6 more.

Meaningful

Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.

  • days of progression free survival
  • freedom from any bone fracture rate at three years

A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.

Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.

Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.

Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.

Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.

Names that fit none of the three (22)
  • mammographic density at 1 year on exemestane
  • time to first skeletal related event
  • hip trochanter bmd at 24 months
  • growth
  • parathyroid hormone ipth and 3rd generation ria
  • time to development of a malignant skeletal related events
  • giant cell tumor response
  • parathyroid hormone level
  • 25 hydroxyvitamin d
  • 25 d
  • ejection fraction
  • time to convert from sputum positivity to negativity
  • incidence of pneumonia
  • decrease in preoperative p pth
  • pulmonary tb who are culture negative at 1 month
  • development of diabetes type 2
  • nocturnal leg cramp rate
  • hypertension
  • hcap18 levels
  • crohn s disease activity index

These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Were people like you studied?

RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.

Who was studied

People similar to this profile were included.

  • People with hypoparathyroidism, resistant rickets or familial hypophosphataemia at prescription strength; and, in much lower doses, anyone whose vitamin D is being replaced with a plant-derived or vegan-suitable product.

Who is missing from the studies

  • Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.

What the label states about particular groups

  • On pediatric, the label states: “Pediatric doses must be individualized (see DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION).”

    US prescribing information · e58cfb46-f8a7-4327-bbe8-da4d4be2bd1d · read 2026-08-30

  • On older people, the label states: “Clinical studies of Ergocalciferol Capsules did not include sufficient numbers of subjects aged 65 and over to determine whether they respond differently from younger subjects.”

    US prescribing information · e58cfb46-f8a7-4327-bbe8-da4d4be2bd1d · read 2026-08-30

  • On people who are pregnant, the label states: “The safety in excess of 400 IU of vitamin D daily during pregnancy has not been established.”

    US prescribing information · e58cfb46-f8a7-4327-bbe8-da4d4be2bd1d · read 2026-08-30

  • On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Caution should be exercised when Ergocalciferol Capsules are administered to a nursing woman.”

    US prescribing information · e58cfb46-f8a7-4327-bbe8-da4d4be2bd1d · read 2026-08-30

Where the result stopped carrying

  • The largest ergocalciferol fracture trial found hip fractures significantly more common on treatment, hazard ratio 1.49
  • The second largest found no effect at all in a population fracturing at 7 per 100 people per year
  • Decades of treating the two forms as interchangeable rested on early-timepoint equivalence that longer sampling contradicted
  • The intermittent mega-dose schedule, adopted for adherence, has failed in both forms and caused harm in one
  • This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
  • It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.

RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Why it might seem to do nothing

A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.

It was studied for a different goal

The studies measured something else entirely.

On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.

It was studied in different people

The people in the studies were not much like the reader.

On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.

There was nothing to correct

Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing.

On this record: The 50,000 IU prescription strength keeps it in routine use for deficiency repletion despite the potency data

The evidence may simply be wrong

Small early studies often do not hold up.

On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (9)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What taking it involves

The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.

How it is supplied

Given by a clinician

Quoted from a source

Where this came from

Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.

Read from the recorded approval status.

No source is stored against this line.

Form and route

Oral capsule and oral solution, including a 50,000 IU prescription strength; an intramuscular form has been used in trials

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

The form and route recorded on this substance.

No source is stored against this line.

Who oversees it

Not usually supervised: sold as a supplement or food ingredient where recorded. That is a legal category, not a safety judgement.

Quoted from a source

Where this came from

Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.

The identity record classes it as a supplement ingredient; no medicines register records an approval.

No source is stored against this line.

What is in the pack

Taken by mouth, usually with food since it is fat-soluble.

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: The very high strengths exist for the labelled rare disorders and are widely used off that label for deficiency repletion, which is where the potency and dosing-schedule questions on this page bite.

No source is stored against this line.

Where it is registered

Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.

Counted from records

Where this came from

A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.

Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.

No source is stored against this line.

Why people stop

Not recorded.

Nothing recorded

Where this came from

RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.

No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.

No source is stored against this line.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What can go wrong

Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.

Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page

No boxed warning. As a fat-soluble vitamin given at pharmacological strength the hazard is accumulation and hypercalcaemia, with the same clinical picture described on the calcitriol page — though it resolves far more slowly, because vitamin D stores in fat and its half-life is measured in weeks rather than days. Two large randomised trials of bolus ergocalciferol found no fracture benefit, one of them with a significant increase in hip fracture (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.18). An annual 500,000 IU trial of the D3 form found significantly more falls and fractures, concentrated in the three months after dosing.

Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.

Where this came from

Reports sent to a regulator

  • These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
  • Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
  • The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
  • News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
  • A count is not a rate and not a risk.

Ergocalciferol appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 23897 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.

The recorded terms (10)
  • pain — 3069 reaction mentions
  • alopecia — 2621 reaction mentions
  • fatigue — 2609 reaction mentions
  • abdominal discomfort — 2549 reaction mentions
  • systemic lupus erythematosus — 2532 reaction mentions
  • pemphigus — 2523 reaction mentions
  • rheumatoid arthritis — 2330 reaction mentions
  • glossodynia — 2063 reaction mentions
  • swelling — 1892 reaction mentions
  • hand deformity — 1709 reaction mentions
  • open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot

Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.

Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Does the exact form matter?

Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.

The form that was studied

Oral capsule and oral solution, including a 50,000 IU prescription strength; an intramuscular form has been used in trials

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

The form used in the studies cited on this page.

No source is stored against this line.

What is sold

A recorded note compares this form with the others that are sold. It is kept below, word for word.

A fixed RNAWiki sentence

Where this came from

Wording RNAWiki always uses, not a finding about this substance.

The recorded note, unchanged: The very high strengths exist for the labelled rare disorders and are widely used off that label for deficiency repletion, which is where the potency and dosing-schedule questions on this page bite.

No source is stored against this line.

What is recorded as being sold

  • 49 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 45 of them contain it and nothing else.

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 53401-021 · read 2026-08-29

  • They are sold as capsule, capsule, liquid filled, emulsion, liquid and powder, taken intravenous and oral.

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 53401-021 · read 2026-08-29

  • The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is ergocalciferols [cs] and provitamin d2 compound [epc].

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 53401-021 · read 2026-08-29

  • 40 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 38 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.

    US prescribing information · e58cfb46-f8a7-4327-bbe8-da4d4be2bd1d · read 2026-08-29

  • Those labels are classed as human otc drug and human prescription drug.

    US prescribing information · e58cfb46-f8a7-4327-bbe8-da4d4be2bd1d · read 2026-08-29

  • Ergocalciferol Capsules, is oral at HOW SUPPLIED Capsules of 1.25 mg (50,000 IU vitamin D) of ergocalciferol, USP are clear green oval softgel capsules filled with a clear to pale yellow Bottle of 100 capsules (NDC 42806-547-01) Bottle of 500 capsules (ND…, recorded as fda label in effect 2025-01-02 in the United States.

    US prescribing information · e58cfb46-f8a7-4327-bbe8-da4d4be2bd1d · read 2026-08-30

  • Recorded price in US: 0.11363 USD per one unit as the pricing file counts it — a tablet, capsule, patch or single item, for the one priced product, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..

    Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28

Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What you could measure

This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.

A single-person plan is offered only as a structure for observing yourself. It never calculates an amount to take, and it cannot prove cause.

Questions worth asking

  • Which of the trials of Ergocalciferol studied people like me?
  • What was measured, and for how long?
  • Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
  • What would we watch for, and when would we stop?

Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.

RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Claims that go past the evidence

Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.

Goes past the evidence

That an international unit of D2 equals an international unit of D3 — true enough daily, and wrong by a wide margin for a bolus

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Goes past the evidence

That raising the storage form in blood prevents fractures, which is what the two large ergocalciferol trials tested and did not find

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Goes past the evidence

That a routine vitamin D blood result distinguishes the two forms — most assays report a combined total

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Goes past the evidence

That mega-dosing solves the adherence problem harmlessly, when the equivalent D3 strategy increased falls and fractures

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What nobody knows yet

Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.

How fast does the body clear it?

The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.

Why it matters. Without this, nothing on this page can say how long anything lasts.

What would answer it

A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Missing populations

Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Missing long-term data

No completed tested study window is recorded.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

No reviewed conclusion

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Missing interaction studies

No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Formulation uncertainty

Several salts, forms or products of Ergocalciferol are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Mechanism not reviewed

No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

What happened in peopleRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Check any of this yourself

Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.

Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.

Injected annually to 9440 people, it prevented nothing and hip fractures rose
In plain words
Nearly ten thousand people aged 75 and over were given an injection of it every autumn for three years, or a dummy injection. Fractures overall were no different. Hip fractures were significantly more common in the treated group.
What was measured
Hip fracture hazard ratio 1.49 (95% CI 1.02 to 2.18, P=0.04); any first fracture 1.09 (0.93 to 1.28)
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Smith and colleagues randomised 9440 people aged 75 and over — 4354 men and 5086 women — from general practice registers in Wessex, England, to 300,000 IU intramuscular ergocalciferol or matching placebo every autumn over three years. 585 subjects had incident non-spine fractures. Hazard ratios in the vitamin D group were 1.09 for any first fracture (95% CI 0.93 to 1.28, P=0.29), 1.49 for hip (95% CI 1.02 to 2.18, P=0.04) and 1.22 for wrist (0.85 to 1.76, P=0.28). There was no effect on falls, hazard ratio 0.98 (0.93 to 1.04). No protective effect appeared in any subgroup when stratified by sex, age, previous fracture or mobility. The authors concluded the strategy is not effective.
Source
Smith H et al., Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46:1852-1857
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Given orally to 3440 care-home residents, it changed nothing either
In plain words
Three and a half thousand people in residential and care homes were given it by mouth every four months for three years. First fractures were 205 on treatment against 218 on placebo. That is no difference.
What was measured
First fracture hazard ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.15); 205 against 218 fractures over roughly 2850 person-years each
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Lyons and colleagues ran a pragmatic double-blind randomised trial in 3440 people — 2624 women and 816 men — living in residential or care homes across 314 sites in South Wales, using four-monthly oral 100,000 IU ergocalciferol over three years. In intention-to-treat analysis, 205 first fractures occurred in the intervention group over 2846 person-years, about 7 per 100 people per year, against 218 first fractures in the control group over 2860 person-years. The hazard ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.15), not significant. The authors concluded that four-monthly 100,000 IU oral vitamin D2 is not sufficient to affect fracture incidence in institutional care — a population with a fracture rate high enough that a real effect would have been visible.
Source
Lyons RA et al., Osteoporos Int 2007;18:811-818
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
It is less than a third as potent as the human form, measured directly
In plain words
Twenty men were given a single large dose of each form. Both were absorbed equally well, and both raised the blood level the same for three days. After that the fungal form fell away while the human form kept rising for two weeks.
What was measured
Area under the 25-hydroxyvitamin D curve to day 28: 60.2 ng·d/mL for D2 against 204.7 for D3 (P<0.002); relative potency D3:D2 of 9.5 to 1
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Armas, Hollis and Heaney gave single 50,000 IU doses of ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to 20 healthy men and followed serum vitamin D and 25-hydroxyvitamin D for 28 days. Both produced similar rises in the administered vitamin, indicating equivalent absorption, and similar initial rises in 25-hydroxyvitamin D over the first three days. Thereafter 25-hydroxyvitamin D continued rising on D3, peaking at day 14, while it fell rapidly on D2 and was no different from baseline by day 14. Area under the curve to day 28 was 60.2 ng·d/mL for D2 against 204.7 for D3 (P<0.002); calculated area to infinity gave a relative potency of 9.5 to 1. The authors state D2 potency is less than one third that of D3 and that physicians using it should be aware of its markedly lower potency and shorter duration of action.
Source
Armas LA, Hollis BW, Heaney RP. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004;89:5387-5391
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The two forms were treated as interchangeable for decades, and the meta-analysis said otherwise
In plain words
Food labels, supplement charts and prescribing habit treated the two vitamins D as the same thing in international units. When the head-to-head trials were pooled, the human form raised the blood level significantly more — and the difference showed up only with large infrequent doses.
What was measured
That an international unit of D2 and an international unit of D3 are interchangeable — true enough for daily dosing, and false for the bolus dosing the fracture trials used
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Tripkovic and colleagues systematically searched from 1966 to July 2011 for randomised trials directly comparing the two forms in adults, including unpublished trial registries. Meta-analysis found supplementation with vitamin D3 had a significant and positive effect on raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D compared with D2 (P=0.001). Stratified by dosing frequency, the advantage was significant for bolus dosing (P=0.0002) and was lost with daily supplementation. That interaction is the useful detail and the one usually dropped: the two forms are close to equivalent when given daily and diverge sharply when given as an infrequent large dose — which is exactly how the two large ergocalciferol fracture trials administered it.
Source
Tripkovic L et al., Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:1357-1364
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Infrequent mega-dosing is a failed strategy in both forms of the vitamin
In plain words
Giving a huge dose once or a few times a year was adopted to get around people forgetting a daily tablet. Tested properly it did not prevent fractures with the fungal form, and with the human form it caused more falls and more fractures.
What was measured
Fracture incidence rate ratio 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.59, P=0.047) and falls 1.15 (1.02 to 1.30, P=0.03) with annual 500,000 IU cholecalciferol
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Sanders and colleagues randomised 2256 community-dwelling women aged 70 and over at high fracture risk to a single annual oral 500,000 IU dose of cholecalciferol or placebo for three to five years. Fractures were 171 against 135, incidence rate ratio 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.59, P=0.047). Falls occurred at 83.4 per 100 person-years on treatment against 72.7 on placebo, incidence rate ratio 1.15 (1.02 to 1.30, P=0.03), and a post hoc analysis found the excess concentrated in the first three months after dosing — rate ratio 1.31 in the first three months against 1.13 over the following nine, test for homogeneity P=0.02. Median baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 49 nmol/L, so this was not a deficient population. Read alongside the two null ergocalciferol bolus trials, the pattern is a dosing schedule adopted for adherence that has never demonstrated benefit in either form and has demonstrated harm in one.
Source
Sanders KM et al., JAMA 2010;303:1815-1822 (ACTRN12605000658617)
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Its approved indications are three rare disorders, not deficiency
In plain words
What this drug is actually approved for is narrow: absent parathyroid glands, a rickets that does not respond to ordinary vitamin D, and an inherited phosphate-wasting condition. Correcting an ordinary low blood level is a nutritional use, not an approved one.
What was measured
Three labelled indications: hypoparathyroidism, refractory rickets and familial hypophosphataemia
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The label indicates ergocalciferol capsules for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism, refractory rickets — also known as vitamin D resistant rickets — and familial hypophosphataemia. Those three conditions are the reason the 50,000 IU strength exists: they require pharmacological rather than nutritional amounts. The very large gap between that indication set and the way the drug is used in practice is the reason the fracture trials on this page were run at all, and the reason their results matter beyond the labelled population.
Source
Ergocalciferol capsules United States prescribing information, Indications and Usage, as held on the enriched record
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim

Where else this substance is registered

FDA substance identifier (UNII)
VS041H42XC
RxNorm concept
1367410

Checks this page had to pass

  • Passed

    Identity resolved

    no open identity hold

  • Passed

    No unresolved merge across substance families

    no quarantine open

  • Passed

    Every public sentence names a source

    The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.

  • Not passed

    Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence

    No registered study is classified as testing this substance.

  • Passed

    No internal keys in reader text

    enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page

  • Passed

    Safety mode resolved

    The identity record classes it as a supplement ingredient; no medicines register records an approval.

  • Passed

    Canonical metadata present

    slug and display name present

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

How this medicine reached us

Kept near the foot of the page. A historical event moves up only when it changes something about this substance today.

What the approval register records

  • 23 approved applications cover products containing this substance. The earliest was NDA003444, approved 19410111 to ESJAY PHARMA.

    Drugs@FDA application register · NDA003444 · read 2026-08-29

  • Marketing status on the register: discontinued and prescription.

    Drugs@FDA application register · NDA003444 · read 2026-08-29

  • The earliest marketing start date recorded for a listed product is 19741111.

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 53401-021 · read 2026-08-29

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What to learn next

Ordered by what would most change how you read this page, starting with what is easiest to misunderstand.

This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.

What is not here

4 questions this page could not answer

These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.

  • How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.

The record as stored

The full record, for auditing

Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.

The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record

Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.

The fungal form of vitamin D, whose relative potency against the human form was measured at 9.5 to 1 in favour of D3 by area under the 25-hydroxyvitamin D curve, and which in the two largest randomised trials to use it specifically — 9440 people given 300,000 IU intramuscularly each autumn and 3440 care-home residents given 100,000 IU orally every four months — reduced no fractures at all, with hip fracture significantly more common in the injected group at a hazard ratio of 1.49 (95% CI 1.02 to 2.18).

Recorded evidence blocks (13)

What did Ergocalciferol's largest trial (25871 people) and its longest (16 years) measure?


25871 people in Ergocalciferol's largest registered study, 16 years in its longest registered window, measuring Increase in the grip strength in patients with Crohn under vitamin D supplementation. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

259 na, 113 phase4, 103 phase2, 98 phase3, 42 phase1, 25 na or unstated, 17 early phase1; NCT03621553; 2026-12-30. Last human test completed 2026, NCT06203041.

Interpretation These counts include studies where Ergocalciferol was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.

Show the evidence
  • na
    259
  • phase4
    113
  • phase2
    103
  • phase3
    98
  • phase1
    42
  • na or unstated
    25
2 more recorded rows
  • early phase1
    17
  • Last recorded human test NCT06203041
    2026-05-05

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Ergocalciferol was tested only in human — what did it show?


human: healthspan (629): the rungs where Ergocalciferol has a recorded finding. Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov · organism ladder · 2026-09-01

Interpretation Increase in the grip strength in patients with Crohn under vitamin D supplementation — the recorded outcome words.

Yeast C. elegans Drosophila Mouse Rat Dog Non-human primate Human healthspan
Show the evidence
  • human NCT02704624
    healthspan; Increase in the grip strength in patients with Crohn under vitamin D supplementation; 629

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

49 of Ergocalciferol's trials stopped: safety, accrual/recruitment, funding/business, other?


safety (1), accrual/recruitment (25), funding/business (3) and other (20): Ergocalciferol's stop wording, clustered. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

"Recruitment in study could not be reached after 8 yrs of recruiting"; 49 of 629 registered studies

Show the evidence

Trial

  • NCT00171925
    terminated; "Recruitment in study could not be reached after 8 yrs of recruiting"
  • NCT00285090
    terminated; "Lack of volunteers"
  • NCT00459563
    withdrawn; "Inadequate enrollment"
  • NCT00535158
    terminated; "Because of departure of study personnel and lack of funding"
  • NCT00591604
    withdrawn; "hurricane caused closure of hospital with PI not associated with Shriners Hospital for children"
  • NCT00621257
    terminated; "Maintenance phase outcome unattenable"
14 further recorded trials
  • NCT00715429
    terminated; "We exhausted potential candidates before reaching goal of 70; recruited 29, 13 completed the study"
  • NCT00879970
    terminated; "FDA has placed the trial on full clinical hold."
  • NCT00904423
    terminated; "Low accrual"
  • NCT00944606
    withdrawn; "inability to recruit subjects"
  • NCT01026363
    withdrawn; "Inadequate enrollment"
  • NCT01145703
    terminated; "Investigator terminated study due to low enrollment of eligible subjects"
  • NCT01183442
    terminated; "unable to recruit"
  • NCT01183962
    terminated; "slow enrollment, funding ended"
  • NCT01210521
    withdrawn; "Sponsor terminated study due to inability to enroll subjects."
  • NCT01312441
    terminated; "Low enrollment"
  • NCT01337635
    terminated; "Not meeting enrollment goals."
  • NCT01400009
    withdrawn; "lack of enrollment"
  • NCT01416701
    withdrawn; "It was not possible to enroll the planned amount of subjects. Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease already took large doses of vitamin D."
  • NCT01425424
    terminated; "The PI was leaving Pennington"

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Human studies of Ergocalciferol used Vitamin D 2500 IU — over how long?


Human studies of Ergocalciferol used "Vitamin D 2500 IU". ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

20 recorded entries; human; orally, oral, tablet; also "Vitamin D (1000 or 2000 IU/day)", "Oral vitamin D 100,000 IU", "50,000 Units Ergocalciferol"

Show the evidence

human

  • NCT00472654
    Vitamin D 2500 IU
  • NCT00723385
    Vitamin D (1000 or 2000 IU/day)
  • NCT00877123
    Oral vitamin D 100,000 IU
  • NCT01114672
    50,000 Units Ergocalciferol
  • NCT01170494
    orally; ergocalciferol 2000 IU orally, daily
  • NCT01170494
    ergocalciferol 25000 IU oraly every 2 weeks
14 more recorded rows
  • human NCT01170494
    orally; ergocalciferol 50000 IU orally every 4 weeks
  • human NCT01306656
    10,000 IU Vitamin D3
  • human NCT01419821
    TipTipot Vitamin D 200IU/gtt
  • human NCT01498406
    The investigators will be using vitamin D soft gels in 400 IU and 4,000 IU provided by Carlson laboratories.
  • human NCT01728922
    10000IU vitamin D
  • human NCT01992263
    Vitamin D (2000 IU)
  • human NCT02590614
    800 IU Vitamin D
  • human NCT02713009
    0μg vitamin D (placebo)
  • human NCT02742805
    Vitamin D (4,000 IU/day)
  • human NCT02828228
    Vitamin D 1200 IU
  • human NCT02965898
    Vitamin D 100ug
  • human NCT03155035
    Calcium 400 mg + Vitamin D 2.5 mcg
  • human NCT04183257
    oral; oral vitamin D 400IU
  • human NCT04472481
    tablet; Ergocalciferol 1.25 mg tablet

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Could one person measure Ergocalciferol's effect on bone mineral density in the lumbar spine?


Bone mineral density in the lumbar spine: measured in Ergocalciferol's trials.

Interpretation bone mineral density in the lumbar spine is the recorded endpoint.

Show the evidence

biomarkers

  • bone mineral density in the lumbar spine; 2026-09-01
  • mammographic density at 1 year on exemestane; 2026-09-01
  • time to first skeletal related event; 2026-09-01
  • hip trochanter bone mineral density at 12 months; 2026-09-01
  • hip trochanter bmd at 24 months; 2026-09-01
  • days of progression free survival; 2026-09-01
14 more recorded rows
  • biomarkers
    plasma 25 hydroxyvitamin d levels; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    bone mineral density; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    growth; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    parathyroid hormone ipth and 3rd generation ria; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    freedom from any bone fracture rate at three years; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    bone mineral density t from baseline to 12 months; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    time to development of a malignant skeletal related events; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    giant cell tumor response; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    glycated hemoglobin; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    parathyroid hormone level; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    25 hydroxyvitamin d; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    blood pressure; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    25 d; 2026-09-01
  • biomarkers
    ejection fraction; 2026-09-01
  • human trials at or under30
    134
  • Not recorded for this substance
    a recorded half-life
  • smallest human trial
    0; NCT00459563; NA; the smallest recorded human enrolment at or below 30; the registry states no direction of its result; WITHDRAWN

Which of 2 hr post load glucose, 24 hour urine calcium and 25 d did Ergocalciferol's trials measure?


2 hr post load glucose, 24 hour urine calcium and 25 d lead 40 outcome terms across Ergocalciferol's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

hip trochanter bone mineral density at 12 months, hip trochanter bmd at 24 months, days of progression free survival, plasma 25 hydroxyvitamin d levels, bone mineral density and growth follow.

Show the evidence
  • bone mineral density in the lumbar spine
    1
  • mammographic density at 1 year on exemestane
    1
  • time to first skeletal related event
    1
  • hip trochanter bone mineral density at 12 months
    1
  • hip trochanter bmd at 24 months
    1
  • days of progression free survival
    1
14 more recorded rows
  • plasma 25 hydroxyvitamin d levels
    1
  • bone mineral density
    1
  • growth
    1
  • parathyroid hormone ipth and 3rd generation ria
    1
  • freedom from any bone fracture rate at three years
    1
  • bone mineral density t from baseline to 12 months
    1
  • time to development of a malignant skeletal related events
    1
  • giant cell tumor response
    1
  • glycated hemoglobin
    1
  • parathyroid hormone level
    1
  • 25 hydroxyvitamin d
    1
  • blood pressure
    1
  • 25 d
    1
  • ejection fraction
    1

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Which of Ergocalciferol's 50 ongoing trials reports first?


50 registered trials of Ergocalciferol are open; earliest completion 2025-06-30. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

The prevalence of challenge-proven food allergy at 12 months of age; Change in lung function from baseline; latest 2032-07-15

Show the evidence

Trial

  • NCT02112734
    "Can Vitamin D Supplementation in the First Year of Life Prevent Food Allergy in Infants? The VITALITY Trial: Parts 1&2"; n 2739; "The prevalence of challenge-proven food allergy at 12 months of age"; 2028-12
  • NCT03621553
    "Vitamin D Homeostasis in Sarcoidosis"; n 90; "Change in lung function from baseline"; 2026-12-30
  • NCT03824106
    "Frailty Rehabilitation"; n 324; "Change in Physical Performance"; 2025-12-31
  • NCT03989778
    "Vitamin D and Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS)"; n 300; "• Insulin levels"; 2025-07-13
  • NCT04650880
    "Effect of Vitamin D on Ovulation Rate in Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome"; n 220; "Ovulation rate"; 2026-12-31
  • NCT04775381
    "Total Post-thyroidectomy Hypocalcemia After Preoperative Cholecalciferol Supplementation"; n 200; "Assessment of the effect of pre-operative cholecalciferol supplementation on the occurrence of post-operative hypocalcemia after total thyroidectomy"; 2026-03
14 further recorded trials
  • NCT04821544
    "Maternal Stress on Human Milk and Infant Outcomes"; n 500; "Maternal Stress - Biomarker Change"; 2027-06-30
  • NCT04871412
    "The Thoracic Peri-Operative Integrative Surgical Care Evaluation Trial - Stage III"; n 20; "Participant Recruitment Rates"; 2029-12-01
  • NCT05431920
    "Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation in Adolescents With Asthma, Obesity and Vitamin D Deficiency."; n 264; "Evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation daily for three months on asthma symptoms."; 2026-12-31
  • NCT05667090
    "Effects of Multiple Mega-dose of Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Ameliorating Moderate to Severe Chronic Pain in Hemodialysis Patients"; n 120; "Visual Analogue Scale of Pain"; 2027-12-31
  • NCT05838716
    "Vitamin D for Prostate Endocrine Therapy"; n 240; "Reduction of bone mineral density (BMD) loss as measured at the total hip"; 2029-04-29
  • NCT05863949
    "Clinical Trial of Vit D and Calcium for Recurrent BPPV"; n 860; "Recurrence rate of BPPV"; 2026-09
  • NCT05887505
    "Effects of Vitamin D Status and Multiple Mega-dose Supplementation on Health Care Disparities in Perioperative Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Hepatectomy"; n 120; "Whether there is an association between 25(OH)D and PTH: positive or negative association , or no association"; 2027-12-31
  • NCT05933499
    "Effect of Tirzepatide and Bimagrumab on Body Composition, Insulin Sensitivity, and Bone in Adults With Obesity"; n 63; "Change in number of kilograms of lean mass by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry"; 2029-03-31
  • NCT06045351
    "Efficacy of Injectable Vitamin D Supplementation in Females With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome"; n 142; "hyperandrogenism"; 2026-12-31
  • NCT06138249
    "Cholecalciferol and Calcifediol Are Both Useful to Improve Vitamin D Serum Levels"; n 90; "level of Vitamin D"; 2025-12-30
  • NCT06258850
    "REstoration of VItamin D in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension"; n 102; "Clinical improvement without clinical worsening"; 2027-12
  • NCT06328426
    "Vitamin D With Omega-3 or Metformin in Osteoarthritis"; n 60; "Effusion-synovitis volume on musculoskeletal ultrasound."; 2026-12
  • NCT06596122
    "Vitamin D Supplementation in Breast Cancer Patients"; n 132; "The cumulative incidence and grading of paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy (PIPN)"; 2026-12-30
  • NCT06610968
    "Acute Vitamin D Supplementation on Testosterone in Females"; n 20; "Hormonal Effects of Vitamin D in Young, Healthy Women"; 2026-09-30

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Which running trial of Ergocalciferol could settle inflammatory markers?


NCT07042711 measures Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on therapeutic response in nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) patients undergoing chemoradiation and its relation with IL-6, reading out 2025-12-09.

2 open trials; n 300; "Impact of Vitamin D on Therapeutic Respons in NPC Chemoradiated Patients"

Show the evidence

Trial

  • NCT07042711
    "Impact of Vitamin D on Therapeutic Respons in NPC Chemoradiated Patients"; n 300; "Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on therapeutic response in nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) patients undergoing chemoradiation and its relation with IL-6"; 2025-12-09
  • NCT03824106
    "Frailty Rehabilitation"; n 324; "Change in Physical Performance"; 2025-12-31

Which 281 trials of Ergocalciferol posted no result?


Posted no result
281 of 281 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00302627, NCT02416271, NCT00092014, NCT00204919, NCT00476346 and NCT00320853, and 275 more
Completion dates
oldest 2002-11; newest 2024-09-02
Show the evidence

Trial

  • NCT00302627
    2002-11
  • NCT02416271
    2003-05
  • NCT00092014
    2004-04-01
  • NCT00204919
    2004-11
  • NCT00476346
    2006-03
  • NCT00320853
    2006-05
14 further recorded trials
  • NCT00061256
    2006-09
  • NCT00157066
    2006-09
  • NCT00135304
    2006-12
  • NCT00473239
    2007-03
  • NCT00949832
    2007-04
  • NCT00288873
    2007-07
  • NCT01005381
    2007-07
  • NCT00400491
    2007-09
  • NCT00347542
    2007-10
  • NCT01909063
    2008-01
  • NCT00054418
    2008-05
  • NCT00692120
    2008-11
  • NCT00022087
    2009-02
  • NCT01578434
    2009-04

At the median, Ergocalciferol's trials enrolled 72 people — anything larger?


Median enrolment
72
Largest enrolment
25871
Registered trials counted
625

What do 23897 spontaneous reports say about Ergocalciferol — and not say?


These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.

Ergocalciferol appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 23897 reaction mentions were counted: pain 3069; alopecia 2621; fatigue 2609; abdominal discomfort 2549. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL1536 · 2026-06-24

Show the evidence
  • pain
    3069
  • alopecia
    2621
  • fatigue
    2609
  • abdominal discomfort
    2549
  • systemic lupus erythematosus
    2532
  • pemphigus
    2523
4 more recorded rows
  • rheumatoid arthritis
    2330
  • glossodynia
    2063
  • swelling
    1892
  • hand deformity
    1709

recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04

Was Ergocalciferol studied with fasting?


fasting is named in Ergocalciferol's label sentences: "A posthoc analysis of participants with baseline impaired fasting glucose (IFG) showed that more subjects in the vitamin D subgroup (31.6%) than placebo (8.3%) returned to normal glucose tolerance, but the difference did not reach significance (P = .13)." openfda-label+europepmc · 2015-02-25

1 recorded statement; fasting

Show the evidence
  • fasting
    A posthoc analysis of participants with baseline impaired fasting glucose (IFG) showed that more subjects in the vitamin D subgroup (31.6%) than placebo (8.3%) returned to normal glucose tolerance, but the difference did not reach significance (P = .13).

recorded 2015-02-25 · last checked 2026-09-04

What is recorded about Ergocalciferol and autophagy?


"Genes involved with classical effects of vitamin D metabolism and excretion were activated, along with genes linked to autophagy such as G-protein coupled receptor 37 (GPR37) and Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF1a)." — where Ergocalciferol and autophagy appear together. Europe PMC · pathway abstract search · 2014-10-01

autophagy; PMID 26594646

Show the evidence
  • autophagy PMID 26594646
    "Genes involved with classical effects of vitamin D metabolism and excretion were activated, along with genes linked to autophagy such as G-protein coupled receptor 37 (GPR37) and Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF1a)."

recorded 2014-10-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Where it is registered
Identifiers, relations and other names

The exact record

ChEMBL id
CHEMBL1536
PubChem CID
5280793
CAS number
50-14-6
RxCUI
4018
InChIKey
MECHNRXZTMCUDQ-RKHKHRCZSA-N
Also called
Calciferol, Ergocalciferolum, Ergorone, Ostelin, Viosterol, Vitamin d, Vitamin d2, Vitamin d nos, Vitamin d, unspecified form, 25 oh vitamin d, active form of vitamin d, active vitamin d
Trade name
Deltalin, Drisdol, Eciferol d2, Ergocalciferol component of vitaped, Ergo-d2, Ergoral d2, Sterogyl, Sterogyl-15, Sterogyl 15h, Uvesterol d, Vitamin d 2, M-Natal Plus
Development code
NSC-62792
Salt form
vitamin d tablets, Ergocalciferol Capsules,
Sources (10)

Sources

  • ClinicalTrials.gov clinicaltrials.gov ·
  • ClinicalTrials.gov ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 snapshot 2026-09-01T09:00:05 ·
  • this record's own fields 2,3,5 ·
  • Europe PMC dose-response search ·
  • Europe PMC pathway abstract search ·
  • Europe PMC search ·
4 more sources

ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work

How these records are assembled · Which registers were checked

Index-quality checks
  • identity passed: no open identity hold
  • required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
  • public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
  • source coverage passed: 10 source rows
  • no critical contamination: no quarantine open
  • canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
  • no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page

This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.