Ethinyl estradiol vs estradiol valerate in combined oral contraceptives – Effect on glucose tolerance: A randomized, controlled clinical trial

Annina Haverinen, Marika Kangasniemi, Kaisu Luiro, Terhi Piltonen, Oskari Heikinheimo, Juha S. Tapanainen
In: Contraception · 2020 · vol. 103(1) , pp. 53–59 · doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2020.10.014 · PMID:33098852 · W3094022776
article OA: green CC0 ⤵ 2 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This study aimed to compare ethinyl estradiol and estradiol valerate in combined oral contraceptives for their effects on glucose tolerance in a randomized, controlled clinical trial.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08 · read from full text ⓘ

I can’t access the paper’s actual study content because the provided text is blocked by an anti-bot page (“Making sure you're not a bot!”) rather than the research article itself, so I don’t know the population, methods, results, or limitations. Without the paper text, I can’t produce a faithful biomedical research summary. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of two formulations of combined oral contraceptives (COCs), estradiol valerate (EV) and ethinyl estradiol (EE) combined with dienogest (DNG), and DNG-only, on glucose tolerance.Study designWe performed a randomized, controlled 9-week clinical trial. Inclusion criteria were: age 18-35 years, regular menstrual cycle (28 ± 7 days), no polycystic ovaries, non-smoking, no contraindications for COC use and a 2-month wash-out from hormonal contraceptive use. The women were randomized to EV + DNG (n = 20), EE + DNG (n = 20), and DNG-only (n = 19), and evaluated at baseline, at 4-5 weeks and 8-9 weeks of treatment. Study medications were used continuously for 63 days. Primary outcome measure was change in the whole-body insulin sensitivity index (Matsuda index) derived from the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) over the treatment period. Secondary outcome measures were area under curves (AUC) of glucose and insulin, homeostatic model assessment - insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and Insulin Sensitivity Index (ISI).ResultsFifty-nine women enrolled, and 56 women completed the study. The Matsuda index changed from baseline as follows (mean percentage change, mean change [95%CI]): DNG-only -12%, -1.45 [95%CI -3.22-0.325] P = 0.10; EV + DNG + 2.7%, -0.10 [-1.34 to 1.14] P = 0.86; EE + DNG -5.5%, -1.02 [-2.51 to 0.46] P = 0.16, comparing the groups P = 0.27. There were no clinically significant differences in glucose tolerance between the COC groups, but the DNG-only group showed an improvement in the 2-h glucose levels (5.5 [95%CI 5.0-6.0] to 4.7 mmol/l [4.2-5.2], P = 0.001).ConclusionWe found no clinically significant differences between EV and EE combined with DNG and DNG-only on glucose tolerance in healthy, young, normal-weight women, indicating that these preparations appear close to neutral regarding glucose metabolism when used continuously for nine weeks.ImplicationsCombinations of both ethinyl estradiol and natural estradiol (estradiol valerate) with dienogest (DNG), as well as DNG-only, seem metabolically safe in young and healthy women in short-term continuous use.
Full text 1,068 characters · extracted from oa-html · click to expand
Making sure you're not a bot! Loading... You are seeing this because the administrator of this website has set up Anubis to protect the server against the scourge of AI companies aggressively scraping websites. This can and does cause downtime for the websites, which makes their resources inaccessible for everyone. Anubis is a compromise. Anubis uses a Proof-of-Work scheme in the vein of Hashcash, a proposed proof-of-work scheme for reducing email spam. The idea is that at individual scales the additional load is ignorable, but at mass scraper levels it adds up and makes scraping much more expensive. Ultimately, this is a placeholder solution so that more time can be spent on fingerprinting and identifying headless browsers (EG: via how they do font rendering) so that the challenge proof of work page doesn't need to be presented to users that are much more likely to be legitimate. Please note that Anubis requires the use of modern JavaScript features that plugins like JShelter will disable. Please disable JShelter or other such plugins for this domain.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (44)

Cited by (2)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-05-11T06:42:59.773506+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK