Comparison of estrogenic components used for hormonal contraception.

Attempts have been made over the years to replace ethinyl estradiol (EE) in combined oral contraceptives (COCs) with the less potent natural estrogen estradiol (E2 ), or its prodrug, E2 valerate (E2 V), to improve their safety and tolerability. Recently, a COC incorporating a novel weak natural estrogen, estetrol (E4 ), combined with drospirenone, has become available. We present a comparative analysis of the three prevailing estrogens used in COCs, focusing on their structure-function relationships, receptor-binding affinity, potency, metabolism, pharmacokinetic parameters, and pharmacodynamics. The binding affinity of EE to estrogen receptor (ER)α is twice that of E2 , whereas its affinity for ERβ is about one-half that of E2 . E4 has a lower binding affinity for the ERs than E2 . The high potency of EE is notable in its dramatic increase in estrogen-sensitive hepatic globulins and coagulation factors. EE and E2 undergo extensive and comparable metabolism, while E4 produces only a very limited number of metabolites. E4 has the highest bioavailability among the three estrogens, with E2 having <5%. Studies demonstrate consistent ovulation inhibition, although a higher dose of E4 (15 mg) in COCs is required to achieve follicular suppression compared to E2 (1-3 mg) and EE (0.01-0.035 mg). E2 and E4 in COCs may be less stimulatory of coagulant proteins than EE. Studies with E2 /dienogest suggest a comparable risk of venous thromboembolism to EE/levonorgestrel, while data assessing risk with an E4 -based COC are insufficient. Nevertheless, the E4 -based formulation shows promise as a potential alternative to EE and E2 due to its lower potency and possibly fewer side effects.