Suggestions
Ridhi Tariyal
Co-Founder NextGen Jane
Ridhi Tariyal is the CEO and Co-Founder of NextGen Jane, Inc., a women's healthcare company founded in 2014 and headquartered in Oakland, California.67 She is an engineer, scientist, businesswoman, and aspiring writer who co-founded NextGen Jane out of frustration with the current state of women's healthcare.13
Tariyal holds a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology, an S.M. in Biomedical Enterprise from MIT, and an MBA from Harvard Business School.12 She has also been a Blavatnik Fellow at Harvard Business School and has project management experience from the Broad Institute.17
At NextGen Jane, Tariyal has driven the development of a novel menstrual data platform that characterizes uterine biology at a molecular level.2 The company's flagship product is the Smart Tampon System, which aims to provide insights into women's reproductive health by analyzing menstrual blood.6
Before founding NextGen Jane, Tariyal led operations and finances for a $10 million genomic project in West Africa for the Broad Institute.8 Her career has spanned various roles in healthcare, including positions at Bristol-Myers Squibb and Third Rock Ventures.7
Tariyal's work at NextGen Jane focuses on empowering women with information to make informed decisions about their health, particularly in areas such as endometriosis and fertility.5 The company has raised significant funding, including a $9 million Series A round, to advance its scientific research and develop diagnostic tools.4
Highlights
Yesterday, I described steroids for the treatment of autoimmune diseases as a “blunt” instrument. Today I would like to extend the analogy to GnRH (Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone) analogs in the treatment of endometriosis.
While the exact cause of endometriosis is unknown (and hotly debated), it is well established that increased estrogen production in endometriosis lesions is a hallmark feature of the disease. GnRH analogs are a class of drugs that act on the brain-ovarian axis to chemically stop the production of estrogen by your body, thus inducing menopause.
In the best of cases, this means that you experience a reduction in pelvic pain and take on many of the side effects menopause brings with it: hot flashes, loss in bone density, mood disorders, bad sleep, depression and so on. (The drug works for you but the side effects are terrible.)
In the worst of cases, the endometriosis lesions in your body have figured out how to produce estrogen without the ovaries and you take on all the side effects of menopause without any reduction in pain. (The drugs don’t work for you and the side effects are terrible.)
While surgery is an option for endometriosis patients, the high recurrence rates make it important to have ways to medically (with drugs) manage disease and reduce or delay chances of recurrence.
GnRH analogs are a broad, systemic way to address a prominent feature of the disease. Moving past them will require a better, molecular understanding of disease to find more precise, novel targets to pursue.
Many great scientists are working on this – from examining the disease as a hyper-inflammatory process, possibly autoimmune, or possibly triggered by pathogenic bacteria. Only after this foundational groundwork has been developed will we be able to expand the non-hormonal options doctors have to treat this disease.
At NextGen Jane we spend considerable time speaking with patients who have endometriosis. And despite their pain–and how the disease complicates issues with mental health, fertility, and quality of life– I have not spoken to one woman that wants to take this class of drugs. Not one.
The majority of the patients in our research reject being driven into menopause by such a blunt instrument. New lines of therapy are desperately needed.
At NextGen Jane we are actively rooting for and supporting anyone working to bring non-hormonal options to bear on this grave unmet need.
While this image was created with the assistance of AI, the content of this post was not.
March (Women’s History Month) is generally the month in which I feel most at ease to talk about the things that interest me. With that in mind:
A subset of placental mammals (of which you are one) have spontaneous decidualization (~2%). What does that mean and who cares? Spontaneous decidualization is when your uterus prepares for pregnancy on a regular basis regardless of an implantation event. You will recognize this as your menstrual cycle. You shed your endometrial lining and bleed, in a relatively regular manner for years and years, because your body is preparing for pregnancy every month regardless of whether you are. For evolution to select for such an energetically intense process, shedding endometrial tissue month after month, is nothing short of remarkable.
Further, spontaneous decidualization and menstruation have been observed in fruit bats and elephant shrews, and so it is reasonable to infer that menstruation arose independently multiple times. (I’ll keep this LinkedIn lite and save you the discussion of parsimony, evolutionary convergence and comparative anatomy.) The takeaway: a trait that develops independently 4 times is likely to be an adaptive trait which provides some advantage to reproductive success.
What could be so advantageous to “staying ready” for pregnancy? Many fascinating theories exist to partially answer this question, but the somewhat unsatisfying conclusion to date is: we need more data to reach a consensus.
A different, natural question follows: if spontaneous decidualization is beneficial, are there any consequences to stopping your cycle for extended periods of time? Birth control in general has been transformative to the lives of women, from increasing agency to enabling economic freedom. The use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has provided a highly effective means of birth control and its use has increased substantially since entering the market.
And while studies show a return to fertility after LARC use, these studies are focused on women who have been pregnant before, and who are using copper IUDs where the duration of use is on average less than 2 years. How will 6- to 10-years of progestin IUDs affect time-to-conception for people who have never been pregnant? And are these questions even more relevant as the average age of childbearing increases, people start the use of LARCs at a younger age and are on this method for longer periods of time?
As the paper in the comments highlights, with new molecular tools to evaluate changes in the endometrium, our ability to track and answer these questions will improve over time. It is precisely because birth control is such a critical tool for women that we need to be rigorous about seeking more data, and asking more questions.
While this image was created with the assistance of AI, the content of this post was not.
