Analysts’ Viewpoint on U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Scenario
Environmental factors such as air quality and personal behaviors including prolonged use of digital devices, which include mobile phones and VDTs are increasing the risk of DED during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Due to lack of accuracy in diagnosing DED, med-tech companies are increasing R&D in devices that use deep learning-based artificial intelligence algorithms to standardize clinical dry eye tests. On the other hand, AS-OCT is being publicized for including fast, non-contact, and in-vivo imaging of corneal structures. Med-tech companies are increasing the availability of meibography devices, since early diagnosis of MGD helps to prevent corneal damage and vision loss.
Meibography is revolutionizing the U.S. dry eye disease diagnostic devices market. The high prevalence of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) among individuals is translating into value-grab opportunities for market stakeholders. As such, meibography is gaining popularity as a non-invasive screening tool for MGD and enables ophthalmologists to provide effective treatment to relieve dry eye symptoms.
Companies in the U.S. dry eye disease diagnostic devices market are increasing the availability of meibography devices to ensure a thorough clinical examination of the eyes with the help of high definition (HD) imaging technology. Eye doctors are using meibography devices to view the health of meibomian glands with optimum accuracy.
Request a sample to get extensive insights into the Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market
The prolonged use of video display terminals (VDTs) has increased the risk of ocular surface disorders such as the dry eye disease (DED) amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Stakeholders in the U.S. dry eye disease diagnostic devices market are gaining cognizance about these findings and increasing the availability of tools.
Even as DED is among the most common eye diseases in the U.S., the pandemic poses risks for DED patients. Nevertheless, participants in the U.S. dry eye disease diagnostic devices market are increasingly focusing on telehealth services and eHealth to stay future-ready in the healthcare landscape. Healthcare providers and med-tech companies are reinventing their care services and product distribution, respectively. The abusive use of mobile phones and TVs, owing to work-from-home settings may lead to poor quality of blinking, thus increasing the risk of DED.
To understand how our report can bring difference to your business strategy, Ask for a brochure
Accurately diagnosing and managing DED is potentially challenging. It has been found that there is a lack of gold standard test for DED diagnosis. Hence, apart from increasing research in anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), med-tech companies are innovating in devices with high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for autonomously distinguishing DED from healthy patients.
Companies in the U.S. dry eye disease diagnostic devices market are developing deep learning models that use an end-to-end black box, which help to improve patient outcomes. The algorithm in this model helps to highlight the patterns of tear film-corneal epithelium during the occlusion, which indicates its efficacy for differentiating AS-OCT images.
Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market
Apart from meibography and AS-OCT devices, eye doctors are opting for corneal topography, which is a computer assisted examination of the cornea. This examination is performed by projecting illuminated rings into the corneal surface and in turn, it comes back to be measured by the instrument.
It has been found that dry eye can affect corneal topography, which may increase HOAs (high-order aberrations) such as itching, burning sensations, and related visual symptoms. Hence, companies in the U.S. dry eye disease diagnostic devices market are increasing the availability of corneal topographers that are playing an instrumental role in preoperative conditions of refractive surgery candidates.
Ocular surface thermographers hold promising potentials to provide valuable insight into the status of the ocular surface. Advancements in the thermographic technology have increased the accuracy of ocular surface thermography measurements, and the technology is being increasingly applied to individuals with and without ocular surface diseases.
New ocular surface thermographers are emerging as an alternative to older infrared (IR) thermographers, since the former allows greater precision for measuring ocular surface thermography in real-time.
Attribute |
Detail |
Market Size Value in 2020 (Base Year) |
US$ 58.3 Mn |
Market Forecast Value in 2031 |
US$ 99.4 Mn |
Growth Rate (CAGR) |
4.4% |
Forecast Period |
2021–2031 |
Quantitative Units |
US$ Mn for Value |
Market Analysis |
It includes cross segment analysis at regional level. Moreover, qualitative analysis includes drivers, restraints, opportunities, key trends, pricing analysis, and parent industry overview. |
Format |
Electronic (PDF) |
Market Segmentation |
|
Country Covered |
|
Companies Covered |
|
Customization Scope |
Available upon request |
Pricing |
Available upon request |
U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market – Segmentation
TMR’s study on the dry eye disease diagnostic devices market in the U.S. includes information divided into three segments: on device type, disease, and end-user.
Device Type |
|
Disease |
|
End-user |
|
Dry eye disease diagnostic devices market in U.S. is expected to reach the value of US$ 99.4 Mn by the end of 2031
Dry eye disease diagnostic devices market in U.S. to expand at a CAGR of 4.4% from 2021 to 2031
Dry eye disease diagnostic devices market in U.S. is driven by Rise in prevalence and incidence rates of dry eye disease
The meibography device segment is expected to account for major share of the Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market in the U.S.
Key players in the dry eye disease diagnostic devices market in the U.S. include Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., OCULUS Optikgeräte GmbH, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, TearLab Corporation, Optovue, Inc.
1. Preface
1.1. Market Definition and Scope
1.2. Market Segmentation
1.3. Key Research Objectives
1.4. Research Highlights
2. Assumptions and Research Methodology
3. Executive Summary: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market
4. Market Overview
4.1. Introduction
4.1.1. Definition
4.2. Overview
4.3. Market Dynamics
4.3.1. Drivers
4.3.2. Restraints
4.3.3. Opportunities
4.4. U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Analysis and Forecast, 2017–2031
4.4.1. Market Revenue Projections (US$ Mn)
5. Key Insights
5.1. Number of facilities for end-user types
5.2. Technological Advancements
5.3. Epidemiology of Dry Eye Disease in the U.S.
5.4. Pricing Analysis
5.5. Key Mergers & Acquisitions
5.6. COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Industry (value chain and short / mid / long term impact)
6. U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Analysis and Forecast, by Device Type
6.1. Introduction & Definition
6.2. Key Findings / Developments
6.3. Market Value Forecast, by Device Type, 2017–2031
6.3.1. Anterior Segment OCT (AS-OCT)
6.3.2. Ocular Surface Thermographer
6.3.3. Corneal Topographer
6.3.4. Osmolarity Testing Device
6.3.5. Fluorophotometer
6.3.6. Interferometer
6.3.7. Meibography Device
6.3.8. Others
6.4. Market Attractiveness Analysis, by Device Type
7. U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Analysis and Forecast, by Disease
7.1. Introduction & Definition
7.2. Key Findings / Developments
7.3. Market Value Forecast, by Disease, 2017–2031
7.3.1. Evaporative Dry Eye Syndrome
7.3.2. Aqueous Dry Eye Syndrome
7.4. Market Attractiveness Analysis, by Disease
8. U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Analysis and Forecast, by End-user
8.1. Introduction & Definition
8.2. Key Findings / Developments
8.3. Market Value Forecast, by Materials by End-user, 2017–2031
8.3.1. Hospitals
8.3.2. Diagnostic Centers
8.3.3. Ophthalmology Centers/Clinic
8.3.4. Others
8.4. Market Attractiveness Analysis, by End-user
9. Competition Landscape
9.1. Company Profiles
9.1.1. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc.
9.1.1.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.1.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.1.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.1.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.2. OCULUS Optikgeräte GmbH
9.1.2.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.2.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.2.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.2.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.3. Carl Zeiss Meditec AG
9.1.3.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.3.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.3.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.3.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.4. TearLab Corporation
9.1.4.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.4.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.4.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.4.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.5. Optovue, Inc.
9.1.5.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.5.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.5.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.5.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.6. AXIM Biotechnologies
9.1.6.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.6.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.6.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.6.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.7. Topcon Corporation
9.1.7.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.7.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.7.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.7.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.8. Quantel Medical
9.1.8.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.8.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.8.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.8.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.9. Essilor Instruments
9.1.9.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.9.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.9.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.9.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.10. I-MED Pharma inc.
9.1.10.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.10.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.10.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.10.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.11. Box Medical Solutions Inc.
9.1.11.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.11.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.11.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.11.4. Strategic Overview
9.1.12. NIDEK CO., LTD.
9.1.12.1. Company Overview (HQ, Business Segments, Employee Strength)
9.1.12.2. Product Portfolio
9.1.12.3. SWOT Analysis
9.1.12.4. Strategic Overview
List of Tables
Table 01: Number of facilities for end-user types (2020)
Table 02: Pricing Analysis
Table 03: Key Development – Acquisitions & Mergers
Table 04: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Value (US$ Mn) Forecast, by Device Type, 2017–2031
Table 05: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Value (US$ Mn) Forecast, by Disease, 2017–2031
Table 06: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Value (US$ Mn) Forecast, by End-user, 2017–2031
List of Figures
Figure 01: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostics & Treatment Market Value (US$ Mn) Forecast, 2017–2031
Figure 02: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Value Share, by Device type, 2020
Figure 03: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Value Share, by Device, 2020
Figure 04: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Value Share, by End-user, 2020
Figure 05: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Value Share Analysis, by Device Type, 2020 and 2031
Figure 06: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Attractiveness Analysis, by Device Type, 2021–2031
Figure 07: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Meibography Device, 2017–2031
Figure 08: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Corneal Topographer, 2017–2031
Figure 09: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Anterior Segment OCT (AS-OCT), 2017–2031
Figure 10: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Osmolarity Testing Device, 2017–2031
Figure 11: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Ocular Surface Thermographer, 2017–2031
Figure 12: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Interferometer, 2017–2031
Figure 13: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Fluorophotometer, 2017–2031
Figure 14: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Others, 2017–2031
Figure 15: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Value Share Analysis, by Disease, 2020 and 2031
Figure 16: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Attractiveness Analysis, by Disease, 2021–2031
Figure 17: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Evaporative Dry Eye Syndrome, 2017–2031
Figure 18: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Aqueous Dry Eye Syndrome, 2017–2031
Figure 19: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Value Share Analysis, by End-user, 2020 and 2031
Figure 20: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Attractiveness Analysis, by End-user, 2021–2031
Figure 21: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Hospitals, 2017–2031
Figure 22: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Diagnostic Centers, 2017–2031
Figure 23: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Ophthalmology Centers/Clinics, 2017–2031
Figure 24: U.S. Dry Eye Disease Diagnostic Devices Market Revenue (US$ Mn), by Others, 2017–2031
Figure 25: Johnson & Johnson - Revenue (US$ Mn) and Y-o-Y Growth (%), 2017–2020
Figure 26: Johnson & Johnson - Medical Devices Segment - Breakdown of Net Sales (%), by Region/Country, 2020
Figure 27: Johnson & Johnson - Revenue Breakdown of Net Sales (%), by Business Segment, 2020
Figure 28: Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Revenue (US$ Mn) and Y-o-Y Growth (%), 2017–2020
Figure 29: Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Breakdown of Net Sales, by Geography/Region, 2020
Figure 30: Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, R&D Expenses (US$ Mn) and Y-o-Y Growth (%), 2017–2020
Figure 31: Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Breakdown of Net Sales, by Strategic Business Unit, 2020
Figure 32: Topcon Corporation, Revenue (US$ Mn) and Y-o-Y Growth (%), 2017–2020
Figure 33: Topcon Corporation, R&D Expenses (US$ Mn) and Y-o-Y Growth (%), 2017–2020
Figure 34: Topcon Corporation, Breakdown of Net Sales, by Geography/Region, 2020
Figure 35: Revenue (US$ Mn) and Y-o-Y Growth (%), 2017–2019
Figure 36: Breakdown of Net Sales (%), by Segment, 2019
Figure 37: Breakdown of Net Sales (%), by Domestic and International Sales, 2019