BLOG: Prediction: Dry eye will replace glaucoma as top three disease
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Do you ever wonder why there are so many dry eye treatments coming to market?
It’s because investors are enthusiastic to support innovation for a disease with steep, continued growth and significant impact on those afflicted. It’s a recipe for profit, yet it’s good for both doctors and patients, who need more treatment options.
We know all the drivers of the growth in dry eye: an aging population spending more time on screens, increasingly wearing masks and CPAP devices, and consuming processed foods that fuel the disease. But how will growth in dry eye affect the future of eye care? I predict dry eye will replace glaucoma in terms of frequency of office visits for ophthalmologists.
Historically, dry eye accounted for fewer than 2% of office visits to an ophthalmologist, far behind the top three of cataract (26%), refractive disorders (17%) and glaucoma (16%), according to a 1990 publication in Public Health Reports. Glaucoma affects only 3 million Americans, and only about 10% of those have visual loss from the disease, amounting to 300,000 Americans, according to the Glaucoma Research Foundation. Treatments are getting simpler and visits less frequent, with more options for home monitoring, sustained drug delivery and simple procedures that are highly effective in halting this disease.
Dry eye, by contrast, affects at least 30 million Americans — 10 times as many as glaucoma and about 10% of our entire population — and virtually all dry eye sufferers have some degree of visual impact. Sure, visual loss from dry eye is reversible, unlike glaucoma, but anyone afflicted knows its impact on productivity and quality of life is significant. Most importantly, it affects about 100 times more people. Doesn’t that deserve more chair time?
Is dry eye less “fun” to treat than surgical diseases? Among cataract patients, 75% have dry eye, and its impact on surgical success is clear. What good is a perfect accommodating IOL if the patient has constant visual fluctuations? Even the most surgically oriented among us need to run toward, not away from, this group of diseases.
Lastly, dry eye has historically fallen in the subspecialty of cornea and external disease, but does it deserve its own fellowship? If you were in residency, could you pick a subspecialty with higher incidence, innovation and impact on patients? Outside of retina, there’s no match.
- Reference:
- Chiang YP, et al. Public Health Rep. 1995;110(2):147-153.
Collapse