Tear evaporation is the primary driver in the majority of cases of DED1-4
Patients with dry eye disease (DED) are significantly more likely to report problems with performing everyday activities, such as3:
A survey of 2171 patients with DED found:
Signs and symptoms caused diminished performance at work
DED has a substantial economic burden—the annual direct costs are estimated at $3.84 billion with annual indirect costs estimated at
With ~38 million Americans affected today, the scope of DED is growing7,8
In addition to an increase in the overall prevalence of DED, many eye care professionals (ECPs) have observed an increase in younger adult patients (18 to 34 years old) over the past decade, as well as in modern lifestyle factors that further complicate the multifactorial nature of the disease.9
In a different survey of over 1000 ECPs9:
76% of ECPs reported an increase in patients between the ages of 18 and 34 with DED symptoms compared with 10 years ago
92% of ECPs reported that the use of modern technology was contributing to DED symptoms
89% of ECPs agreed that DED is becoming more common due to today’s multiscreen lifestyle
—Sheri Rowen, MD
An examination of the mechanisms of DED establishes that tear evaporation is contributing to the impact of DED.1,2
Review select literature expanding on the burden of DED
Patient-reported burden of dry eye disease in the United States: results of an online cross-sectional survey
Dana R, et al. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020
Sign up to stay informed about dry eye disease (DED), find out what your peers think about managing DED, and get updates about the advancements that Bausch + Lomb is pursuing.
References: 1. Lemp MA, Crews LA, Bron AJ, Foulks GN, Sullivan BD. Distribution of aqueous-deficient and evaporative dry eye in a clinic-based patient cohort: a retrospective study. Cornea. 2012;31(5):472-478. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e318225415a 2. Craig JP, Nelson JD, Azar DT, et al. TFOS DEWS II report executive summary. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(4):802-812. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.08.003 3. Miljanović B, Dana R, Sullivan DA, Schaumberg DA. Impact of dry eye syndrome on vision-related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(3):409-415. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2006.11.060 4. Yu J, Asche CV, Fairchild CJ. The economic burden of dry eye disease in the United States: a decision tree analysis. Cornea. 2011;30(4):379-387. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181f7f363 5. Data on file. Bausch & Lomb, Inc; 2023. 6. Al-Mohtaseb Z, Schachter S, Shen Lee B, Garlich J, Trattler W. The relationship between dry eye disease and digital screen use. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:3811-3820. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S321591 7. Dana R, Bradley JL, Guerin A, et al. Estimated prevalence and incidence of dry eye disease based on coding analysis of a large, all-age United States health care system. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;202:47-54. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2019.01.026 8. Downs P. 2020 Dry Eye Products Market Report: A Global Analysis for 2019 to 2025. Market Scope; 2020. 9. Modern technology and a multi-screen lifestyle viewed as important factors in rising prevalence of dry eye disease. News release. PR Newswire; October 17, 2016. Accessed October 4, 2022. https://www.multivu.com/players/English/7893551-shire-dry-eye-disease-awareness/ 10. Charters L. Dry eye pearls for young ophthalmologists. Ophthalmology Times Europe. 2022;18(3):24. Accessed November 17, 2022. https://europe.ophthalmologytimes.com/view/dry-eye-pearls-for-young-ophthalmologists 11. Pflugfelder SC, de Paiva CS. The pathophysiology of dry eye disease: what we know and future directions for research. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(11S):S4-S13. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.07.010