|
Introduction
International manufacturers of contact lenses and care systems (see
Table I for the names of the contributing companies), acting
under the umbrella of EUROMCONTACT, collect and report data on
product sales throughout European markets (see Tables II, III,
IV for the assessed and non assessed countries, markets) since
2003. To facilitate trend observation this report closely
follows the earlier ones.
The data collection process
The European Headquarters of the participating companies submit
each quarter the numbers of lenses sold (units, shipping data)
and their market value (lenses and lens care products) at
ex-manufacturers’ prices (sell in data) to an independent
company. This company then removes manufacturer-specific
information and returns the aggregate numbers by country, by
segment and for the total of all countries to the reporting
companies and to EUROMCONTACT. The report covers all soft lens
and lens care market segments. It also shows the change versus
previous year. The data is primarily for the contributing
manufacturers, who are thus able to learn about their relative
performance. It is however also of interest to contact lens
practitioners and the whole eye care industry.
This report reflects on the soft lens wearer base within a
number of European countries, based on 2008 sales. The
participating companies are believed to cover around 80 to 90%
of the disposable lens market in these countries.
The wearer base
The number of wearers is a good indicator for the ‘success’ of
contact lenses in the market place. Other factors, such as the
value of a country’s market and segments, are clearly important,
too, but are subject to external factors such as currency
fluctuations, price promotions and new product launches.
The number of people who wear contact lenses within a market is
usually called the ‘wearer base’ and is presented here as the
fraction of adults (aged 15 and over) who wear contact lenses
within a population. It would be more interesting to express it
as the fraction of the population needing vision correction, but
contrary to population data, this number is not readily
available.
The wearer base was calculated by using the EUROMCONTACT
provided manufacturer sales information. Data was provided for
the following lens categories:
soft daily disposable (DD),
soft weekly/bi-weekly and monthly replacement lenses (W/B&M),
conventional soft lenses (all other replacement frequencies than
the above, CS),
soft silicone-hydrogel lenses (SiHy, already and also included
in the W/B&M),
Collected, but not used in this publication were:
total soft frequent replacement (lenses disposed of every month
or more frequently, including DD, W/B&M and colored lenses),
soft coloured/cosmetic lenses (daily disposables, frequent
replacement and traditional),
rigid lenses.
This report does go into details on rigid lenses, as a
significant proportion of rigid lens sales (for example in the
United Kingdom and in the Netherlands) is accounted for by
companies not taking part in this data collection process.
This assessment compares only soft lenses and among those the
daily disposable (DD), weekly/bi-weekly, monthly (W/B&M) lenses
and conventional lenses (CS) and their respective wearer base.
The countries and regions evaluated in this article are listed
in Table II.
For each lens category and for each country or region, the
number of wearers was calculated by taking the yearly figures
for units sold, and then dividing these values by an assumed
annual ‘consumption’ rate for each wearer. Analog to the
previous years, in this analysis, these values were set as 350
lenses per year for daily disposables (1), 26 lenses per year
for frequent replacement lenses (1), and 2.7 lenses per year for
soft traditional lenses (2). The number of wearers for each
category was then divided by the population of 15 year to 64
years of age for each country or region to provided a wearer
base value as a proportion of the population (in %) (3).
Results
The total value of lenses across all 21 markets was 1.182
billion Euros, and a growth of 7.71%. The total for the 11
reported in here was 1.078 billion (+7.2%), which is 91.2 % of
the total 21 markets. All but one market (South Africa, -13.5%)
showed a positive growth in value. The strongest growth was seen
in United Arab Emirates (+43.3%) and Russia (+31.7%), the
slowest in France (+3.8%) (Fig. 1).
The split in the segments by value) for the total of the 21
markets is: 40.2 % for the Daily Disposables, W/B&M 54.9% and CS
2.7%. (see also Figure 2, 3 and Table V).
The Nordic region has again the highest total penetration rate.
Its 8.9% is up +2.9% versus 2007. The lowest penetration among
the countries covered in this publication report is in Russia
(0.65%, +35.6%). This number for Russia does not include the
daily disposable segment data, which is not available (following
non disclosure rules in the data collection system, i.e.
suppressing one segment in order to show the total.) Beside
South Africa, only Italy
(-0.04%) and Hungary (-0.26%) showed a decline in the total
number of wearers. With a growth of 3.4% to 7.01%, the
Netherlands lost the number two position again to UK-IE (+5.1%
to 7.17%). The interesting point about this is, that the value
growth in the Netherlands was actually higher than that of the
UK-IE (+7.34% versus 4.65%). Part of the reason is in the split
of the segments (DD, W/B&M, CS). The number of Daily Disposable
wearers in the UK-IE is much larger than in the NL, which is
dominated by the W/B&M wearers. Switzerland’s total of 6.95%
(+10.4%) is just shy of the 7% mark.
Daily disposables (DD) are worn by more than 4% in Nordic
(4.71%, 52.8 of all wearers). Next biggest is UK-IE with 3.2%,
44.4% of all). W/B&M lens wearers represent 78.6% of all wearers
in the Netherlands.
Silicone-Hydrogel lenses
Over the past years, daily disposables and silicone-hydrogel
lenses were important drivers for the contact lens market. It is
therefore of interest to see, what percentage the silicone
hydrogel lenses have of the W/B&M segment (see Figure 4).
Russia is leading this line up with close to 3/4 of the value
going to Silicone Hydrogels. Interesting to note, that Nordic,
the UK-IE and Switzerland, the highest, second and fourth
highest penetration countries, also have shares above 60%, as
has Austria! The high penetration in the Netherlands are not
following this pattern. Despite its otherwise not great
performance, Germany is doing well in SiHy (51.3%).
Potential errors and caveats
A potential source of error in this model is that the
assumptions of the annual consumption rates of lenses are
imprecise. However, in similar market analyses in the United
Kingdom, the assumed rates used have proven to be robust and
seem generally well accepted. In any case, any general error
with these values would still provide a good relative comparison
between markets and their consistent use a good trend with
regard to the markets development.
It may also be that consumption rates per modality differ
between markets. People in Russia might use more or less daily
disposable lenses each year than wearers in Switzerland for
example. At this time, there is little available information
about differences in wearing patterns across Europe, and no
allowance has been made for this within this model. It is quite
possible that wearing patterns across the total wearer
population are reasonably similar between countries, and that
the overall data would therefore not be greatly affected.
A shown decline may not be a real one, as sales may be shifting
from participating to non participating manufacturers. Launches
of new products and an initial sell in of stocks and/ or product
recalls, out of stocks may also affect shown wearers numbers.
An important caveat to this work is that it only covers soft
contact lenses. It is also recognized that some local lens
suppliers (mainly gas permeable and some traditional soft lenses),
who may have significant market shares, may have been excluded
(for example, in Germany, Switzerland UK and Ireland). Therefore,
the total CL wearer base demonstrated here may be different to
the actual total wearer base, especially in countries with high
usage of gas permeable contact lenses such as Germany and the
Netherlands.
Lens care products
For the lens care market, only values were collected, as
different bottle sizes and usage quantities needed per system
and case does not allow for a simple ‘units’ system). The
following segments were collected (no change in the collected
segments to previous reports, years):
1. Hydrogen Peroxide (HP) based solutions/ systems,
2. Multipurpose (MPS) solutions,
3. Soaking solutions (mainly RGP care products);
non-multipurpose chemical disinfectants,
4. Cleaners (for rigid and soft lenses),
5. Enzymatic protein removal products,
6. Rinsing solutions (saline),
7. Rewetting (drops, solutions),
8. Total (sum of all segments).
However data was not available in such detail in all countries,
even not for the first two, which are the most important ones.
This report will therefore look at totals and the largest
segments (HP and MPS) only.
The total Lens Care market across all 21 markets grew by 2.5% to
€ 252.6 million. 14 out of the 21 markets had a positive Lens
Care growth, the other seven declined.
MPS grew by 5.6% in value, while HP declined by 8.4%. Together,
HP and MPS make up 75.2% of the total LCP market.
The total MPS market value is now 3.22 times the HP one (up from
2.81) (see Table IV for all countries, which had MPS and HP
data).
Annual lens care value per wearer
Weekly/ Bi-weekly and Monthly wearers, as well as Conventional
Soft lens wearers use MPS or HP solutions to disinfect their
lenses when not worn. Therefore, when taking the combined value
of the MPS and HP and dividing it by the number of the W/B&M
wearers plus the CS wearers, one can calculate an annual lens
care value per wearer. This ignores the fact that some do wearer
their weekly/biweekly & monthly lenses on an extended or even an
continuous wear basis and thus do not use lens care products.
|
|
This annual value of lens care per wearer is highest in Austria
and lowest in UK-Ireland. The difference is 5.0 times! There can
be several reasons. The main one is, that a major supplier of
LCP in the UK-IE is missing (SAUFLON). Other factors could be
that the prices in Austria are much higher or that the wearers
in Austria are using more bottles in the year, or it can be a
combination. Another option is the mix between less expansive
MPS and more expansive HP.
Comparison of the total cost of the different
systems for the eye care professional
Taking the assumed consumption of lenses, one can have an annual
cost of lenses per wearer. Adding into this the annual lens care
(for W/B&M as well as CS), one can get the costs at which the
eye care professionals purchase the annual supply for all
different systems.
Taking the annual cost for DD as a basis (100) in each country,
one can express the other systems costs relative to the DD. This
was only done for countries that had all lens segment (W/B&M and
CS) and MPS and HP data (See Figure 5).
The countries are listed in the order of lowest to highest cost
for DD in that country. It is interesting to note, that in some
countries, like the Nordic, Switzerland and Austria, there is
little difference between the systems, at least on the ECP level.
In others the differences are huge, e.g. France, where CS are
more expensive. Like for the lens care, this can have different
reasons. Next to the differences already discussed in the lens
care section above, it could again be the compliance, then the
mix (here between
weekly/ bi-weekly and monthly among the W/B&M), which may be a
driver in the Nordic, as the W/B are strong in Denmark. It can
also be the price, which can then again be the actual price or
the mix of more expensive Si-Hy, toric and bi focal versus
simple spheres. For each country there is a mix of the reasons
which will apply. It goes too far to discuss this in detail here.
EUROMCONTACT thanks all participating
companies for their contribution and cooperation.
References:
1. Based on the annual survey of contact lens wear at Eurolens
Research, UMIST.
2. Jones L, Woods CA and Efron N. Life expectancy of rigid gas
permeable and high water content contact lenses. CLAO J. 22:
258-261.
3. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
Contact:
Helmer Schweizer
Past-President EUROMCONTACT a.i.s.b.l.
c/o CIBA Vision
Hardhofstrasse 15
CH 8424 Embrach
Switzerland
Fig. 1. Lens value growth rates across the 11
assessed markets.
Fig. 2. Split of market (all 21 collected,
value, in %) 2008.
Fig. 3. DD-W/B&M-CS wearers in population
15-64 years of age 2008.
Fig. 4. Silicone-Hydrogels as % of W/B&M
2008vs 2007.
Fig. 5. Comparison of the yearly cost of the
different systems to the ECP, relative to DD, per Country,
includes lens care for W/B&M and CS system.
|
Contributing companies
(2008) |
| AMO |
Alcon |
| Avizor |
Bausch & Lomb |
| CIBA Vision |
Cooper Vision |
| Johnson & Johnson Vision
Care |
Menicon Europe |
Tab. I. Contributing
companies (2008).
| Country/
Region |
Abbreviation |
| Austria |
AT |
| Belgium & Luxembourg
|
BE-LU |
| France |
FR |
| Germany |
DE |
| Italy |
IT |
| Netherlands |
NL |
| Nordic Region |
NO-SE-DK-FI |
| Russia |
RU |
| Switzerland |
CH |
| Spain |
ES |
| United Kingdom & Ireland
|
UK-IE |
Tab. II. Markets assessed –
Abbreviations are based on Internet top level domains.
| Country/
Region |
Abbreviation |
| United Arab Emirates
|
AE |
| Czech |
CZ |
| Greece |
GR |
| Hungary |
HU |
| Israel |
IL |
| Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
|
SA |
| Poland |
PL |
| Portugal |
PT |
| Turkey |
TU |
| South Africa |
ZA |
Tab. III. Markets collected
but not assessed in this report – Abbreviations are based on
Internet top level domains.
| Country
|
MPS/HP 2008
|
Change from previous
year |
| AT |
0.98 |
4.4% |
| BE-LU |
2.19 |
3.3% |
| CH |
1.24 |
0.7% |
| DE |
1.26 |
18.7% |
| ES |
3.56 |
11.5% |
| FR |
3.58 |
14.0% |
| IT |
2.23 |
2.5% |
| NL |
3.76 |
16.7% |
| NO-SE-DK-FI |
6.52 |
8.7% |
| UK-IE |
2.31 |
10.4% |
| Total |
3.22 |
14.9% |
Tab. IV. Size of MPS segment
versus the HP one, by country.
|
|
