Methodology

Population: 1,253,000 US patients, all severities. Pooled US claims data (Medicare, 2007 to 2017; Medicaid in five states, 1999 to 2012; two commercial claims databases, 2000 to 2018), standardized to the 2020 Census population estimate. Source: Lewis JD, et al., Gastroenterology, 2023 ↗

Cost: $18,198/patient/year. All-cause direct healthcare cost (drug plus medical) for UC patients, vs. $7,170/year for matched non-IBD controls. Commercially insured US cohort (OptumHealth), n=9,353 UC patients matched 1:5 to 46,765 controls, patients identified 1999–2017. Source: Pilon D, et al., Current Medical Research and Opinion, 2020 ↗

Drugs:no current, population-wide, sourced drug-only figure exists. The only pharmacy-isolated figure found ($2,423/patient/year) is from 2000–2005 claims - before infliximab was even UC-approved, let alone the vedolizumab/ustekinumab/tofacitinib/ upadacitinib/risankizumab era - and would badly understate today's spend if used as-is. Left unsourced rather than presented with false precision.

Population: 1,011,000 US patients, all severities. Same source and methodology as UC above (Lewis JD, et al., 2023).

Cost: $46,100/patient/year. Mean per-patient-per-year total healthcare cost (drug plus medical, not drug price alone) for CD patients newly initiated on biologic therapy with no indicators of suboptimal treatment. Commercially insured US cohort, n=5,107, 2019 USD. Source: Pilon D, et al., Crohn's & Colitis 360, 2022 ↗

Drugs: no current, population-wide, sourced drug-only figure exists - the only pharmacy-isolated figure found is from 2003–2004 claims, predating every CD biologic except infliximab. Left unsourced rather than presented with false precision; same gap as Ulcerative Colitis above.

TAM context = 12.2 million US adults, the upper end of an imaging-based NASH prevalence estimate of 3.3-12.2 million, x $20,346 estimated direct all-cause healthcare cost per patient per year. Population source: Vilar-Gomez E et al., 'Prevalence of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Associated Fibrosis Stages Among US Adults Using Imaging-Based vs Biomarker-Based Noninvasive Tests,' Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38370007/. Cost source: Tapper EB et al., 'Healthcare resource utilization and costs of care in the United States for patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis,' Journal of Medical Economics (2023), doi:10.1080/13696998.2023.2184967: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36866575/. The $20,346 figure is a transparent weighted mean of the source's four FIB-4 strata (n=2,345 at $16,744; n=3,289 at $19,637; n=571 at $25,728; n=538 at $34,667), not a separately published headline estimate. The population source reports a wide range and the upper bound is used deliberately as a TAM context, not a precise diagnosed-patient count. The cost source is a 2016-2020 coded-NASH cohort with claims-linked data, reports all-cause costs in December 2020 US dollars, and does not represent drug revenue or a treatment price. MASH is the current name for NASH; MASLD/NAFL without steatohepatitis and alcohol-associated steatohepatitis are excluded. source ↗

TAM context = more than 1.5 million people in the US with rheumatoid arthritis x $12,509 annual total direct medical cost per patient. Population source: NIH MedlinePlus Magazine, citing the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 'Rheumatoid arthritis: Understanding a difficult joint disease' (2018): https://magazine.medlineplus.gov/article/rheumatoid-arthritis-understanding-a-difficult-joint-disease. Cost source: Hresko A, Lin T-C, Solomon DH, 'Medical Care Costs Associated With Rheumatoid Arthritis in the US: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis,' Arthritis Care & Research (2018), doi:10.1002/acr.23512: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29316377/. The cost estimate is the random-effects meta-analysis for all RA patients using any treatment regimen, in 2015 US dollars; it excludes indirect productivity costs and is lower than the separate estimate for patients receiving biologic DMARDs. Population and cost vintages do not match and the population is rounded; these limitations are disclosed rather than hidden. source ↗

Population: 912,292 US adults (0.41% of ~225.56M adults aged 20+), diagnosed via NHANES survey data collected January 2017 to March 2020 - the first national PsA prevalence estimate from a survey representative of the noninstitutionalized US adult population, as opposed to prior clinic-based or narrow-geography estimates. Source: Poudel D, et al., Arthritis & Rheumatology, 2024 (ACR Convergence 2024) ↗

Cost: $29,742/patient/year. All-cause annual healthcare cost per PsA patient, 2019 USD. IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, n=21,428, study period 2009–2020. Source: Merola JF, Dennis N, Chakravarty SD, et al., Clinical Rheumatology, 2021 ↗

Drugs:$14,174/patient/year. Mean pharmacy claims cost across the full identified PsA cohort (not biologic-only), 2011–2012 claims. Likely leans toward an upper bound: this cohort's 61% biologic-use rate is higher than the true population-wide rate, since it selects for patients actively engaged in claims-generating care. Source: Walsh JA, et al., Journal of Rheumatology, 2016 ↗

TAM context = 204,295 US people who fulfilled 1997 ACR systemic lupus erythematosus classification criteria in the CDC National Lupus Registry meta-analysis (estimate applied to the 2018 US Census population) x approximately $22,000 annual all-cause medical plus prescription expenditure per adult with SLE. Population source: Izmirly PM et al., 'Prevalence of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in the United States: Estimates from a Meta-Analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Lupus Registries,' Arthritis & Rheumatology (2021): https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/106843. Cost source: Grabich S et al., 'Real-world burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in the USA: a comparative cohort study from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 2016-2018,' Lupus Science & Medicine (2022), doi:10.1136/lupus-2021-000640: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35609952/. The MEPS study reports approximately $17,000 annual medical expenditure plus $5,000 prescription expenditure in 2018 US dollars; the sum is used here as a disclosed direct-cost context, not a forecast of drug sales. Scope mismatch: the prevalence estimate is registry-based and all-age, while the cost study is adult, nationally representative, non-institutionalized MEPS data. source ↗

Population:19,841,686 US adults with atopic dermatitis (7.6% self-reported "ever diagnosed" prevalence, all severities), 2024 National Health Interview Survey. Adults only - pediatric AD is actually more prevalent (12.7% of children in 2024) but has no comparably current per-patient cost study to pair it with, a disclosed scope-narrowing rather than an oversight. Source: Chan KR, Keddie SH, Flohr C, Tsoi MF, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2025 ↗

Cost: $10,474/patient/year. Average annual total direct healthcare cost (outpatient + pharmacy + inpatient) for US adults with atopic dermatitis - not an incremental cost vs. a matched non-AD cohort. 2019 USD, 4,784 adults from a dermatology EMR database linked to claims, 2016–2018. This cohort is drawn from patients under active dermatologic specialist care, which plausibly skews toward more symptomatic/treated disease than the broader self-reported population used for the population figure above - applying it to the full population likely overstates the true population-wide average. Source: Wang X, Boytsov NN, Gorritz M, et al., Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy, 2022 ↗

Drugs: $1,168/patient/year ($254 topical + $914 systemic). AD-attributed medication cost specifically, same paper/cohort as the total-cost figure above - isolated from the broader $3,886/patient all-cause pharmacy figure the same cohort shows, which would overstate AD drug spend by including non-AD prescriptions. Only 3.6% of this cohort was on biologic therapy specifically; 42.4% on any systemic therapy. Source: Wang X, Boytsov NN, Gorritz M, et al., Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy, 2022 ↗

Atopic dermatitis's population and cost figures come from two different cohorts.The population figure is a broad, self-reported "ever diagnosed" NHIS estimate across all severities; the cost figure comes from a narrower, dermatology-EMR-linked claims cohort of patients already under active specialist care. Applying that cost to the full population plausibly overstates the true population-wide average - the same direction of mismatch as this project's other disclosed population/cost scope gaps. No comparably current aggregate cost estimate was found to independently cross-check the implied total against.

Population: 7,900,000 US adults with a physician-diagnosed history of psoriasis, all severities (3.0% prevalence, 2023 National Health Interview Survey). An updated re-analysis by the same lead authors as the original 2021 NHANES-based (2011–2014) 3.0% estimate, confirming prevalence has held stable for a decade. Source: Armstrong AW, Mehta MD, Schupp CW, et al., Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2025;92(4):917–919 (published online Dec 2024) ↗

Cost:$11,062/patient/year, all-cause total annual healthcare cost for psoriasis patients (IBM MarketScan Commercial Database claims, 142,531 patients, study period 2009–2020). Not an incremental cost vs. a matched non-psoriasis cohort - the same study's matched control group (163,959 patients) shows a $7,470/patient/year cost, implying an incremental/attributable cost of roughly $3,592/patient/year, disclosed here rather than silently picked. Source: Merola JF, Dennis N, Chakravarty SD, et al., Clinical Rheumatology, 2021;40(10):4061–4070 ↗

Population x cost implies a ~$87.4B total US attributable cost - the same order of magnitude as an independently reported ~$128B 2021-USD aggregate total-cost figure for psoriasis found in secondary press coverage, with our lower figure consistent with covering direct healthcare cost only, not indirect/productivity loss.

Drugs:no current, population-wide, sourced drug-only figure exists. Dividing total US psoriasis drug-market spend (~$9.5–10.4B, 2023–2024, commercial market research) by the population above gives roughly $1,200–1,320/patient/year, but that commercial estimate's methodology isn't transparent enough to cite with confidence - a rough bottom-up cross-check from major branded biologics' reported revenue suggests the true figure could plausibly be 2x higher. Left unsourced rather than presented with false precision.

Psoriasis's cost figure is total cost, not incremental.The source study also reports a matched-control cohort's own annual cost ($7,470/patient/year), implying the incremental/attributable cost of psoriasis itself is closer to $3,592/patient/year - disclosed in the Psoriasis section above rather than silently picked, the same total-vs-incremental distinction already flagged for Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and Atopic dermatitis.

Population: 107,000,000 US adults (42.5% of the adult population), BMI ≥30 (or ≥27 with a weight-related comorbidity). State-level modeled prevalence estimate, 2022 data. Cross-checked against NHANES Aug 2021–Aug 2023 measured-exam prevalence of 40.3% (CDC NCHS Data Brief No. 508, Sept 2024) - the modeled estimate below was used since it publishes a direct national headcount rather than requiring a rate to be multiplied through a separately-sourced census total. Source: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, JAMA, Jan 2026 ↗

Cost:$1,861/patient/year. Excess (attributable) annual medical expenditure for US adults with obesity vs. a non-obese comparison group, 2019 USD. MEPS 2011–2016 pooled, NHANES-adjusted for BMI self-report bias. Replaces an earlier figure that priced this row by branded-drug list price alone (mean of Wegovy/Zepbound net prices, $6,829–$7,973/yr) - every sibling Cardiometabolic/Cardiovascular row on this page uses attributable healthcare cost, not a specific drug class's price, and Obesity was the one exception until this correction. Source: Ward ZJ, Bleich SN, Long MW, Gortmaker SL, PLOS ONE, 2021 ↗

Drugs: $99/patient/year. 2024 US net sales of the two approved obesity-indication GLP-1 drugs (Wegovy + Zepbound, ~$10.63B combined), divided across the full 107M-patient population. Only ~11% of diagnosed obesity/overweight patients received any GLP-1 prescription in 2024 (FAIR Health claims analysis, May 2025) - over 80% received no anti-obesity pharmacotherapy, bariatric surgery, or behavioral-health service at all. Excludes compounded semaglutide/tirzepatide and off-label use of diabetes-labeled GLP-1s for weight loss, both likely material and both pushing the true figure higher. Source: company-reported FY2024 US net sales ↗

Obesity and type 2 diabetes population figures are current as of the 2022/2023 source data (published Jan 2026). The obesity cost figure previously reflected net GLP-1 drug price alone (mean of Wegovy/Zepbound); corrected 2026-08-07 to the same total-attributable-cost definition T2D already used, after that construct was flagged as inconsistent with the rest of this page and as materially overstating the market (assumed every patient was on a branded GLP-1, when real-world uptake was ~11% in 2024).

Population: ~27,000,000 US adults with diagnosed type 2 diabetes (29.1 million diagnosed diabetes overall, minus ~2.1 million diagnosed type 1), 2023 data. Source: CDC, National Diabetes Statistics Report, Jan 2026 release ↗

Cost: $12,022/patient/year. Average annual medical expenditure attributable to diabetes per patient, diagnosed diabetes overall - a type-2-only cost breakout is not separately published, and type 2 accounts for ~90–95% of diagnosed cases, so this figure is used with that caveat rather than derived further. Source: American Diabetes Association, Diabetes Care, 2024 ↗

Drugs: $4,670/patient/year. Diabetes-attributed prescription-medication spend across the full 26.3M treated population (not just those who filled a script), 80.3% of $153.2B total diabetes-treatment spend. Source: AHRQ, MEPS Statistical Brief #568, Dec 2025 ↗

Population: 125,900,000 US adults (47.3% of the adult population) have high blood pressure, using the 2017 ACC/AHA threshold (systolic ≥130 or diastolic ≥80 mmHg). 2021–2023 NHANES cycle. Source: American Heart Association, 2026 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics Update, Circulation, Jan 2026 ↗

Cost: $2,759/patient/year. Total healthcare expenditure attributable to hypertension (not drug price alone - most first-line antihypertensives are cheap generics, so a drug-price-only figure would badly understate this market). 2019 USD, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) household-component data, noninstitutionalized US adults 18+. Source: Wang Y, et al., American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2024 ↗

Drugs:~$275/patient/year. No single source states this directly - triangulated from three AHRQ MEPS statistical briefs (2008–2010 national antihypertensive spend ÷ treated population, giving $348–$387) discounted for the sharp generic-price decline documented since (median per-user antihypertensive cost fell from $322 to $99, 2007–2019, as first-line classes went generic). Confirms this row's own point above: drugs are a small fraction (~10%) of hypertension's real economic burden. Source: AHRQ, MEPS Statistical Brief #382 ↗

Hypertension population figure is current as of the 2021–2023 NHANES cycle (published Jan 2026); the cost figure is 2019 MEPS data, not inflation-adjusted. Hypertension uses the same total-attributable-cost definition as every other row on this page.

Population:19,900,000 US adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD - coronary heart disease, stroke, and peripheral artery disease), age-standardized prevalence 7.5%. 2015–2018 NHANES cycle - an older cycle than this project's Hypertension/ Heart Failure figures (2021–2023), the most recent-vintage ASCVD-specific estimate found. Source: Zhang X, Chen Z, Fang A, et al., American Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 2024 ↗

Cost: $19,145/patient/year. Average annual totaldirect healthcare expenditure for US adults with ASCVD - not an incremental cost vs. a matched non-ASCVD cohort, unlike this project's Hypertension/Heart Failure/CKD figures - since ASCVD care spans hospitalization, procedures, and long-term lipid-lowering/antiplatelet therapy rather than one dominant drug class. 2019 USD, pooled 2008–2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data, 2018–2019 sub-period. Source: Shah CH, Fonarow GC, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Cardiovascular Diabetology, 2024 ↗

Drugs:$1,139/patient/year. Cardiovascular-medication-specific spend (statins/other lipid-lowering agents, antiplatelets, antihypertensives, antianginals), isolated from all other drug-class spend, 2012–2013 MEPS. Population-wide, so heavily diluted by cheap generic statins/antiplatelets - under 5% of ASCVD patients are on a PCSK9 inhibitor despite most very-high-risk patients qualifying. Predates PCSK9 inhibitor price cuts (2018) and bempedoic acid's 2020 launch, so likely understates current spend. Source: Salami JA, et al., Journal of the American Heart Association, 2017 ↗

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease population figure is a 2015–2018 NHANES estimate, older than this project's Hypertension/Heart Failure figures (2021–2023) - the most recent-vintage ASCVD-specific prevalence estimate found. Its cost figure is total direct healthcare cost for the ASCVD population, not incremental/attributable vs. a matched non-ASCVD cohort - the same total-vs-incremental distinction flagged for Psoriasis and Atopic dermatitis below, not a different construct entirely.

TAM = US adults with heart failure (AHA 2026 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics Update, Circulation, Jan 2026, 2021-2023 NHANES cycle -- the same cycle and primary document already used for this project's Hypertension market row) x per-person annual incremental healthcare expenditure attributable to a heart failure diagnosis (Bhatnagar R, Fonarow GC, Heidenreich PA, Ziaeian B, JACC: Heart Failure, 2022, pooled 2009-2018 MEPS data, 2018 USD). This is total attributable healthcare cost adjusted for demographics/comorbidities, not drug price alone -- heart failure management spans hospitalization, devices, and guideline-directed medical therapy, so a drug-price-only figure would understate the real market, same reasoning as the Hypertension market row. source ↗

TAM = US adults with CKD (CDC, "Chronic Kidney Disease in the United States," national estimates updated March 2026 -- a lab/NHANES-based surveillance definition, not self-report, since ~87% of adults with CKD are unaware they have it) x per-person annual incremental (attributable) healthcare expenditure for CKD vs. a non-CKD comparison group, adjusted for demographics and comorbidities (Ozieh MN, Bishu KG, Dismuke CE, Egede LE, BMC Health Services Research, 2017, pooled 2002-2011 MEPS data, 2014 USD). This is total attributable healthcare cost, not drug price alone -- CKD management spans labs, nephrology care, cardiovascular-complication treatment, and dialysis/transplant risk, same reasoning as the Hypertension and Heart Failure market rows. A smaller alternative attributable-cost estimate ($4,746/yr, 2013 USD, Small et al., BMC Nephrology 2017, single 2011-2013 MEPS pool) was found and not used -- preferred Ozieh's decade-pooled estimate for a larger effective sample, but the ~3.7x gap between the two published figures is real and not fully reconciled; both rely on MEPS self-reported CKD status, a genuine limitation for this specific disease since CKD is usually diagnosed only via lab values the patient doesn't see. source ↗

Population:1,103,895 US persons aged 13+ living with diagnosed HIV (diagnosed by year-end 2023, alive at year-end 2024). Deliberately diagnosed only - undiagnosed persons aren't receiving antiretroviral therapy and aren't yet an addressable treatment market. Source: CDC, National HIV Prevention and Care Objectives: 2026 Update, May 2026 ↗

Cost:$53,945/patient/year. Mean total annual all-cause healthcare cost per person with HIV, 2023 cohort (2022 USD), from a commercially-insured US claims population (continuous enrollment 2018–2023, N=54,530). Used in place of this project's usual MEPS-based approach - no comparably current or comparably large MEPS-based HIV cost study was found. Likely understates the true population-wide figure: the source population is commercially insured and under 65, and HIV care costs tend to run higher, not lower, in Medicaid/Medicare/uninsured populations. Source: Cohen JP, et al., PharmacoEconomics Open, 2025 ↗

Drugs:$41,834/patient/year. The pharmacy-cost line item of the exact same paper and 2023 cohort as the total-cost figure above (Table 6) - antiretroviral therapy is close to universal among diagnosed, in-care patients, so unlike most rows on this page, drug spend is the large majority (78%) of this disease's total cost, not a small fraction of it. Source: Cohen JP, et al., PharmacoEconomics Open, 2025 ↗

US chronic hepatitis B TAM is the modelled national prevalence of people living with HBV, 1.7 million in 2021 (uncertainty interval 795,000 to 4.1 million, covering the United States and Puerto Rico; Razavi-Shearer et al., Journal of Viral Hepatitis 2025), multiplied by $2,609, the mean annual hepatitis B-specific healthcare cost per commercially insured patient with compensated liver disease, a stratum that is 98% non-cirrhotic, in 2015 US dollars (Nguyen et al., Journal of Hepatology 2019, from Truven MarketScan claims 2004 to 2015). This is a ceiling rather than current spend: the most recent NHANES round put US HBV infection at 660,000 people with only 49.8% aware of their infection (Bixler et al., Hepatology Communications 2023), so roughly half the prevalent population generates no hepatitis B claims today. The cost input covers antiviral therapy and monitoring in patients without advanced liver disease and excludes decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and transplant, so this sizes chronic hepatitis B management and not the total burden attributable to the virus. Two dating biases run in opposite directions and are not corrected: the claims window closes before generic tenofovir disoproxil reached the market, which lifts pharmacy cost, while 2015 dollars understate present-day medical prices. source ↗

US sickle cell disease population is taken as approximately 100,000 people: the figure CDC states in its own surveillance summary, derived by Hassell (Am J Prev Med, 2010) from newborn-screening birth-cohort prevalence applied to 2008 Census data and corrected for early mortality. That figure is a model rather than a count, and no national data-linkage estimate has been published; CDC's linked-data surveillance in California and Georgia found 9,141 Georgia cases in 2018 against modelled estimates of 4,981 to 5,890, so 100,000 is more likely an undercount than an overcount. We treat the prevalent population as treatable, which for sickle cell disease is defensible because newborn screening is universal and most adults eventually access acute care. Annual cost per patient uses $34,477, the SCD-attributable medical cost per surviving patient per year reported by Johnson et al. (Blood Advances, 2023) from 20,891 commercially insured patients in Truven MarketScan claims, 2007 to 2018, in 2020 US dollars; because that cohort is commercial only, while CDC found 64% of California and Georgia cases in Medicaid records and a 2021 Medicaid claims analysis put total cost of care at $22,600 per enrollee, this sits at the upper end of what a blended-payer population would spend. source ↗

Population: 11,700,000 US adults (4.6%) who reported ever being diagnosed with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, or emphysema), 2022 National Health Interview Survey - the most recent single-year NHIS estimate published with both a percentage and a headline count together. A newer CDC data brief reports a lowerage-adjustedprevalence of 3.8% for 2023, but age-adjusted rates are for comparing across time/demographic groups, not for counting a population, and that brief's 2023 crude count could not be independently confirmed (direct cdc.gov fetch is blocked in this environment) - so the 2022 crude figure is used instead. Source: American Lung Association, COPD Trends Brief - Prevalence (NHIS 2022) ↗

Cost:$4,322/patient/year. COPD-specific attributable cost via a regression approach (isolates the cost attributable to COPD itself, adjusting for other conditions), 2018 USD, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2017–2018. The same study's much larger $19,449/ patient/year all-cause total medical cost (all healthcare spending for a person who has COPD, including unrelated comorbidities) was deliberately not used, since it would overstate the market a COPD drug specifically addresses. Source: Shah CH, Reed RM, Wastila L, et al., Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2023 ↗

Drugs: $1,887/patient/year. Same paper as the cost figure above, COPD-specific (regression-attributed) prescription-drug cost. Branded triple-therapy inhalers remain a minority (~11%) of US COPD drug sales even as they grow fastest - most of the population is on cheaper generic bronchodilators/ICS, or untreated in a given year. Source: Shah CH, Reed RM, Wastila L, et al., Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2023 ↗

TAM = 24.9 million US people with current asthma in 2021 (4.7 million children and 20.3 million adults) x $4,300 direct medical cost per patient per year. Population source: Pate CA et al., 'The Status of Asthma in the United States,' CDC Preventing Chronic Disease (2024), based on NHIS 2010-2021: https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2024/24_0005.htm. Cost source: Song HJ et al., 'Medical Costs and Productivity Loss Due to Mild, Moderate, and Severe Asthma in the United States,' Journal of Asthma and Allergy (2020), pooled 2010-2017 MEPS estimate of approximately $4,300 direct medical cost per patient per year: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33149626/. Population and cost years do not match; the latest directly reported population count is 2021 and the cost estimate uses pooled 2010-2017 MEPS. Indirect productivity costs are excluded. source ↗

US prevalence is the age- and sex-adjusted rate for the two-claim case definition reported by Fan et al. (Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2026) from Optum Clinformatics claims covering 2017 to 2022, 46.2 per 100,000 persons, applied to the July 1, 2024 US resident population of 340.1 million published by the Census Bureau: about 157,000 people. Annual cost per patient is the all-cause total healthcare cost from Yang et al. (Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, 2026), reported as $4,667 per patient per month in 2023 dollars and multiplied by 12 here to give $56,004; that cohort is built on the same two-claim rule, so the population and the cost describe the same patients. This is total cost of care, not antifibrotic spend: only 29.1% of the cost cohort received an antifibrotic, and 89.6% were Medicare Advantage enrollees with a mean age of 76.1, so the figure sits at the higher end of what a fully age-standardized population would show. Published US prevalence spans roughly 34 to 67 per 100,000 across case definitions within that same study, and a 2025 meta-analysis pools North American prevalence at 27.2 per 100,000; the estimate used here is the most recent US-specific claims analysis, it was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, and its authors note it covers insured enrollees only. source ↗

Population:1,040,000 US individuals diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2017 (a MEPS-anchored weighted estimate). A different, older-vintage prevalence study (Marras C, et al., npj Parkinson's Disease, 2018) gives a materially lower 2010 figure (680,000) - not used here, since pairing it with a 2017 cost figure from a different study would mix two vintages/methodologies, the same problem this project avoids elsewhere by using one paper for both population and cost.

Cost:$24,439/patient/year (2017 USD). The excess/attributable direct medical cost specifically caused by Parkinson's - isolated by comparing people with PD against a demographically matched non-PD comparison group, not total/all-cause direct medical cost. Excludes this same paper's much larger indirect ($14.2B) and non-medical/disability ($7.5B + $4.8B) cost components - real to patients and society, not a direct healthcare-market figure. Source: Yang W, Hamilton JL, Kopil C, et al., npj Parkinson's Disease, 2020 ↗

Deliberately scoped to Parkinson's disease alone, not the broader "Parkinson's + atypical Parkinsonism" figure used in a 2024 Michael J. Fox Foundation/Parkinson's Foundation report ($82.2B / 1.2M) - atypical Parkinsonism (progressive supranuclear palsy, multiple system atrophy, corticobasal degeneration) is a clinically distinct group of neurodegenerative syndromes, not a PD subtype, and that report is a foundation-commissioned document rather than a peer-reviewed primary study.

Drugs:$3988/patient/year (2017 USD). The "prescription medication" component of this same paper's six-category direct-cost breakdown (alongside institutional care, hospital, outpatient, physician office, and durable medical equipment) - already population-wide, not per-treated-patient. Source: Yang W, Hamilton JL, Kopil C, et al., npj Parkinson's Disease, 2020 ↗

TAM = US adults age 65+ living with clinical Alzheimer's dementia x per-person annual health and long-term care cost (Alzheimer's Association, 2026 Alzheimer's Disease Facts and Figures, Alzheimer's & Dementia, 2026). Both figures come from the same primary report: population is Alzheimer's-specific (7.4M), while the $409B 2026 total cost figure it's divided by is spent across everyone living with Alzheimer's OR another dementia -- a real scope mismatch that slightly overstates the AD-specific per-patient figure, disclosed here rather than hidden. Excludes the value of unpaid/informal caregiving (a separate ~$446B/year in unpaid care hours the Association tracks but does not count as a health-care cost). A narrower, MEPS-based 'excess cost' estimate isolating Alzheimer's from other dementias was found (Deb A et al., Aging Ment Health, 2017, ~$4,628/patient/year in 2015 USD) but was not used: MEPS is a household survey that excludes nursing-home/institutionalized populations, which is where most Alzheimer's-specific spending actually occurs, so it would materially understate this disease's real cost burden. source ↗

TAM = US adults and children with active epilepsy (Zack MM, Kobau R, MMWR 66(31), 2017: 3.0M adults + 470k children) x annual healthcare cost attributable to epilepsy over matched non-epilepsy controls (Karakis I et al., Epilepsy Research 218:107661, 2025; all-payer claims, 2021 USD). Karakis reports a RANGE ($12,000-$31,000 attributable; $28,000-$34,000 gross) rather than a point estimate, and no epilepsy equivalent of Hypertension's single MEPS figure exists -- we store the published LOWER BOUND rather than a midpoint, so every stored number stays a published one and the TAM errs conservative. Total attributable healthcare cost, not drug price alone: first-line antiseizure medications are overwhelmingly generic (patient out-of-pocket for generics averaged $92/year in 2021), so a drug-price-only figure would badly understate this market. Newer prevalence figures exist but only as separate adult (2021 NHIS) and child (2022 NSCH) surveys with different instruments and years; the MMWR estimate is used because it covers both populations in one coordinated estimate. Roughly 30% of patients are drug-resistant and carry a disproportionate share of cost, but the market is sized on total active epilepsy since most development targets that subgroup adjunctively rather than as a separate disease. source ↗

Population: 15,930,593 US adults. Migraine's raw prevalence is far larger, about 31.2 million US adults on an ICHD-based 11.7% prevalence rate and about 39.2 million at the top of the published 11.7% to 14.7% range, which is where the commonly quoted "39 million Americans" figure comes from. The figure used here is the addressable treated population instead: the 51.0% of adults with migraine who consulted a medical professional for migraine care in the past year, measured in the OVERCOME (US) 2018 cohort, applied to 266,978,268 US adults aged 18 and over (Census Vintage 2024). Cost: $11,010/patient/year, the mean annual all-cause direct healthcare cost (drug plus all other medical care) for a US commercially insured migraine cohort identified by migraine diagnosis or migraine medication claims, 2014 USD; the study's matched non-migraine controls cost $4,436/patient/year, implying an incremental cost of $6,575/patient/year, and the study's separately reported indirect/productivity costs are excluded. Migraine's population is a three-input derivation across three vintages (2004 prevalence, 2018 consultation rate, 2024 census) rather than a single published headcount, the prevalence rate covers ages 12 and over but is applied to adults 18 and over, and OVERCOME reports past-year consulting and self-reported diagnosis as separate proportions rather than their intersection, so the true diagnosed-and-consulting count sits somewhat below the figure shown. The consultation rate also comes from an opt-in internet panel whose own case definition gives a migraine prevalence about twice the rate applied here, so it is more likely high than low, and the population figure should be read as an upper-leaning estimate. The per-patient cost is cross-checked against a MEPS-based estimate of the same construct for US adults with migraine ($8,033/patient/year, 2004 to 2013), which is the same order of magnitude. source ↗

TAM context = 1,000,000 US adults, rounded from the VA Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence description of close to 1 million people living with MS in the United States, x $65,612 estimated excess direct medical cost per person per year in 2019 USD. Population source: VA Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence, 'How Common Is Multiple Sclerosis and Possible Causes': https://www.va.gov/MS/LEARN_ABOUT_MULTIPLE_SCLEROSIS/How_Common_is_Multiple_Sclerosis_and_Possible_Causes.asp. Cost source: Bebo B et al., 'The Economic Burden of Multiple Sclerosis in the United States: Estimate of Direct and Indirect Costs,' Neurology (2022): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35418457/. The population source uses rounded language rather than an exact point estimate. The cost figure is an excess direct medical-cost estimate from 2019 claims data, includes disease-modifying therapies, and is not a treatment price or revenue forecast. Relapsing and progressive MS forms are included; clinically isolated syndrome and radiologically isolated syndrome are not treated as this market unless the registry record explicitly identifies MS. source ↗

TAM = US adults with diagnosed diabetes and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (27.0M type 2 x 21.5% + 2.1M type 1 x 13.4%) x incremental annual healthcare cost of painful DPN relative to diabetics WITHOUT DPN (Bromberg T et al., Endocrine 2024;86(3):1014-1024; Optum Clinformatics claims 2016-2020, direct medical only). Diabetes base: CDC National Diabetes Statistics Report, Jan 2026 (2023 data). Prevalence by diabetes type: Abbott CA et al., Diabetes Care 2011;34(10):2220-2224. LIMITATION: Abbott is a UK community cohort -- no US population-based study gives painful-DPN prevalence as a clean share of all diagnosed US diabetics, so a UK-measured rate is applied to the US diabetic base and must be read as a transportability assumption, not a US measurement. The cost comparator is deliberately different from Hypertension/T2D, which measure against a disease-free population: measuring the neuropathic-pain layer on top of an already-diabetic baseline avoids double-counting general diabetes-management costs already booked in the Type 2 Diabetes market row. Scope is DPNP specifically rather than 'chronic pain' (24.3% of US adults, a symptom category no drug is approved for) or a pooled 'neuropathic pain', because approved drugs here carry etiology-specific labels; postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, osteoarthritis pain, central neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy are excluded as potential future sibling markets. source ↗

TAM = US adults with MDD x incremental direct healthcare cost (medical + prescription drug spend) attributable to MDD, both from Greenberg PE, et al., "The Economic Burden of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder in the United States (2019)," Advances in Therapy, 2023 -- a claims-based (IBM MarketScan) analysis comparing adults with MDD to a matched non-MDD cohort. This is the direct-healthcare-cost component only ($127.3B of the paper's $333.7B total societal burden); the much larger indirect/workplace-productivity component (~$206B -- absenteeism, presenteeism, unemployment) is deliberately excluded, same reasoning as Alzheimer's excluding the value of unpaid caregiving: real to society, not a healthcare-market TAM figure. Not inflation-adjusted from the paper's 2019 dollars, matching this project's standing convention (see Hypertension's 2019 MEPS figure) of citing the primary source's own reported figure rather than adjusting it. A more recent, survey-based prevalence estimate exists and is compatible in scale (NIMH: 21.0 million US adults / 8.3%, 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health) but was not used here, since pairing it with this cost figure would mix two different primary sources/methodologies -- same-report pairing was preferred, as with the Alzheimer's market row. source ↗

TAM = US adults with schizophrenia (Krasa HB et al., JAMA Psychiatry 2026;83(4):341-352, 1.17% past-year prevalence via SAMHSA's Mental and Substance Use Disorders Prevalence Study) x attributable direct healthcare cost per patient. The cost is derived as $36.7B excess direct healthcare cost / 3,070,739 patients -- our arithmetic on two figures the paper reports, not a per-patient number stated verbatim. Deliberately NOT the paper's headline $24,421/person, which bundles supportive housing, criminal justice and disability payments alongside healthcare; and indirect/societal costs ($291.8B) are excluded, since this is a market size rather than a burden-of-disease figure. NIMH's published range (0.25%-0.64%) rests on household-survey and claims studies that structurally miss institutionalized, incarcerated and homeless people; MDPS was designed to correct exactly that and found rates 2-4x higher. source ↗

This is the site's first oncology indication, and it uses a different TAM methodology than every other indication on this page - see the callout below before comparing this figure to any other market's.

Population: 176,646 estimated new US NSCLC diagnoses in 2026 (229,410 total US lung cancer cases x 77% NSCLC share, both figures from the same source). Built on SEER + NPCR cancer-registry data projected forward to the current calendar year. Source: American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures 2026 ↗

Cost: $70,895.90/patient in the first year following diagnosis (medical services $67,148.10 + oral prescription drugs $3,747.80), 2020 USD, NSCLC-specific (reported separately from small cell lung cancer). SEER-Medicare linked claims, 2007–2013, cost isolated by differencing against matched non-cancer controls. Source: Mariotto AB, Enewold L, Zhao JX, et al., Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2020;29(7):1304–1312 ↗, as tabulated on the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Trends Progress Report ↗.

Population x cost implies a ~$12.5B TAM. Cross-checked against NCI's own reported $23.8B national aggregate cost of alllung-and-bronchus cancer care (NSCLC + SCLC, every phase, every currently-treated patient) - this figure being smaller is expected, not a red flag, since it correctly excludes SCLC, excludes continuing-phase spend on prior-year patients, and excludes terminal-phase spend on patients who didn't start treatment this year.

A separate peer-reviewed estimate (Ganti AK, Klein AB, Cotarla I, et al., JAMA Oncology, 2021;7(12):1824–1832) gives NSCLC incidence of 40.9/100,000 in 2017 (~133,000 cases) - lower than this row's 2026 figure despite being nine years older, most likely because NSCLC's share of all lung cancer has risen over time as small cell lung cancer incidence fell faster (it is more tightly smoking-linked). The same paper's NSCLC complete prevalencefigure - everyone diagnosed since 2000 and still alive, ~640,000 nationally in 2016 - was not used for this TAM; see the callout below for why.

Drugs:$27,138/patient in the first line-of-therapy period. Outpatient systemic anticancer therapy (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy - drug cost only, administration/infusion visit costs excluded), advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC specifically, HealthCore claims 2010–2019. Deliberately NOT the same figure as the $3,747.80 "oral prescription drugs" line embedded in the total-cost figure above: that figure is oral drugs only and would badly understate true drug spend by excluding IV chemo/immunotherapy, which dominates modern NSCLC systemic treatment. This figure is also scoped to advanced/metastatic disease only, not the full incidence population above (which includes earlier-stage patients on surgery with little or no systemic therapy) - so it overstates drug spend if applied population-wide, in the opposite direction from the oral-only figure's understatement. No source was found that cleanly resolves this gap. Source: Zhang X, et al., Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy, 2022 ↗

Non-small cell lung cancer uses a different TAM methodology than every other indication on this page. Every other market row here is a prevalence figure (the population currently living with/treated for a condition, indefinitely) x an annual cost. NSCLC instead uses incidence(new diagnoses in a year) x the cost of the first year of care, because NSCLC's 5-year relative survival is only 26.4% and its own cost data shows the first year of treatment costs roughly 4.7x the continuing-phase rate - a prevalence count would lump high-cost newly-diagnosed patients together with low-cost long-term survivors and overstate the population actually driving a given year's drug spend. Its population figure (American Cancer Society, 2026) and cost figure (Mariotto et al., 2020, priced on 2007–2013 Medicare claims) are also from different sources/vintages, not one paper, and the cost figure is Medicare-only (ages 65+) - a reasonable majority match since NSCLC's median age at diagnosis is 71, but one that likely understatestrue population-wide cost, since younger/commercially-insured patients often face higher negotiated prices than Medicare's reimbursement rates.

Unlike NSCLC above, this indication uses the site's usual PREVALENCE framing (population currently living with the disease x annual cost per patient), not an incidence/first-year-cost framing - multiple myeloma's 5-year relative survival (63.7%, SEER 21 excl. IL, 2016–2022) and years-long continuous/maintenance treatment pattern don't share NSCLC's front-loaded, poor-survival cost shape.

Population: 202,793 estimated people living with myeloma in the United States in 2023, all ages. Source: NCI SEER, Cancer Stat Facts: Myeloma ↗, SEER's own registry-based limited-duration prevalence estimate.

Cost:$67,608/patient/year ($5,634 per-member-per-month incremental cost x 12), 2016 USD, for the CONTINUING CARE phase specifically - chosen over the same source's higher initial-diagnosis ($134,172/yr) and terminal-phase ($75,360/yr) figures because most people counted in a given year's prevalence pool are in steady-state maintenance therapy, not newly diagnosed or end-of-life. This deliberately UNDERSTATES the true population-weighted annual cost, since some fraction of the 202,793 are in the far more expensive initial-treatment year - disclosed, not corrected for with an estimate. SEER-Medicare linked claims (2007–2015 SEER registry linked to 2006–2016 Medicare claims), 4,533 newly diagnosed patients aged 66+ (mean 75.8), incremental cost isolated by matching 1:1 against non-cancer Medicare beneficiaries. A second disclosed mismatch: this cost cohort is Medicare-linked (age 66+) while the population figure above is all-ages - median age at MM diagnosis is ~69, so the two populations overlap heavily but not perfectly. Source: Bhattacharya K, Bentley JP, Ramachandran S, et al., JAMA Network Open, 2021;4(7):e2116357 ↗

Population x cost implies a ~$13.7B attributable cost. Cross-checked against CMS-linked reporting of $10.2B in 2021 Medicare Part D spend alone on 14 common MM therapies - drug-only, Medicare-only, so a lower bound this figure's higher all-payer, all-cost-category total is directionally consistent with, not contradicted by.

Drugs: $33,012/patient/year ($2,751 per-member-per-month x 12), same paper/cohort/phase as the total-cost figure above - the prescription-drug component of the same $5,634 PMPM continuing-care-phase total (49%), alongside outpatient ($2,166), inpatient ($1,645) and other services ($410) PMPM. Predates several now-standard maintenance regimens (e.g. daratumumab-based combinations), so likely understates current spend. Source: Bhattacharya K, Bentley JP, Ramachandran S, et al., JAMA Network Open, 2021 ↗

TAM = estimated new US AML diagnoses in 2026 x initial-year cancer-attributable medical cost per patient -- an incidence-based framing, matching the site's NSCLC methodology. This is appropriate for AML because acute treatment intensity and costs are concentrated around diagnosis, while the separately reported continuing-care cost is far lower. Population: 22,720 projected US diagnoses in 2026, American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures 2026 / Key Statistics for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (published 2026-01-13; ACS estimates draw on national cancer-registry data). Cost: $190,305 per patient for initial care, 2020 USD, from the NCI Cancer Trends Progress Report's AML-specific table. The NCI estimates are cancer-attributable medical-service costs from 2007-2013 SEER-Medicare claims, calculated against matched non-cancer controls and adjusted to 2020 dollars; they do not include oral prescription drug costs. The source separately reports $21,758.10 continuing-care and $249,124.70 last-year-of-life costs. Population and cost are from different source vintages, and the cost data are Medicare-based, so the resulting ~$4.32B estimate is a transparent directional TAM rather than a current all-payer sales forecast. No inflation adjustment or unsourced treatment-cost uplift is applied. source ↗

TAM = US women living with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer x annual list price of CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy. Population = 169,347 women projected living with metastatic breast cancer on 1 Jan 2025 (PREVALENCE, female-only; Gallicchio L et al., J Natl Cancer Inst 2022;114(11):1476-1483, which supersedes Mariotto 2017) x 62.4% HR+/HER2- share of de novo metastatic disease (SEER 2010-2016 n=19,444, Taskindoust M et al., Ann Surg Oncol 2021, as reported in Torrisi R et al., Drugs in Context 2023). Cost = palbociclib WAC $16,462.00 per 28-day cycle from Pfizer's own Connecticut price-transparency filing (effective 2026-01-09) x 13.04 cycles/year. SIZED ON THE METASTATIC POPULATION DELIBERATELY: the all-stage figure (~225,700 new cases/yr) is overwhelmingly early-stage patients on generic endocrine therapy, and multiplying it by a metastatic-line branded price would overstate the market roughly two-fold. Early-stage/adjuvant HR+/HER2- disease is out of scope and a potential future sibling market. TWO KNOWN WEAKNESSES: the 62.4% subtype share reached us via a peer-reviewed review's table rather than the paywalled primary paper, and it covers DE NOVO metastatic disease only -- no source was found for the HR+/HER2- share of the ~61% of prevalent patients who progressed from earlier-stage disease, so the true share sits in a 57%-70% band. This TAM is a LIST-PRICE, FULL-PENETRATION CEILING: it assumes every patient is on branded CDK4/6i at list price simultaneously, whereas many are on endocrine monotherapy, later-line therapy, between lines, or covered net of rebates. source ↗

TAM context = 11 million people in the US with AMD x $24,520 annual all-cause healthcare cost per patient with neovascular AMD (2018 USD). Population source: National Eye Institute, Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD), page updated June 22, 2021: https://www.nei.nih.gov/eye-health-information/eye-conditions-and-diseases/age-related-macular-degeneration. Cost source: Almony A et al., 'Clinical and economic burden of neovascular age-related macular degeneration by disease status: a US claims-based analysis,' Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy, 2021, doi:10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.9.1260: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34464210/. Scope caveat: the population figure includes all AMD, while the cost study covers commercially insured patients with neovascular AMD and reports all-cause healthcare costs over 12 months; the resulting multiplication is an intentionally disclosed directional TAM context, not a claim that every AMD patient incurs the neovascular cost. source ↗