폭식증 시장은 2032년까지 CAGR 6.20%로 9억 5,157만 달러 규모로 성장할 것으로 예측되고 있습니다.
| 주요 시장 통계 | |
|---|---|
| 기준연도 2024 | 5억 8,785만 달러 |
| 추정연도 2025 | 6억 2,443만 달러 |
| 예측연도 2032 | 9억 5,157만 달러 |
| CAGR(%) | 6.20% |
폭식증(BED)은 다량의 음식 섭취와 그에 따른 자각적 통제 불능감의 반복적인 발작이 특징인 임상적으로 중요한 섭식 장애입니다. 진단 기준을 넘어, 이 질환은 임상적, 심리적, 사회적 영향을 다각적으로 동반하며 모든 연령대와 의료 환경에서 개인에게 영향을 미칩니다. 폭식증을 앓고 있는 사람들은 종종 기분장애나 불안장애의 동반, 대사합병증, 기능장애를 경험하며, 이를 종합적으로 치료하기 위해서는 조정된 다직종 협진 접근이 필요합니다.
폭식증 치료 환경은 기술 혁신, 임상적 진보, 그리고 보험사의 기대치 변화로 인해 혁신적인 전환기를 맞이하고 있습니다. 디지털 치료제와 원격의료 플랫폼은 근거 기반 심리치료와 자가 관리 툴에 대한 환자의 접근을 가속화하고, 1차 진료에서 시작하여 필요에 따라 전문의의 개입으로 단계적으로 전환하는 단계적 치료 접근법을 가능하게 합니다. 동시에 약리학적 약물 및 보조요법에 대한 관심이 높아지면서 약물요법을 심리치료 참여 촉진 및 증상 중증도 감소에 활용하는 복합치료 전략에 대한 재검토가 진행되고 있습니다.
관세에 영향을 미치는 정책적 조치는 헬스케어 생태계 전체, 특히 폭식증 치료에 사용되는 치료제, 의료기기, 디지털 플랫폼을 지원하는 공급망에 누적 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 수입 의약품 및 의료기기에 대한 관세 인상은 공급자와 지불자의 비용 상승을 초래할 수 있으며, 공급망 관리자가 조달 전략을 조정하거나 재고를 늘리거나 최종 시장과 가까운 지역으로 생산기지를 이전하는 것을 가속화할 수 있습니다. 이러한 공급측의 대응은 병원, 전문 의료센터, 유통 파트너 간의 조달 주기 및 계약 협상에 영향을 미칩니다.
폭식증에 대한 치료 제공 방식을 이해하기 위해서는 치료, 유통, 최종사용자, 치료 환경을 가로지르는 세분화를 자세히 분석해야 합니다. 치료 유형에 따라 시장은 디지털 치료, 약물 치료, 심리 치료로 분류됩니다. 디지털 치료는 모바일 앱과 웹 기반 전달 모델로, 약물 치료는 항우울제, 항경련제, 각성제로, 심리치료는 인지행동치료, 변증법적 행동치료, 대인관계치료로 세분화됩니다. 이러한 하위 부문은 각각 고유한 규제 요건, 임상적 유효성 검증 및 상업화 요건을 가지고 있습니다. 디지털 치료제는 디지털 엔드포인트에서 환자 참여와 임상적 효과를 입증해야 하며, 약물 치료는 안전성과 적응증 표시 경로를 적절히 관리해야 합니다. 또한 심리치료의 효과적인 확대를 위해서는 의료진의 교육과 치료법의 충실도 모니터링이 요구됩니다.
지역별 동향은 폭식증 식별, 치료 및 상환 방식에 큰 영향을 미치며, 임상 프로그램 및 상업적 계획의 전략적 우선순위를 형성합니다. 북미와 남미에서는 임상의의 인식 개선과 원격의료 인프라의 확대가 통합의료 모델의 광범위한 확산을 지원하고 있지만, 공공 및 민간 보험사 정책의 지역 간 불균등성으로 인해 지역마다 상환 및 접근 경로가 크게 다릅니다. 따라서 성과와 비용효과성 분석을 통해 가치를 입증하기 위해 보험사 및 의료 시스템과의 지역 단위의 협력이 필요합니다.
폭식증 환경에서의 기업 전략은 임상적 혁신, 전략적 제휴, 표적화된 상업화 모델의 조합으로 정의됩니다. 주요 임상 개발사 및 디지털 치료 프로바이더들은 엄격한 결과 측정에 투자하고, 무작위 시험 및 실제 데이터를 통한 유효성 검증을 통해 지불자와의 대화를 지원하고 있습니다. 동시에, 기술 프로바이더와 기존 행동의학 네트워크와의 제휴를 통해 디지털 툴을 기존 진료 경로에 통합하는 시범 사업을 통해 임상의 채용과 환자 온보딩의 장벽을 낮출 수 있습니다.
업계 리더은 상업적 지속가능성을 보호하면서 근거 기반 치료에 대한 접근을 가속화할 수 있는 일련의 실천적 구상을 추진해야 합니다. 첫째, 심리치료적 개입과 약리학 및 디지털 옵션을 결합한 통합적 치료 모델을 우선시하고, 임상적, 경제적 가치를 입증하기 위한 종단적 결과 측정에 투자합니다. 둘째, 디지털 치료를 일상 진료의 원활한 구성 요소로 만드는 상호운용성과 임상의 친화적인 워크플로우를 개발하여 도입 장벽을 낮추고 컴플라이언스를 개선합니다.
이 보고서를 지원하는 분석은 신뢰성과 투명성을 극대화하기 위해 여러 출처를 기반으로 한 증거 기반 조사 방식을 채택하고 있습니다. 주요 입력 정보에는 동료평가 임상 문헌, 등록 및 임상시험 데이터베이스, 규제 문서, 임상의, 지불자, 디지털 헬스 혁신가, 공급망 전문가를 대상으로 한 질적 인터뷰가 포함됩니다. 이러한 입력 정보는 연구 설계, 환자군, 결과 지표의 차이를 조정하고 다양한 환경에서 임상 효과의 견고성을 평가하기 위해 삼각측량법을 통해 통합되었습니다.
폭식증의 상황은 기회와 복잡성의 양면성을 가지고 있습니다. 디지털 치료의 발전, 약리학적 탐구의 재개, 진화하는 치료 모델이 결합하여 접근성과 결과를 개선할 수 있는 길을 만들고 있지만, 그 잠재력을 실현하기 위해서는 임상, 상업, 정책 이해관계자간의 협력적 행동이 필요합니다. 심리치료, 약물 치료, 디지털 지원을 통합한 치료 경로가 지속적인 효과를 제공하고 재발을 줄이는 데 필수적입니다.
The Binge Eating Disorder Market is projected to grow by USD 951.57 million at a CAGR of 6.20% by 2032.
| KEY MARKET STATISTICS | |
|---|---|
| Base Year [2024] | USD 587.85 million |
| Estimated Year [2025] | USD 624.43 million |
| Forecast Year [2032] | USD 951.57 million |
| CAGR (%) | 6.20% |
Binge eating disorder (BED) is a clinically significant eating disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of consuming large amounts of food accompanied by a perceived loss of control. Beyond diagnostic criteria, the condition carries multifaceted clinical, psychological, and social consequences that affect individuals across age groups and care settings. Individuals living with BED often experience comorbid mood and anxiety disorders, metabolic complications, and functional impairment that together require coordinated, multidisciplinary approaches to care.
Recent shifts in care delivery and technology integration have increased awareness among clinicians and payers, yet gaps remain in timely diagnosis, access to evidence-based therapies, and continuity of care after acute intervention. In addition, stigma and underreporting contribute to delayed treatment seeking, particularly among underserved populations. Consequently, clinical leaders and health system administrators are focused on closing care gaps through diagnostic screening in primary care, integration of behavioral health into medical settings, and expanded training on evidence-based psychotherapies.
Given these dynamics, a strategic introduction to the landscape centers on the need for integrated care pathways that combine behavioral interventions, pharmacologic options where clinically appropriate, and digital therapeutics to extend reach. This introduction frames the priorities that follow: optimizing patient identification, aligning care modalities across settings, and ensuring that commercial and policy decisions support durable, equitable access to effective treatment.
The treatment landscape for binge eating disorder is undergoing transformative shifts driven by technology, clinical innovation, and evolving payer expectations. Digital therapeutics and telehealth platforms have accelerated patient access to evidence-based psychotherapies and self-management tools, enabling stepped-care approaches that begin in primary care and escalate to specialist intervention when needed. Concurrently, renewed interest in pharmacologic agents and adjunctive treatments has prompted a re-examination of combined-modality strategies where medication is used to support engagement in psychotherapy and reduce symptom severity.
Regulatory frameworks and reimbursement models are responding to these changes, with value-based contracting and outcomes-based reimbursement gaining traction in pockets where measurable clinical outcomes can be demonstrated. These dynamics incentivize developers to prioritize real-world evidence generation and validated outcome measures. At the same time, partnerships between digital health innovators, specialty treatment centers, and payers are becoming more common, reflecting a recognition that no single stakeholder can address access, quality, and affordability alone.
As a result, stakeholders must adapt to an ecosystem where patient engagement platforms, clinical decision support tools, and multidisciplinary care teams intersect. Investment in interoperability, clinician training on digital modalities, and robust data governance are necessary to convert technological promise into improved clinical outcomes. Looking forward, integration of behavioral analytics and precision approaches to treatment selection will further reshape care pathways and help personalize interventions for better long-term recovery.
Policy actions affecting tariffs can have a cumulative impact on the broader healthcare ecosystem and specifically on the supply chains that underpin therapeutics, devices, and digital platforms used in binge eating disorder care. Increases in duties on imported pharmaceuticals or medical devices may raise costs for providers and payers, prompting supply chain managers to adjust sourcing strategies, build larger inventories, or accelerate relocation of manufacturing closer to end markets. These supply-side responses, in turn, influence procurement cycles and contract negotiations across hospitals, specialty centers, and distribution partners.
For digital health providers and platform vendors, indirect impacts can also emerge when hardware components, sensors, or ancillary devices are subject to tariff changes. Higher input costs can necessitate price adjustments or altered product roadmaps, while longer lead times for components can slow device-based pilots or rollouts. Clinical trial logistics and international collaboration on research may face friction if cross-border exchanges of equipment or study materials become more costly or administratively burdensome.
Strategic responses to tariff-driven disruption tend to center on diversification and resilience. Organizations are increasingly pursuing nearshoring, dual-sourcing, and advanced inventory management to reduce exposure to single-country policy shocks. They are also engaging earlier with supply chain and procurement teams when designing clinical programs to account for potential cost and timing variability. Moreover, meaningful contingency planning and transparent communication with payers and provider partners enable smoother transitions and protect patient continuity of care during periods of regulatory and trade uncertainty.
Understanding how care is delivered for binge eating disorder requires a granular look at segmentation across treatment modality, distribution, end users, and care setting. Based on Treatment Type, the market is studied across Digital Therapeutics, Pharmacotherapy, and Psychotherapy, with Digital Therapeutics further studied across Mobile App and Web Based delivery models, Pharmacotherapy further studied across Antidepressants, Antiepileptics, and Stimulants, and Psychotherapy further studied across Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dialectical Behavior Therapy, and Interpersonal Psychotherapy. These subsegments each present unique regulatory, clinical validation, and commercialization requirements: digital therapeutics must demonstrate engagement and clinical effect across digital endpoints, pharmacotherapies must navigate safety and labeling pathways, and psychotherapeutic modalities require workforce training and fidelity monitoring to scale effectively.
In parallel, distribution channels frame access points for care. Based on Distribution Channel, the market is studied across Home Healthcare, Hospitals And Clinics, Online Platforms, and Specialty Treatment Centers, each of which imposes distinct operational needs around clinician workflows, reimbursement codes, and integration with electronic health records. Home healthcare and online platforms expand reach into patient daily environments but require robust remote monitoring and privacy safeguards. Hospitals and clinics provide diagnostic capacity and acute management, while specialty treatment centers concentrate expertise for complex or refractory cases.
Patient populations shape demand and design of services. Based on End User, the market is studied across Adolescents, Adults, and Elderly populations, and differentiation by age group influences clinical features, comorbidity profiles, and engagement preferences. Adolescents may access school-based screening and family-centered interventions, adults often require integrated management for metabolic comorbidities, and elderly patients need attention to polypharmacy and age-specific psychosocial supports. Finally, the setting in which care is delivered matters. Based on Treatment Setting, the market is studied across Inpatient and Outpatient environments, with inpatient care reserved for high-acuity stabilization while outpatient services form the backbone of long-term recovery and relapse prevention. Recognizing these segmentation layers enables stakeholders to align product design, reimbursement strategies, and clinical pathways to meet the needs of distinct user cohorts and care settings.
Regional dynamics exert strong influence on how binge eating disorder is identified, treated, and reimbursed, and they therefore shape strategic priorities for clinical programs and commercial planning. In the Americas, higher clinician awareness and expanding telehealth infrastructure support broader rollout of integrated care models, but regional heterogeneity in public and private payer policies means that reimbursement and access pathways vary significantly between jurisdictions. This drives a need for localized engagement with payers and health systems to demonstrate value through outcomes and cost-offset analyses.
In Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory frameworks and cultural context differ across countries, which affects adoption patterns. Some European markets have established behavioral health integration and national guidelines that facilitate standardized care pathways, while other jurisdictions within the Middle East and Africa are at earlier stages of diagnostic capacity and workforce development. These differences necessitate tailored approaches that consider local clinical training, stigma reduction, and infrastructure investments to expand access.
The Asia-Pacific region presents diverse opportunities and challenges due to variation in digital adoption, population demographics, and regulatory regimes. High mobile penetration in many Asia-Pacific markets supports rapid diffusion of mobile app-based interventions, yet language, cultural norms around eating behavior, and evolving reimbursement policies require careful localization of clinical content and engagement models. Across all regions, stakeholders benefit from region-specific evidence, partnerships with local clinical leaders, and capacity-building initiatives that reflect each region's unique epidemiology and healthcare delivery architecture.
Company strategies in the binge eating disorder landscape are defined by a mix of clinical innovation, strategic partnerships, and targeted commercialization models. Leading clinical developers and digital therapy providers are investing in rigorous outcome measurement, demonstrating efficacy through randomized studies and real-world evidence to support payer conversations. At the same time, alliances between technology providers and established behavioral health networks are enabling pilots that integrate digital tools into existing care pathways, reducing friction for clinician adoption and patient onboarding.
Pharmaceutical stakeholders pursuing pharmacologic options are focusing on differentiation through mechanism of action, tolerability, and evidence of sustained symptom reduction, while also considering the role of adjunctive use with psychotherapy. Specialty treatment centers and hospital systems are exploring value-based contracting arrangements tied to measurable recovery metrics, which encourages providers to report outcomes and iterate on care delivery models. New entrants are leveraging data science to refine patient segmentation and identify which interventions are most likely to succeed for particular patient profiles, creating opportunities for personalized care solutions.
Across the sector, the most successful organizations combine clinical credibility with distribution acumen, prioritizing interoperability, clinician engagement, and payer alignment. They also maintain flexible commercialization roadmaps that allow rapid local adaptation, accelerated partnership models, and investment in training programs to ensure fidelity to evidence-based interventions.
Industry leaders should pursue a set of actionable initiatives that accelerate access to evidence-based care while protecting commercial viability. First, prioritize integrated care models that combine psychotherapeutic interventions with pharmacologic and digital options, and invest in longitudinal outcome measurement to demonstrate clinical and economic value. Second, develop interoperability and clinician-friendly workflows that make digital therapeutics a seamless component of routine care, thereby lowering adoption barriers and improving adherence.
Third, strengthen payer engagement by co-designing outcome frameworks and piloting value-based reimbursement models that reward sustained recovery rather than episodic service delivery. Fourth, insulate supply chains against policy shocks and trade disruptions through diversification, nearshoring where feasible, and transparent procurement strategies that account for potential tariff impacts. Fifth, invest in workforce capacity through clinician training programs focused on evidence-based psychotherapies and on integrating digital tools into therapeutic practice.
Finally, adopt an evidence-first commercialization strategy that sequences clinical validation, payer pilots, and provider partnerships to build credibility and scale. By aligning product development with clear clinical endpoints and payer needs, organizations can reduce commercial risk and accelerate uptake while maintaining ethical standards and patient-centered design principles.
The analysis underpinning this report uses a multi-source, evidence-driven methodology designed to maximize reliability and transparency. Primary inputs include peer-reviewed clinical literature, registry and trial databases, regulatory documents, and qualitative interviews with clinicians, payers, digital health innovators, and supply chain experts. These inputs were triangulated to reconcile differences in study design, patient populations, and outcome measures, and to assess the robustness of clinical effects across settings.
Quantitative findings were supplemented with qualitative insights from subject-matter experts and frontline providers to contextualize adoption barriers and implementation considerations. Data curation and synthesis followed a reproducible protocol: source provenance was recorded, analytical assumptions were documented, and internal replication checks were performed. Validation steps included cross-checking clinical effect estimates against trial registries, reviewing reimbursement pathways with payer consultants, and testing supply chain scenarios with procurement specialists to ensure scenario plausibility.
Limitations are acknowledged: evidence quality varies by intervention type, and some emerging modalities have limited long-term outcome data. To mitigate these constraints, the methodology emphasizes transparency and recommends ongoing evidence generation post-deployment. This approach supports decision-makers who require both rigor and practical guidance when planning clinical programs, commercial launches, or policy engagement.
The landscape for binge eating disorder is characterized by both opportunity and complexity. Advances in digital therapeutics, renewed pharmacologic inquiry, and evolving care models collectively create avenues to improve access and outcomes, but realizing that potential requires coordinated action across clinical, commercial, and policy stakeholders. Integrated care pathways that bring together psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and digital supports are central to delivering sustained benefit and reducing relapse.
At the same time, external forces such as trade policy changes and regional differences in reimbursement and infrastructure introduce practical constraints that demand resilient supply chains, localized engagement strategies, and an evidence-driven approach to payer conversations. Organizations that invest in interoperability, real-world evidence generation, and clinician training will be better positioned to convert scientific advances into meaningful, scalable care.
In summary, the most effective path forward combines clinical rigor with operational resilience and stakeholder collaboration. By aligning investments with clear outcome metrics and by designing services that reflect the lived experience of patients across diverse settings and regions, stakeholders can advance both clinical and commercial goals while expanding equitable access to effective treatment.