IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market by Test Type (Anti Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide, Antinuclear Antibody, Celiac Disease), Technology (Chemiluminescence Immunoassay, Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Fluorescence Immunoassay), Product Type, Sample
Description
The IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market was valued at USD 19.26 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to USD 20.28 billion in 2026, with a CAGR of 5.25%, reaching USD 27.56 billion by 2032.
Overview of how technological innovation clinical demand and regulatory expectations are reshaping autoimmune diagnostics and laboratory adoption trajectories
Autoimmune disease diagnostics occupy a critical intersection of clinical need, technological innovation, and regulatory evolution. Over the past decade, clinicians and laboratory directors have shifted from symptom-driven testing toward algorithmic diagnostic strategies that integrate serological markers with clinical criteria to improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce time to treatment initiation. This transition has been supported by technological advances that increase throughput, analytical sensitivity, and multiplexing capacity, enabling earlier detection and more precise stratification of autoimmune conditions.
Concurrently, health systems and payers have escalated expectations for evidence demonstrating clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. As a result, developers and laboratory stakeholders have prioritized assay validation, outcome studies, and enhanced data capture to support reimbursement conversations. Looking ahead, diagnostic leaders will need to balance innovation with robust quality management and regulatory alignment to sustain clinical adoption and institutional procurement.
How advancements in assay platforms data integration and regulatory scrutiny are driving a new era of precision and validation in autoimmune testing
The landscape for autoimmune diagnostics is undergoing transformative shifts driven by converging developments in assay technology, data analytics, and clinical pathways. Novel chemistries and signal-detection platforms have improved sensitivity and specificity for key biomarkers, while multiplex formats allow simultaneous interrogation of antibody profiles, reducing sample volumes and turnaround time. At the same time, the integration of laboratory data into electronic health records and the emergence of decision-support tools have amplified the value of standardized, high-quality test results in guiding therapeutic choices.
Regulatory pathways and payer requirements are also evolving, with increased emphasis on real-world performance evidence and post-market surveillance. These external pressures are prompting manufacturers and clinical laboratories to invest in more rigorous validation frameworks and in partnerships that accelerate clinical utility studies. As a result, organizations that can demonstrate reproducible performance and demonstrable impact on care pathways will be best positioned to capture clinician trust and institutional contracts.
Assessment of tariff-driven supply chain pressures and corporate responses shaping procurement resilience and production localization strategies in diagnostics
Tariff changes and trade policy adjustments can exert material influence on the supply chain economics of diagnostic reagents, instrument components, and consumables. Recent policy developments have created added complexity for procurement teams that rely on cross-border sourcing for assay kits, calibrators, and instrument parts. These cost pressures have prompted manufacturers to re-evaluate sourcing strategies, to localize certain production steps, and to pass through incremental costs selectively to distributors and end users where contractual terms allow.
In response, diagnostic organizations have adopted a mixture of mitigation tactics, including diversifying supplier bases, negotiating longer-term pricing agreements, and increasing inventory buffers to smooth short-term volatility. Laboratories that maintain flexible procurement protocols and that invest in supplier qualification processes are better equipped to preserve testing continuity while managing margin impacts. Simultaneously, product developers are assessing design-for-manufacturability opportunities to reduce dependence on tariff-exposed components and to enhance supply chain resilience.
Deep segmentation-driven insights linking test types technologies product classifications end users applications and sample modalities to strategic opportunities
Segment-focused analysis reveals differentiated dynamics across assay types and use cases that influence product positioning and commercialization pathways. By test type, assays for Anti Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide, Antinuclear Antibody, Celiac Disease, and Rheumatoid Factor each exhibit distinct clinical utility profiles that affect diagnostic algorithms and ordering patterns in outpatient and inpatient settings. By technology, platforms such as Chemiluminescence Immunoassay, Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Fluorescence Immunoassay, and Multiplex Immunoassay vary in throughput, automation compatibility, and analytical performance, which in turn shapes adoption among high-volume central laboratories versus specialty reference labs.
By product type, the field encompasses both In Vitro Diagnostic devices and Lab Developed Tests, and the balance between these categories influences regulatory oversight, implementation timelines, and commercialization routes. By end user, stakeholders range from Academic And Research Institutes to Diagnostic Laboratories, Hospital Laboratories, and Reference Laboratories, each with unique procurement cycles, validation requirements, and clinical stakeholder relationships. By application, testing spans Celiac Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, and Type 1 Diabetes, and each indication presents different clinical decision thresholds and payer considerations. By sample type, the use of Dried Blood Spot, Plasma, Serum, and Whole Blood introduces logistical and analytical trade-offs that affect point-of-care feasibility, central lab workflows, and patient-centric sampling models.
Regional diagnostic ecosystems and differentiated market access realities across the Americas Europe Middle East & Africa and Asia-Pacific influencing adoption dynamics
Regional dynamics shape both the clinical adoption curve and the commercial playbook for autoimmune diagnostics. In the Americas, centralized laboratory networks, integrated health systems, and payer-driven utilization management foster an environment where evidence of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness is prioritized, and where distribution and service models emphasize rapid instrument uptime and robust technical support. Conversely, Europe, Middle East & Africa comprise heterogeneous markets in regulatory frameworks, laboratory infrastructure, and reimbursement approaches, creating both barriers and niche opportunities for tailored market entry and partner-led distribution.
In the Asia-Pacific region, rapid expansion of diagnostic capacity, rising prevalence of autoimmune conditions linked to demographic shifts, and growing investments in local manufacturing are driving demand for cost-efficient, scalable platforms. Across regions, localization of regulatory pathways, differences in clinical practice patterns, and variable reimbursement mechanisms require nuanced market access strategies that align supplier capabilities with local laboratory needs and clinician preferences.
Competitive landscape overview emphasizing established manufacturers specialized innovators and laboratory-developed testing collaborations shaping clinical adoption
Competitive dynamics in autoimmune diagnostics are defined by a mix of established diagnostics manufacturers, agile specialty firms, and high-performing clinical laboratories that develop in-house tests. Established players leverage broad distribution networks, validated platforms, and comprehensive service infrastructures to support large hospital systems and reference lab chains. Emerging firms often compete on niche performance attributes, differentiated assay chemistries, or faster innovation cycles that address unmet diagnostic gaps, while laboratory-developed tests are frequently driven by academic centers and specialized clinical labs seeking to offer tailored solutions ahead of commercial availability.
Partnerships among manufacturers, clinical laboratories, and contract research organizations are increasingly common as a way to accelerate clinical validation and to navigate regional regulatory requirements. Strategic collaborations that combine technical expertise with clinical access and payer engagement capabilities enable more rapid translation of promising assays into routine clinical practice. Additionally, diagnostics suppliers that invest in training, digital support, and outcome-data partnerships with providers can strengthen long-term clinical adoption and customer retention.
Actionable strategic imperatives for diagnostic leaders to accelerate clinical adoption strengthen supply chains and establish defensible differentiation
Industry leaders should adopt a multifaceted strategy that balances innovation velocity with rigorous validation and commercial pragmatism. Prioritizing assays and platforms that demonstrate clear clinical utility in defined diagnostic pathways will facilitate payer conversations and clinical adoption. Concurrently, investing in modular platform designs and compatible reagent portfolios can reduce time-to-market for new panels and enable cost-effective scale-up across laboratory partners.
Operationally, firms should strengthen supply chain redundancies, diversify component sourcing, and formalize long-term agreements with strategic suppliers to mitigate tariff and logistics disruptions. On the market-facing side, tailored engagement with hospital laboratory directors, reference lab procurement teams, and specialty clinicians will accelerate uptake. Finally, cultivating collaborative evidence-generation programs-including registry integration, prospective outcome studies, and real-world performance monitoring-will create defensible differentiation and support reimbursement negotiations.
Robust mixed-methods research approach combining expert interviews literature synthesis and rigorous data triangulation to ensure analytical integrity
The research methodology integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches to produce a comprehensive and verifiable evidence base for the analysis. Primary research included structured interviews with laboratory directors, clinical specialists, procurement officers, and regulatory experts to capture operational realities, validation priorities, and regional market nuances. Secondary research sources comprised peer-reviewed clinical literature, regulatory guidance documents, technical specifications published by standards organizations, and company disclosures related to product performance and post-market surveillance.
Data synthesis followed a triangulation approach in which primary insights were cross-referenced against published technical data and regulatory frameworks to validate assumptions and to illuminate gaps. Quality assurance procedures included methodical interview scripting, reproducible data extraction protocols, and iterative peer review to ensure analytical rigor and to minimize bias. Where applicable, findings were contextualized to reflect regional regulatory variations and laboratory infrastructure differentials.
Concise synthesis highlighting the convergence of technology validation clinical utility and supply chain resilience driving durable adoption in autoimmune diagnostics
Synthesis of technological, regulatory, and commercial factors underscores that the autoimmune diagnostics sector is transitioning toward higher analytical sophistication and stronger demands for evidence of clinical impact. Laboratories and manufacturers that align product development with clinician workflows, validation expectations, and payer requirements will navigate adoption hurdles more effectively. Equally important is the capacity to operationalize resilient supply chains and to localize certain manufacturing or logistical functions to manage policy-driven cost pressures and to ensure continuity of care.
As the field evolves, stakeholders who invest in scalable platforms, interoperable data capture, and collaborative outcome studies will be best positioned to translate diagnostic innovation into improved patient outcomes and sustainable commercial models. Continued attention to regulatory alignment and transparent performance reporting will be essential to maintaining clinician trust and payer confidence.
Overview of how technological innovation clinical demand and regulatory expectations are reshaping autoimmune diagnostics and laboratory adoption trajectories
Autoimmune disease diagnostics occupy a critical intersection of clinical need, technological innovation, and regulatory evolution. Over the past decade, clinicians and laboratory directors have shifted from symptom-driven testing toward algorithmic diagnostic strategies that integrate serological markers with clinical criteria to improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce time to treatment initiation. This transition has been supported by technological advances that increase throughput, analytical sensitivity, and multiplexing capacity, enabling earlier detection and more precise stratification of autoimmune conditions.
Concurrently, health systems and payers have escalated expectations for evidence demonstrating clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. As a result, developers and laboratory stakeholders have prioritized assay validation, outcome studies, and enhanced data capture to support reimbursement conversations. Looking ahead, diagnostic leaders will need to balance innovation with robust quality management and regulatory alignment to sustain clinical adoption and institutional procurement.
How advancements in assay platforms data integration and regulatory scrutiny are driving a new era of precision and validation in autoimmune testing
The landscape for autoimmune diagnostics is undergoing transformative shifts driven by converging developments in assay technology, data analytics, and clinical pathways. Novel chemistries and signal-detection platforms have improved sensitivity and specificity for key biomarkers, while multiplex formats allow simultaneous interrogation of antibody profiles, reducing sample volumes and turnaround time. At the same time, the integration of laboratory data into electronic health records and the emergence of decision-support tools have amplified the value of standardized, high-quality test results in guiding therapeutic choices.
Regulatory pathways and payer requirements are also evolving, with increased emphasis on real-world performance evidence and post-market surveillance. These external pressures are prompting manufacturers and clinical laboratories to invest in more rigorous validation frameworks and in partnerships that accelerate clinical utility studies. As a result, organizations that can demonstrate reproducible performance and demonstrable impact on care pathways will be best positioned to capture clinician trust and institutional contracts.
Assessment of tariff-driven supply chain pressures and corporate responses shaping procurement resilience and production localization strategies in diagnostics
Tariff changes and trade policy adjustments can exert material influence on the supply chain economics of diagnostic reagents, instrument components, and consumables. Recent policy developments have created added complexity for procurement teams that rely on cross-border sourcing for assay kits, calibrators, and instrument parts. These cost pressures have prompted manufacturers to re-evaluate sourcing strategies, to localize certain production steps, and to pass through incremental costs selectively to distributors and end users where contractual terms allow.
In response, diagnostic organizations have adopted a mixture of mitigation tactics, including diversifying supplier bases, negotiating longer-term pricing agreements, and increasing inventory buffers to smooth short-term volatility. Laboratories that maintain flexible procurement protocols and that invest in supplier qualification processes are better equipped to preserve testing continuity while managing margin impacts. Simultaneously, product developers are assessing design-for-manufacturability opportunities to reduce dependence on tariff-exposed components and to enhance supply chain resilience.
Deep segmentation-driven insights linking test types technologies product classifications end users applications and sample modalities to strategic opportunities
Segment-focused analysis reveals differentiated dynamics across assay types and use cases that influence product positioning and commercialization pathways. By test type, assays for Anti Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide, Antinuclear Antibody, Celiac Disease, and Rheumatoid Factor each exhibit distinct clinical utility profiles that affect diagnostic algorithms and ordering patterns in outpatient and inpatient settings. By technology, platforms such as Chemiluminescence Immunoassay, Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Fluorescence Immunoassay, and Multiplex Immunoassay vary in throughput, automation compatibility, and analytical performance, which in turn shapes adoption among high-volume central laboratories versus specialty reference labs.
By product type, the field encompasses both In Vitro Diagnostic devices and Lab Developed Tests, and the balance between these categories influences regulatory oversight, implementation timelines, and commercialization routes. By end user, stakeholders range from Academic And Research Institutes to Diagnostic Laboratories, Hospital Laboratories, and Reference Laboratories, each with unique procurement cycles, validation requirements, and clinical stakeholder relationships. By application, testing spans Celiac Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, and Type 1 Diabetes, and each indication presents different clinical decision thresholds and payer considerations. By sample type, the use of Dried Blood Spot, Plasma, Serum, and Whole Blood introduces logistical and analytical trade-offs that affect point-of-care feasibility, central lab workflows, and patient-centric sampling models.
Regional diagnostic ecosystems and differentiated market access realities across the Americas Europe Middle East & Africa and Asia-Pacific influencing adoption dynamics
Regional dynamics shape both the clinical adoption curve and the commercial playbook for autoimmune diagnostics. In the Americas, centralized laboratory networks, integrated health systems, and payer-driven utilization management foster an environment where evidence of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness is prioritized, and where distribution and service models emphasize rapid instrument uptime and robust technical support. Conversely, Europe, Middle East & Africa comprise heterogeneous markets in regulatory frameworks, laboratory infrastructure, and reimbursement approaches, creating both barriers and niche opportunities for tailored market entry and partner-led distribution.
In the Asia-Pacific region, rapid expansion of diagnostic capacity, rising prevalence of autoimmune conditions linked to demographic shifts, and growing investments in local manufacturing are driving demand for cost-efficient, scalable platforms. Across regions, localization of regulatory pathways, differences in clinical practice patterns, and variable reimbursement mechanisms require nuanced market access strategies that align supplier capabilities with local laboratory needs and clinician preferences.
Competitive landscape overview emphasizing established manufacturers specialized innovators and laboratory-developed testing collaborations shaping clinical adoption
Competitive dynamics in autoimmune diagnostics are defined by a mix of established diagnostics manufacturers, agile specialty firms, and high-performing clinical laboratories that develop in-house tests. Established players leverage broad distribution networks, validated platforms, and comprehensive service infrastructures to support large hospital systems and reference lab chains. Emerging firms often compete on niche performance attributes, differentiated assay chemistries, or faster innovation cycles that address unmet diagnostic gaps, while laboratory-developed tests are frequently driven by academic centers and specialized clinical labs seeking to offer tailored solutions ahead of commercial availability.
Partnerships among manufacturers, clinical laboratories, and contract research organizations are increasingly common as a way to accelerate clinical validation and to navigate regional regulatory requirements. Strategic collaborations that combine technical expertise with clinical access and payer engagement capabilities enable more rapid translation of promising assays into routine clinical practice. Additionally, diagnostics suppliers that invest in training, digital support, and outcome-data partnerships with providers can strengthen long-term clinical adoption and customer retention.
Actionable strategic imperatives for diagnostic leaders to accelerate clinical adoption strengthen supply chains and establish defensible differentiation
Industry leaders should adopt a multifaceted strategy that balances innovation velocity with rigorous validation and commercial pragmatism. Prioritizing assays and platforms that demonstrate clear clinical utility in defined diagnostic pathways will facilitate payer conversations and clinical adoption. Concurrently, investing in modular platform designs and compatible reagent portfolios can reduce time-to-market for new panels and enable cost-effective scale-up across laboratory partners.
Operationally, firms should strengthen supply chain redundancies, diversify component sourcing, and formalize long-term agreements with strategic suppliers to mitigate tariff and logistics disruptions. On the market-facing side, tailored engagement with hospital laboratory directors, reference lab procurement teams, and specialty clinicians will accelerate uptake. Finally, cultivating collaborative evidence-generation programs-including registry integration, prospective outcome studies, and real-world performance monitoring-will create defensible differentiation and support reimbursement negotiations.
Robust mixed-methods research approach combining expert interviews literature synthesis and rigorous data triangulation to ensure analytical integrity
The research methodology integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches to produce a comprehensive and verifiable evidence base for the analysis. Primary research included structured interviews with laboratory directors, clinical specialists, procurement officers, and regulatory experts to capture operational realities, validation priorities, and regional market nuances. Secondary research sources comprised peer-reviewed clinical literature, regulatory guidance documents, technical specifications published by standards organizations, and company disclosures related to product performance and post-market surveillance.
Data synthesis followed a triangulation approach in which primary insights were cross-referenced against published technical data and regulatory frameworks to validate assumptions and to illuminate gaps. Quality assurance procedures included methodical interview scripting, reproducible data extraction protocols, and iterative peer review to ensure analytical rigor and to minimize bias. Where applicable, findings were contextualized to reflect regional regulatory variations and laboratory infrastructure differentials.
Concise synthesis highlighting the convergence of technology validation clinical utility and supply chain resilience driving durable adoption in autoimmune diagnostics
Synthesis of technological, regulatory, and commercial factors underscores that the autoimmune diagnostics sector is transitioning toward higher analytical sophistication and stronger demands for evidence of clinical impact. Laboratories and manufacturers that align product development with clinician workflows, validation expectations, and payer requirements will navigate adoption hurdles more effectively. Equally important is the capacity to operationalize resilient supply chains and to localize certain manufacturing or logistical functions to manage policy-driven cost pressures and to ensure continuity of care.
As the field evolves, stakeholders who invest in scalable platforms, interoperable data capture, and collaborative outcome studies will be best positioned to translate diagnostic innovation into improved patient outcomes and sustainable commercial models. Continued attention to regulatory alignment and transparent performance reporting will be essential to maintaining clinician trust and payer confidence.
Table of Contents
187 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Definition
- 1.3. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.4. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.5. Currency Considered for the Study
- 1.6. Language Considered for the Study
- 1.7. Key Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 2.1. Introduction
- 2.2. Research Design
- 2.2.1. Primary Research
- 2.2.2. Secondary Research
- 2.3. Research Framework
- 2.3.1. Qualitative Analysis
- 2.3.2. Quantitative Analysis
- 2.4. Market Size Estimation
- 2.4.1. Top-Down Approach
- 2.4.2. Bottom-Up Approach
- 2.5. Data Triangulation
- 2.6. Research Outcomes
- 2.7. Research Assumptions
- 2.8. Research Limitations
- 3. Executive Summary
- 3.1. Introduction
- 3.2. CXO Perspective
- 3.3. Market Size & Growth Trends
- 3.4. Market Share Analysis, 2025
- 3.5. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2025
- 3.6. New Revenue Opportunities
- 3.7. Next-Generation Business Models
- 3.8. Industry Roadmap
- 4. Market Overview
- 4.1. Introduction
- 4.2. Industry Ecosystem & Value Chain Analysis
- 4.2.1. Supply-Side Analysis
- 4.2.2. Demand-Side Analysis
- 4.2.3. Stakeholder Analysis
- 4.3. Porter’s Five Forces Analysis
- 4.4. PESTLE Analysis
- 4.5. Market Outlook
- 4.5.1. Near-Term Market Outlook (0–2 Years)
- 4.5.2. Medium-Term Market Outlook (3–5 Years)
- 4.5.3. Long-Term Market Outlook (5–10 Years)
- 4.6. Go-to-Market Strategy
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Consumer Insights & End-User Perspective
- 5.2. Consumer Experience Benchmarking
- 5.3. Opportunity Mapping
- 5.4. Distribution Channel Analysis
- 5.5. Pricing Trend Analysis
- 5.6. Regulatory Compliance & Standards Framework
- 5.7. ESG & Sustainability Analysis
- 5.8. Disruption & Risk Scenarios
- 5.9. Return on Investment & Cost-Benefit Analysis
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market, by Test Type
- 8.1. Anti Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide
- 8.2. Antinuclear Antibody
- 8.3. Celiac Disease
- 8.4. Rheumatoid Factor
- 9. IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market, by Technology
- 9.1. Chemiluminescence Immunoassay
- 9.2. Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay
- 9.3. Fluorescence Immunoassay
- 9.4. Multiplex Immunoassay
- 10. IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market, by Product Type
- 10.1. In Vitro Diagnostic
- 10.2. Lab Developed Test
- 11. IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market, by Sample Type
- 11.1. Dried Blood Spot
- 11.2. Plasma
- 11.3. Serum
- 11.4. Whole Blood
- 12. IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market, by End User
- 12.1. Academic And Research Institutes
- 12.2. Diagnostic Laboratories
- 12.3. Hospital Laboratories
- 12.4. Reference Laboratories
- 13. IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market, by Application
- 13.1. Celiac Disease
- 13.2. Multiple Sclerosis
- 13.3. Rheumatoid Arthritis
- 13.4. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
- 13.5. Type 1 Diabetes
- 14. IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market, by Region
- 14.1. Americas
- 14.1.1. North America
- 14.1.2. Latin America
- 14.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 14.2.1. Europe
- 14.2.2. Middle East
- 14.2.3. Africa
- 14.3. Asia-Pacific
- 15. IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market, by Group
- 15.1. ASEAN
- 15.2. GCC
- 15.3. European Union
- 15.4. BRICS
- 15.5. G7
- 15.6. NATO
- 16. IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market, by Country
- 16.1. United States
- 16.2. Canada
- 16.3. Mexico
- 16.4. Brazil
- 16.5. United Kingdom
- 16.6. Germany
- 16.7. France
- 16.8. Russia
- 16.9. Italy
- 16.10. Spain
- 16.11. China
- 16.12. India
- 16.13. Japan
- 16.14. Australia
- 16.15. South Korea
- 17. United States IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market
- 18. China IVD & LDT For Autoimmune Diseases Market
- 19. Competitive Landscape
- 19.1. Market Concentration Analysis, 2025
- 19.1.1. Concentration Ratio (CR)
- 19.1.2. Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI)
- 19.2. Recent Developments & Impact Analysis, 2025
- 19.3. Product Portfolio Analysis, 2025
- 19.4. Benchmarking Analysis, 2025
- 19.5. Abbott Laboratories
- 19.6. Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation
- 19.7. Agilent Technologies Inc.
- 19.8. Atlas Link Technology Co., Ltd
- 19.9. Becton, Dickinson and Company
- 19.10. Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc.
- 19.11. bioMérieux SA
- 19.12. Corgenix, Inc.
- 19.13. Danaher Corporation
- 19.14. DiaSorin S.p.A.
- 19.15. EUROIMMUN AG
- 19.16. F. Hoffmann‑La Roche Ltd.
- 19.17. Grifols, S.A.
- 19.18. Hologic Inc.
- 19.19. ImmunoScience India Pvt. Ltd.
- 19.20. Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
- 19.21. PerkinElmer, Inc.
- 19.22. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.
- 19.23. Quidel Corporation
- 19.24. Siemens Healthineers AG
- 19.25. Sysmex Corporation
- 19.26. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
- 19.27. Trinity Biotech plc
- FIGURE 1. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 2. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SHARE, BY KEY PLAYER, 2025
- FIGURE 3. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET, FPNV POSITIONING MATRIX, 2025
- FIGURE 4. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, BY TEST TYPE, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 5. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, BY TECHNOLOGY, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 6. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, BY PRODUCT TYPE, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 7. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, BY SAMPLE TYPE, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 8. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, BY END USER, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 9. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, BY APPLICATION, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 10. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, BY REGION, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 11. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, BY GROUP, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 12. GLOBAL IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, BY COUNTRY, 2025 VS 2026 VS 2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 13. UNITED STATES IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
- FIGURE 14. CHINA IVD & LDT FOR AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES MARKET SIZE, 2018-2032 (USD MILLION)
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
