Introduction: There is currently a lack of understanding of the disease management and care pathways of PF-ILD patients in the Portuguese healthcare setting.
Objectives: Characterize Portugal's PF-ILD diagnostic pathways and management.
Materials and Methods: This national, non-interventional, multicenter study collected real-world data from adult PF-ILD patients across 14 specialized Portuguese hospitals based on IPF (ATS/ERS/JTS/ALAT 2018) and INBUILD criteria. Data collection included medical history, demographics, diagnosis, treatments and adverse events (AEs).
Results: Between January 27, 2023, and February 28, 2025, 1270 PF-ILD patients were identified (726 enrolled in the study, 527 from an aggregated database, and 17 from counter logs). The most frequent diagnosis were IPF (53.4%; n=382), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (22.2%; n=159) and autoimmune ILDs (10,2%; n=73).
At diagnosis, the most frequent presenting symptoms were dyspnea (76.0%; n=544), cough (65.2%; n=467) and fatigue (34.1%; n=244). Notably, 18 patients (2.5%) were asymptomatic. Most patients (89,8%; n=643) were diagnosed through MDT discussions, with referrals predominantly originating from public sector (83.9%, n=579), particularly from GPs (32.2%; n=222) and respiratory specialists (28.3%; n=195). The mean (SD) time from symptom onset to referral was 26.1 (41.5) months and 34.8 (43.3) months to diagnosis.
Antifibrotic therapy was prescribed in 80.7% of cases (n=578), predominantly nintedanib (74.9%; n=433). IPF shows the highest antifibrotic usage (84.3%, n=322), followed by uIIP (79.4%, n=27), HP (76.1%, n=121) and CTD-ILD (75.3%, n=55). A total of 58 AEs were reported, mostly mild or moderate.
Conclusions: This interim analysis exposes major delays in the PF‑ILD diagnostic pathway in Portugal, with nearly three years from symptom onset to diagnosis, underscoring the need for greater clinical awareness and faster referral. The dominant role of public‑sector referrals, namely GPs are vital in the diagnostic pathway with opportunities for improvement. The strong contribution of MDT discussions supports robust diagnostic practice. Extended longitudinal follow-up is necessary to better understand disease progression and outcomes, which may be underreported.