Article Text

Download PDFPDF
CASE REPORT
Carbimazole-induced eosinophilic pleural effusion
  1. Chris Ferguson,
  2. Claire Bradley,
  3. Joe Kidney
  1. Respiratory Medicine, Mater Hospital, Belfast, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Chris Ferguson, cferguson20{at}qub.ac.uk

Summary

We report the case of a 41-year-old woman who presented with a unilateral exudative effusion with prominent eosinophils on pleural cytology. Carbimazole had been started 4 weeks prior to presentation. No immediate cause was identified on imaging or laboratory testing. The effusion persisted at 2-month follow-up. Further investigation at this time, including autoimmune serology was negative. At 2-month follow-up, the effusion was loculated on ultrasound imaging and had a low fluid pH on diagnostic aspiration, in keeping with an empyema. The patient received treatment for pleural empyema, including antibiotics, intercostal drain insertion and video-assisted thoracoscopic pleural biopsy. Carbimazole was stopped, and following treatment for the empyema, the effusion did not reaccumulate.

This case illustrates the diagnostic difficulties that pleural effusions may present. It demonstrates that drug reactions should be considered in the differential diagnosis following thorough investigation for other potential causes and also describes the complications that may occur.

  • respiratory medicine
  • unwanted effects / adverse reactions

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors CF and CB contributed equally to this report. CF was predominantly responsible for discussing differential diagnosis and discussion. CB was predominantly responsible for summarising the case and differential diagnosis. Both helped to finalise the draft of each other parts. JK contributed to editing and revising the final draft.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.