Evidence Hub

Pulmonary cavitations in poorly controlled diabetic patients: is it tuberculosis? – case series of two patients

Marco Antonio Rodríguez Sánchez, Exequiel Aispuro Valenzuela, Luis David Beltrán Ontiveros, J. Rubio, M. Cruz, Cynthia Nahomi Solís Angulo, Sofia Myraki Flores Gutiérrez

European Journal of Medical Case Reports, 2026

Abstract

Background: Poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increases the risk of severe respiratory infections and pulmonary complications, including lung abscesses and cavitary lesions. In tuberculosis-endemic regions, these findings are often initially attributed to tuberculosis, which may delay the diagnosis and management of other relevant infectious etiologies.

Case Presentation: We report a case series of two patients with poorly controlled T2DM who developed pulmonary cavitations in the right upper lung lobe following non-tuberculous infectious processes. The first case involved a 22-year-old woman with a recent dengue infection who developed a cavitary pneumonia without signs of sepsis and showed a favorable clinical course with conservative management using intravenous antibiotics. The second case was a 68-year-old man with T2DM and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, initially treated for community-acquired pneumonia, who subsequently developed severe diabetic ketoacidosis, septic shock, and extensive pulmonary cavitation, requiring intensive care unit admission, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics, and surgical lobectomy.

Conclusion: Pulmonary cavitations in patients with poorly controlled T2DM represent a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, particularly in tuberculosis-endemic settings. This case series underscores the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion for non-tuberculous etiologies, achieving adequate metabolic control,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free