A 2025 comprehensive update to the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Adult Sinusitis by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation provides refined diagnostic accuracy and optimizes management strategies for adult rhinosinusitis, drawing from a substantial body of evidence that includes 14 guidelines, 194 systematic reviews, and 133 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the document does not provide any discussion or guidance regarding the use of topical antibiotics, tobramycin, or the use of inhaled tobramycin (TOBI) for the treatment of chronic sinusitis (CRS). While the guideline provides detailed recommendations for systemic antibiotic therapy in acute bacterial rhinosinusitis and discusses medical and surgical management options for CRS, including corticosteroids, biologics, and endoscopic sinus surgery, it does not include tobramycin in any form. All irrigation recommendations are limited to saline (isotonic or hypertonic), delivered via high-volume devices. Additionally, no off-label use of TOBI formulations for sinonasal irrigation is addressed. [1]
A 2022 article evaluates the rationale for antibiotic use in CRS treatment and discusses existing guidelines and evidence. Despite CRS being a common reason for antibiotic prescriptions in the United States, the article notes a surprising lack of high-quality studies supporting efficacy; while antibiotics have shown benefits in treating acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, their role in chronic cases remains uncertain. The relationship between CRS and microbes is not well-defined, as no specific bacterial species has been identified to fulfill Koch’s postulates for CRS. Moreover, the potential of bacteria in biofilms and the presence of super-antigens from pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus are possible contributors to inflammation in CRS patients, yet without consistent clinical correlation to effective antibiotic treatment. In regards to the use of tobramycin, special consideration may be given for nebulized tobramycin for CRS in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), however not specific recommendation are provided on its use given the lack of consensus on the optimal use of antibiotics in CF-related CRS. The current landscape of antibiotic prescribing practices for CRS reveals significant variation in choice and duration of therapy. Notably, macrolides are considered due to their anti-inflammatory properties, which may be beneficial in managing CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), although optimal treatment regimens are not well-defined. Findings from small studies indicate that antibiotics might offer limited benefits in certain subsets of CRS patients, particularly those with low IgE levels. [2]
A 2022 review article provides a detailed analysis of therapeutic options for CRS in individuals with CF. In this setting, colistin and tobramycin are the primary topical antibiotics employed. These antibiotics can be administered through nasal irrigation or inhalation, with inhalation considered more effective due to better penetration into sinonasal mucosa and reduced side effects compared to systemic administration. A study by Davidson et al. (Table 3) demonstrated that adding 20 mg of tobramycin to the last 50 mL of nasal saline irrigation once daily after sinonasal surgery decreased recurrent exacerbations in CF patients. MRI scans also indicated prolonged sinus aeration post-irrigation. Nebulization with tobramycin and colistin was effective in preventing bacterial colonization in the sinuses, although traditional nebulization methods often failed to achieve optimal drug concentrations due to obstructed sinus openings. However, the PARI SINUS™ nebulizer, a novel device that delivers aerosol pulses to paranasal sinuses, showed promising results. A RCT by Mainz et al. (Table 4) revealed significant reductions in Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonies when 80 mg of tobramycin was delivered daily via PARI SINUS™ over 28 days, along with a notable decrease in SNOT-20 scores, indicating improved patient outcomes. The review emphasizes the need for age-specific treatment considerations, noting that most existing studies do not differentiate between adult and pediatric populations, further complicating treatment decisions. The absence of large, randomized controlled trials is highlighted as a significant barrier to developing evidence-based treatment protocols, underlining the call for more targeted research in this domain. [3]