Candida colonization in the oral cavity differs among different populations, and may become a source of candidiasis for immunocompromised patients, including LTPs.
Candida colonization has been reported in 46.8% of patients with hematological disorders (
18), and in 19% - 50% of LTPs (
7-
10,
19). The present study found a colonization rate of 67.4% in LTPs. Since the prescription of antifungal agents prophylactically can cause resistant strains, suitable mouthwashes can be used to prevent invasive
Candida infections. According to authoritative sources and the background of infectious diseases in LTPs, invasive
Candida infections usually develop during the first two months after transplantation (
20), due to improper hygiene management in patients, operating rooms, and intensive care units. As stated in the study by Badiee et al. Candida infections occur in one out of five patients (19%), with a mortality rate of 100% (
9). This fact highlights the importance of preventing the oral colonization of
Candida species. Using an appropriate mouthwash before and after transplantation significantly improves the patient’s hygiene and decreases the risk of developing disease. It also decreases the need for medications and reduces subsequent costs.
In this study, the most frequent fungal strain found in the cultured intraoral samples from LTPs was
C. albicans, which is the most prevalent species causing oral candidiasis (
21,
22). The second most frequent was
C. glabrata, which generally appears opportunistically in patients with weakened immune systems. This was in line with a study performed by Jin et al. that reported similar strains in samples from 70 transplant patients (
2). The findings of a study by Haddadi et al. indicated that
C. krusei was the second most prevalent strain found among 188 patients with weakened immune systems due to hematological disorders. Furthermore,
C. glabrata was in fourth place in that study and
C. kefyr was in sixth place, which was the third most frequent strain in the present study (
18).
Ramage et al. found that compared with azoles, the mouthwashes available on the market have a stronger effect on
Candida biofilms (
13). Similarly, in an in vitro study, Shrestha et al. demonstrated the antifungal effects of mouthwashes containing chlorhexidine and thymol, by determining the minimum inhibitory concentration and time-kill assays in
Candida strains (
15). Carvalhinho et al. investigated the antifungal effects of essential oils on
Candida strains by using the disk diffusion method (
14).
In a different study, Al-Mohaya et al. observed that using miswak sticks considerably reduced oral
Candida colonizations in kidney transplant patients (
23). The mouthwashes used the present study were chlorhexidine (0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate), Vi-One (0.05% sodium fluoride and 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride), Oral-B (sodium fluoride, cetylpyridinium chloride, polysorbate 20, and some preservative agents), and Nanosil D1 (H
2O
2 and Ag
+ nanoparticles), with 100,000 mL/IU of Nystatin as the control. All of these underwent time-kill assays to determine their antifungal susceptibility.
The present study demonstrated that the antifungal effects of all four of the mouthwashes were significantly higher at the exposure time of 60 seconds than at 30 seconds. Chlorhexidine and Vi-One, respectively, had the highest and lowest effects at 30 seconds; however, Oral-B and Nanosil showed no significant differences and were in the middle. At 60 seconds of exposure, chlorhexidine was the most effective, followed by Oral-B, Nanosil D1, and Vi-One, respectively. Nystatin, a renowned antifungal agent from the polyene family, demonstrated full cytotoxicity at both exposure times as the control mouthwash.
Mouthwashes carry out their effects through chemical and mechanical processes: the pressure of the circulating liquid in the mouth mechanically inhibits the colonization of fungi, while the active ingredients deactivate fungal organisms through chemical reactions. The chemical mode of action is the coagulation of proteins and nucleoproteins, destruction of the cell walls, and prevention of the germination and growth of fungi, in addition to detergent effects and increased solubility of organic materials (
15). Thus, a longer exposure time increases the mechanical and chemical efficiency, and more fungi are consequently killed. In this study, chlorhexidine was the most effective at the exposure time of 60 seconds. Further research is suggested in order to evaluate longer exposure times, tolerance to using mouthwashes based on patients’ ages, and mouthwashes with other active ingredients, preferably herbal types. Also, mouthwash is recommended to be circulated on plates in order to simulate the rinsing motion.
Clearly,
Candida colonization is a risk factor for IFI and candidemia, particularly in hospitalized patients. It is also known that the mortality rate of candidemia is almost 11% in children (
24), which culminates in LTP (
9). The oral cavity is the most common location for
Candida colonization (
25). Considering all of these factors, controlling and preventing fungal colonization in different parts of the body, including the oral cavity, in LTPs can decrease the likelihood of developing post-transplant IFIs (
5). This will also help to decrease the costs of hospitalization (
11).
This prevention can be done both through taking antifungal agents and by using mouthwashes that act against fungal colonization. However, special attention must be paid to the increasing drug-resistance of microorganisms; for example, Haddadi et al. (
18) reported
C. glabrata as the most resistant strain to azoles and amphotericin B, while it was second-place in the current study. Another concern to consider is the higher costs of drugs compared to mouthwashes. A simple calculation is enough to show that if a patient uses 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate three times daily (5 mL each) to prevent fungal colonization during the first two critical months after transplantation, three 300-mL bottles will be required, for a total cost of 15.54 USD from the Amazon website (5.18 USD or 3.68 GBP per bottle) (
26). On the other hand, daily pharmaceutical prophylaxis in the form of, at most, 400 mg/day of fluconazole or 2 mg/kg of liposomal amphotericin B for two weeks (
27) will cost, respectively, 239 and 378 USD (
28,
29); i.e., almost 20 times higher than the cost of preventing infection with mouthwash. In cases of IFI, hospital costs are estimated to be approximately 40,000 USD (
27). All of this indicates that mouthwashes can considerably reduce therapeutic costs.
The results of the present study at Namazi hospital showed that the rate of fungal colonization in the oral cavities of LTPs was 67.4%, and C. albicans was the most frequent strain. Chlorhexidine, at an exposure time of ≥ 60 seconds, is suggested as an effective antifungal prophylaxis to be included in the medication regimen of such patients before and after transplantation, in order to prevent fungal colonization and subsequent systemic infection. In additional, fungal colonizations must be regularly checked for in these patients, so that appropriate decisions can be made in a timely manner in cases of resistant strains.