Therapeutic possibilities for the correction of cognitive and psychoemotional impairments in patients with post-covid syndrome

Mathematical processing of the obtained data was carried out by the method of analysis of variations. The average values (M) and their average error (± m) were determined, the differences between the average values 0), the correspondence criterion (x2), the probability value (p).
The relationship between the studied parameters was determined using the linear correlation coefficient (± r). The results were considered statistically significant at p<0.05. The assessment of direct correlation was considered: up to ±0.3 - small; from ±0.3 to ±0.7 - medium; ±0.7 to 1.0 large.
Research results. In the pathogenesis of the development of clinical manifestations in COVID-19, thrombus formation of vessels of various calibers of different tissues and organs, including cerebral vessels, lies. That is, diffuse ischemia occurs against the background of multiple thromboses, which causes dysfunction of various organs and systems. In our work, we studied the psycho-emotional and cognitive sphere of patients on the background of COVID-19, which is also caused by vascular lesions of the brain. Therefore, for the treatment of these symptoms, a neuropeptide preparation was chosen by nature (safety, efficacy) and having indications for asthenia, cognitive impairment, anxiety.
In connection with the above facts, it seems relevant to study the effectiveness and tolerability of BAC therapy in the treatment of a wide range of psychoemotional and cognitive disorders in patients with cerebrovascular diseases.
The cognitive status (CS) of patients was assessed at 6 months using neuropsychological scales (MMSE, Schulte table, memorization test 10 words).
MMSE Cognitive Status Assessment
The Mini Mental Status Assessment (MMSE) is widely used around the world to assess the state of cognitive functions. In our study, the assessment of cognitive status by the MMSE test showed the presence of statistically significant differences between the groups. It should be noted that the effectiveness of this technique depends on the severity of the cognitive deficit, i.e. it is not sensitive enough to mild to moderate cognitive impairment ( ).
The data obtained were categorized as follows: 28 or more points - the norm; 25–27 points - pre-dementia disorders; 24 or less points - demental CI. The results of this operation are presented in table 3.
Comparing the dynamics of the severity of CI in subgroups (according to the MMSE scale), we can note:
-among persons with severe CI (24 points or less) of the A-subgroup, in 50% of cases (p 0.02) there was a regression to mild CI (25%) and recovery to normal (25%), in the B-subgroup 33% of cases regressed only to the level of moderate CI;
- mild CI detected in patients of the A-subgroup at the beginning of the observation period on the MMSE scale regressed after 6 months: 67% had normal test indicators, 33% had no significant dynamic changes (p 0.004), in the B-subgroup 35% of patients recovered CF indicators to normal, 47% remained moderate CI.
- patients without CI at the visit by the end of the observation period in the A-subgroup in 90% of cases remained with indicators within the normal range (28 points and above), 10% had progression of CI to the degree of moderate, among patients in the control group over the same period of time 47% had normal indicators on the MMSE scale, and 53% had moderate CI (intergroup differences according to the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test p 0.012, regression of normal indicators in the control group had a statistical significance of p 0.003 in an intragroup comparison according to the nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test).
Statistical significance (p<0.05) in intergroup comparison (chi-square test) of categorized data on the MMSE test showed significant differences in the A-subgroup (Table 3). Despite the fact that the initial data on all cognitive tests in the A-subgroup were slightly worse than those in the B-subgroup, after treatment in the A-subgroup we see a higher result than in the compared subgroup.
Table 3
Dynamics of the cognitive status of patients on scales (M + δ)