Screening for Cognitive Dysfunctions in Patients with Combined Hashish and Tramadol Addiction

Table of contents

1. I. Introduction

ne of the consequences under the scrutiny of researchers is cognitive dysfunction in drug addiction. Abnormal brain function in people with addiction predisposes them to make decisions with disastrous consequences for their health and well-being, and the well-being of their families and communities [1]. Many authors point out that there is an extensive literature supporting the hypothesis that long-term drug exposure leads to certain cognitive impairments [2,3,4,5]. Among drug users, the prevalence of cognitive impairment ranges from 30 to 80% [6].

Areas of the brain and processes underlying addiction overlap significantly with areas involved in basic cognitive functions [7]. Anatomically, there is an important overlap between learning and memory neural substrates and addictions. Some of the areas that show overlap include the cerebral cortex, hippocampus, amygdala, and striatum, all of which are components of the mesolimbic dopaminergic system [8]. Cognitive dysfunctions are closely associated with a strong pathological craving for the drug, with its ideational and affective components being especially pronounced. The intensity of changes in the ideational component is confirmed, along with impairments in the cognitive sphere, impaired nosognosias in most patients in the post-withdrawal period [9]. A similar reflection was found in the article by Copersino M. L. and Wiers R. W. that cognitive impairment affects addictive behavior [10,11].

Yaltonsky V.M. "The combination of legal and illegal surfactants is manifested by high neurotoxicity, which is considered as one of the main causes of neurodegenerative disorders in chemical addictions and is accompanied by neurocognitive deficits" [12].

Many authors come to the conclusion that it is the cannabinoid group that is the main source of cognitive dysfunctions in combined abuse with tramadol [13,14], which depend on the age of onset, duration, amount, and frequency of abuse [15,16,17]. Tursunkhojaeva L.A., and Rustamova J.T. in a comparative assessment of memory functions in patients with opium-hashish poly-drug addiction and opium mono-addiction, we concluded that all amnestic processes are disturbed during poly-drug addiction [18].

Cognitive impairment is a predictor of poor treatment outcome [19,20]. Cognitive dysfunction also harms treatment processes such as motivation for treatment, willingness to change, readiness for treatment, and the rehabilitation period [21]. The preservation of cognitive functions in drug addicts can reduce the risk of relapse and improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation [22]. Predictors of low treatment success and a high likelihood of relapse are memory impairments, a low level of abstraction, low psychomotor speed and impaired visual-spatial synthesis, impaired inhibition processes, and working memory [23,24]. The patient's cognitive ability is a predictor of quality of treatment outcome, which can be a useful screening tool for alerting potential problems that may arise during treatment [25,26,27]. Repeated drug use in the face of negative consequences indicates dysfunction of the cognitive mechanisms underlying decision-making. The deficit in decision making is most likely due to both premorbid factors and effects caused by psychoactive substances, which in the long term is associated with a high risk of relapse [28.29].

Purpose: A neuropsychological study of cognitive functions in patients with combined dependence on hashish and tramadol.

2. II. Materials and Research Methods

Following the goal of the study, 129 male patients were selected who underwent inpatient treatment for drug addiction in the Republican Narcological Center from 2015 to 2019. All patients are male. The patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1 (main group) -41% of patients (n=53) with combined abuse of hashish and tramadol. For comparison, patients with opium and hashish monar addiction who were not complicated by dependence on other types of psychoactive substances were selected. 2-group (control group) -34% of patients (n=44) with dependence on opioids, abuse tramadol without a doctor's prescription to achieve euphoria, who did not use other opioids before taking tramadol. Group 3 (control group) -24.8% of patients (n=32) with dependence on cannabinoids.

A neuropsychological study was carried out using two approaches: 1. a cognitive screening tool to distinguish between patients in the main and control groups. For the study of memory: a method of memorizing 10 words according to AR Luria, [30,31] words that are not related to each other, neutral in logic and emotional color. A set of words is presented 5 times so that the patient can fully remember them and can reproduce them in any sequence. 2. A battery of tests to determine the relationship between disease and cognitive dysfunction -Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA test) [32,33]. The MoCA test is sensitive to subtle cognitive impairments in a variety of populations and has a wide range of applications, including dependence on psychoactive substances [34], in contrast to MMSE (Mini-mental state examination (MMSE) MF Folstein, PR Folstein (1975), the MOSA test is more sensitive to early detection of cognitive decline. [35] The MOCA test helps to assess: executive functions, optical-spatial activity, memory, attention, speech, conceptual thinking, counting, and orientation. The sensitivity is 90%, the specificity of the method is 87%. The maximum score is 30; the cut-off point is 25/26 points [36,37]. Time for the test is approximately 10 minutes. When concluding, they were not based only on rating scales, we took into account the anamnestic information collected from the patient, as well as, if possible and the consent of the patient and his close relatives, mental status, and our observations.

The data revealed during the study were subjected to statistical processing on a Pentium-IV personal computer using the Microsoft Office Excel-2016 software package, using the built-in statistical processing functions. The level of reliability P <0.05 was taken as statistically significant changes. All patients had informed consent for examination.

3. III. Results and Discussion

The age of the surveyed ranged from 20 to 45 years. The average age is 30.5±6. 16 The result of the study of the level of education, presented in Figure 1, did not reveal statistically significant intergroup differences (P 1-2, P 1-3> 0.05). Note: differences relative to data from groups II and III are insignificant (P> 0.05) Among the patients of the studied groups, cognitive impairments of varying severity were revealed.

The results of the study of memory by the method of memorizing 10 words showed that after the first series, which indicates the volume of auditory shortterm memory, a large proportion of patients with combined addiction remembered only 2-4 words: 67.9% of patients in group 1, 11.3% patients in group 2 (P1-2 <0.001) and 53.1% of patients in group 3 (P 1-3> 0.05), in contrast, were able to reproduce 5-7 words in patients with tramadol dependence (32% of patients 1-group, 88.6% of patients in group 2 (P 1-2 <0.001) and 46.8% of patients in group 3 (P 1-3> 0.05).

When examining subjects without memory impairments, by the third repetition they reproduce, correctly, up to 9 or 10 words. Substance-dependent patients gave the following results (Table 1). Normally, the learning curve is steadily increasing. The curve of patients in groups 1 and 3 reflects violations of all mnestic processes -fixation, retention and reproduction. Their curve with a sharp downward slope indicates a weakening of active attention. Although the curves of patients in groups 1 and 3 are the same, the number of words in the initial and subsequent reproductions is lower with combined dependence on hashish and tramadol than with mono use of hashish. And also patients in group 1 often reproduced words in random order with the aim of not specifically highlighting previously unmentioned words. Having made a mistake, they continued to repeat it in the next tests.

Screening of cognitive function with the MOSA test also revealed intergroup differences. The average The indicators of the volume of auditory longterm memory, taken after one hour, determined that the vast majority of patients with tramadol dependence could reproduce 8-10 words (18.8% of patients in group 1, 81.8% of patients in group 2 (P1-2 <0.001 ) and 37.5% of patients in group 3 (P 1-3> 0.05), while in patients with poly addiction there was a regression, the number of patients with memorization of 2-4 words increased again (20.7% of patients in group 1 (P1 -2 <0.001), and 5% of patients group 3 (P 1-3> 0.05). score on the MOSA test was higher among patients in group 2 -24.5±1.15 (P1-2 <0.01), for patients in group 1 it was 21.4±2.42 and in patients in group 3 -22.81±1, 09 (P 1-3> 0.05). Table 2 shows the indicators of each domain of the MOCA scale in the subjects. Among all patients with addiction to psychoactive substances, more violations were revealed in such parameters as executive skills -drawing a broken line: correct performance was 66% in group 1, 97.7% in group 2 (P1-2 <0.001), 3-group 81.3% (P1-3> 0.05). Any mistake, if corrected by the patient on his own, was counted. When assessing optical-spatial activity (cube): intergroup differences were not revealed (?1-2; ?1-3> 0.05); Optical-spatial activity (hours): when drawing the correct contour and the arrangement of arrows, intergroup differences were not revealed (P1-2; P1-3> 0.05); the correct arrangement of numberspatients in group 1 -71.7%, group 2 -90 , 9% (P1-2 <0.01), 3 groups 81.3% (P1-3> 0.05). Delayed reproduction (score is assigned 1 point for each named word without any prompts): 1 point was received only by patients of group 1, 9.4% (P1-2; P1-3 <0.05); 2 pointspatients in group 1 -28.3%, group 2 did not receive (P 1-2 <0.001), group 3 -9.4% (P1-3> 0.05); 3 pointspatients of group 1 -47.2%, group 2 -15.9% (P 1-2 <0.001), group 3 -34.4% (P 1-3> 0.05) 4 pointspatients 1 -group 15.1%, group 2 45.5% (P 1-2 <0.001), group 3 56.3% (P 1-3 <0.001); 5 points -only patients in group 2 38.6 % (P 1-2 <0.001). In the remaining domains, such as naming, attention, repetition of sentences in two approaches, fluency, abstract thinking and orientation, no statistically intergroup differences were found (P1-2; P1-3> 0.05). But draws attention, all patients of the study groups, 100% correctly named the animal "lion", while the naming of the animal "rhino" had difficulties in patients of group 3 (group 1 -69.8% answered correctly, group 2 63.6%, group 3 -50.0% (P1-2; P1-3> 0.05) All patients in the study of attention had difficulties in direct counting, the proportion of correct answers was low (group 1 -60.4%; Group 2 -63.6%; Group 3 -62.5% (P1-2; P1-3> 0.05) compared to the reverse count (Group 1 -86.8%; Group 2 -81.8%; Group 3-81.2% (P1-2; P1-3> 0.05). Conclusion: Screening of cognitive functions in patients with the combined use of hashish and tramadol showed that there is a negative synergistic effect on cognitive function. The cannabinoid group is the main cognitive dysfunction when combined with tramadol -with combined use and mono use of hashish, violations of all mnestic processes occur: fixation, retention, and reproduction, but with deeper disorders in poly addiction.

Screening of the cognitive function of patients with poly addiction is one of the main prognostic signs and gives an idea to the clinician for a further algorithm of actions, directions for improving the specialized treatment of addiction and preventing the relapse of the disease.

4. ( D D D D )

A

Figure 1.
years. The average age of patients at the time of examination in group 1 was 31.1±7.0 years (median 31.5; minimum age -20 years, maximum age 45 years), in group 2 -30.06±6.7 years (median 29.5; minimum age 20 years, maximum age 45 years), in group 3 -31.6±7.1 (median 32.5; minimum age 22 years, maximum age 44 years.
Figure 2. Figure 1 :
1Figure 1: Distribution of respondents by education level in the study groups.
Figure 3. Table 1 :
1
1 st group 2 nd group 3 rd group
Word count (n=53) (n=44) (n=32) ? 1-2 ? 1-3
abc. % abc. % abc. %
2-4 6 11,3 0 0 3 9,3 <0,05 >0,05
5-7 31 58,4 6 13,6 13 40,6 <0,001 <0,01
8-10 16 30,1 38 86,3 16 50 <0,001 >0,05
Total 53 100 44 100 32 100
Figure 4. Table 2 :
2
1 Group 2Group 3 Group
Indicators (n=53) (n=44) (n=32) ? 1-2 ? 1-3
abc. % abc. abc. % abc.
Draw a broken line:
wrong 18 34,0 1 2,3 6 18,8 <0,001 >0,05
right 35 66,0 43 97,7 26 81,3 <0,001 >0,05
Year 2020 Optical-spatial activity (cube): wrong 25 47,2 14 31,8 12 37,5 >0,05 >0,05
right 28 52,8 30 68,2 20 62,5 >0,05 >0,05
4 Optical-spatial activity (hours):
Volume XX Issue III Version I ??????: Numbers: wrong right wrong right Arrows wrong right Naming: Llion 3 50 15 38 20 33 5,7 94,3 28,3 71,7 37,7 62,3 0 44 4 40 9 35 0 100 9,1 90,9 20,5 79,5 2 30 6 26 10 22 6,3 93,8 18,8 81,3 31,3 68,8 >0,05 >0,05 <0,001 <0,01 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05
D D D D ) A wrong 0 0 0 0 0 0
( right 53 100 44 100 32 100
Medical Research Rhinoceros wrong right Camel wrong right 16 37 5 48 30,2 69,8 9,4 90,6 16 28 4 40 36,4 63,6 9,1 90,9 16 16 3 29 50,0 50,0 9,4 90,6 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05
Global Journal of Attention: Direct account wrong right Reverse count wrong right 21 32 7 46 39,6 60,4 13,2 86,8 16 28 8 36 36,4 63,6 18,2 81,8 12 20 6 26 37,5 62,5 18,7 81,2 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05 >0,05
Reaction (clap on the letter A)
wrong 11 20,8 8 18,2 7 21,9 >0,05 >0,05
right 42 79,2 36 81,8 25 78,2 >0,05 >0,05
Serial account
1 score 3 5,7 0 0 0 0 >0,05 >0,05
2 score 31 58,5 20 45,5 18 56,2 >0,05 >0,05
3 score 19 35,8 24 54,5 14 43,7 >0,05 >0,05
1

Appendix A

  1. ????????????????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ? ??????? ??????????? ? ???????????? ? ?????????????? ??????????? // ???, ? ? ???????? , ? Ð?" ??????? , ? ? ???????? , ? ? ??????? , Ð?"? . ????.????.-2010.-?.10,?4.-?.229
  2. Diagnosis of cognitive dysfunction in patients in intensive care units and intensive care // Bulletin of anesthesiology and resuscitation, A A Ivkin , E V Grigoriev , D L Shukevich . DOI: 10.21292 / 2078-5658-2018- 15-3-47-55. 2018. 15 p. .
  3. A E Thomann , N Goettel , R J Monsch , M Berres , T Jahn , L A Steiner , A U Monsch . The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Normative Data from a German-Speaking Cohort and Comparison with International Normative Samples, 2018.
  4. Neuropsychological studies of cognitive impairments in alcoholism and drug addiction // Psychological journal, A G Polunina , D M Davydov , E A Brun . 2004. 25 p. .
  5. Evidence for the Risks and Consequences of Adolescent Cannabis Exposure. A Levine , K Clemenza , M Rynn , J Lieberman . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2017 Mar. 56 (3) p. .
  6. Stages of dysfunctional decision-making in addiction. Antonio & Yam , Trevor & Chong , Julie & Stout , Yucel , Edythe Murat & London . 164.10.1016/j.pbb.2017.02.003. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 2017.
  7. Cannabis use and cognitive dysfunction. A Shrivastava , M Johnston , M Tsuang . Indian journal of psychiatry 2011. 53 (3) p. .
  8. Addiction, cognitive decline and therapy: seeking ways to escape a vicious cycle. C J Perry , A J Lawrence . Genes, brain, and behavior 2017. 16 (1) p. .
  9. Influence of Drugs on Cognitive Functions, Claudia & Juárez , Tania & Molina-Jiménez , Jean-Pascal & Morin , Roldán-Roldán , Rossana Zepeda . 10.5772/intechopen.71842. 2018.
  10. Cannabis and adolescent brain development. D I Lubman , A Cheetham , M Yücel . Pharmacology & therapeutics 2015. 148 p. .
  11. Assessment of Executive Function in Patients with Substance use Disorder: A Comparison of Inventory-and Performance-Based Assessment. E Hagen , A H Erga , K P Hagen , S M Nesvåg , J R Mckay , A J Lundervold , E Walderhaug . Journal of substance abuse treatment 2016. 66 p. .
  12. Keep off the grass? Cannabis, cognition and addiction. H V Curran , T P Freeman , C Mokrysz , D A Lewis , C J Morgan , L H Parsons . Nat Rev Neurosci 2016. 17 p. .
  13. The process of change for people with cognitive impairment in a residential rehabilitation program for substance problems: a phenomenographical analysis. Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, J Allan , S Collings , A Munro . 10.1186/s13011-019-0200-y. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-019-0200-y 2019. 14 p. 13.
  14. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). John Hobson . Occupational Medicine December 2015. 65 (9) p. .
  15. Cognitive function and treatment response in a randomized clinical trial of computer-based training in cognitivebehavioral therapy. K M Carroll , B D Kiluk , C Nich , T A Babuscio , J A Brewer , M N Potenza , S A Ball , S Martino , B J Rounsaville , C W Lejuez . Substance use & misuse 2011. 46 (1) p. .
  16. Screening Drug and Alcohol participants for mild cognitive impairment: why, how and does it matter?, K Willock .
  17. Comparative assessment of memory functions in patients with opium-hashish poly drug addiction and opium mono-drug addiction // Neurology, L A Tursunkhojaeva , T Rustamova Zh . ?4-?.334. 2007. Tashkent.
  18. Polydrug use and its association with drug treatment outcomes among primary heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine users. L Wang , J E Min , E Krebs , E Evans , D Huang , L Liu , Y I Hser , B Nosyk . Int. J. Drug Policy 2017. 49 p. .
  19. Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: a review of its development, causes, and consequences. Drug and alcohol dependence, M Field , W M Cox . 2008. 97 p. .
  20. Rapid cognitive screening of patients with substance use disorders. M L Copersino , W Fals-Stewart , G Fitzmaurice , D J Schretlen , J Sokoloff , R D Weiss . Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology 2009. 17 (5) p. .
  21. Effects of cognitive impairment on substance abuse treatment attendance: predictive validation of a brief cognitive screening measure. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse, M L Copersino , D J Schretlen , G M Fitzmaurice , S E Lukas , J Faberman , J Sokoloff , R D Weiss . 2012. 38 p. .
  22. Cognitive mechanisms and therapeutic targets of addiction. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, M L Copersino . 2017. February 1. Elsevier Ltd.
  23. Cognitive Impairment and Tramadol Dependence. M M Bassiony , U M Youssef , M S Hassan , Salah El-Deen , G M El-Gohari , H Abdelghani , M Ibrahim , DH . Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2017. 37 (1) p. .
  24. Cognitive enhancement as a pharmacotherapy target for stimulant addiction. M Sofuoglu . Addiction 2010. 105 (1) p. .
  25. Effects of Cannabis Use on Human Behavior, Including Cognition, Motivation, and Psychosis: A Review. N D Volkow , J M Swanson , A E Evins , L E Delisi , M H Meier , R Gonzalez , M A Bloomfield , H V Curran , R Baler . JAMA Psychiatry 2016. 73 (3) p. .
  26. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): Concept and clinical review. P Julayanont , N Phillips , H Chertkow , Z S Nasreddine . Cognitive screening instruments: A practical approach, A J Larner (ed.) 2013. Springer-Verlag. p. .
  27. Implicit Cognition and Addiction. R W Wiers , A W Stacy . Current Directions in Psychological Science 2006. 15 (6) p. .
  28. Impact of general cognition and executive function deficits on addiction treatment outcomes: Systematic review and discussion of neurocognitive pathways. S Domínguez-Salas , C Díaz-Batanero , O M Lozano-Rojas , A Verdejo-García . Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2016. 71 p. .
  29. Correction of cognitive impairments in heroin addiction with the nootropic drug alcheba (memantine) // Anthology of Russian psychotherapy and psychology, Sultanov Sh , Kh , N I Khodzhaeva , A A Kharyakova . 2019. -P. 168.
  30. Addiction and cognition. T J Gould . Addiction science & clinical practice 2010. 5 (2) p. .
  31. Cognitive dysfunctions in patients with opioid addiction // Nevrol. and a psychiatrist, T V Agibalova , K N Poplevchenkov . p. .
  32. E/CN.7/2020/CRP.6https://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND/CND_Sessions/CND_63/CRPs/ECN72020_CRP6_e_V2001364.pdf UNODC/WHO International Standards for the Treatment of Drug Use Disorders,
  33. The combined use of drugs and other psychoactive substances by adolescents as an urgent problem of narcology. // Issues of narcology, V M Yaltonsky , N A Sirota , A V Yaltonskaya . 2017-?7-?.83. 84 p. 88.
  34. Effects of Chinese medicine for tonifying the kidney and resolving phlegm and blood stasis in treating patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment: A randomized, double-blind and parallel-controlled trial. Y C Miao , J Z Tian , J Shi , M Mao . Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine 2012. 10 (4) p. .
  35. MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Z S Nasreddine , N A Phillips , V Bédirian , S Charbonneau , V Whitehead , CollinI . https://www.mocatest.com The Montreal Cognitive Assessment 2005. 53 p. . (J Am Geriatr Soc.)
Notes
1
© 2020 Global Journals Screening for Cognitive Dysfunctions in Patients with Combined Hashish and Tramadol Addiction
Home 
Date: 2020-01-15