Objective We used polysomnography (PSG) monitoring and neuropsychological scales to explore the characteristics of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in Wuhan, two years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods A total of 42 patients in the Sleep Medicine Center were diagnosed with insomnia between December 2021 and May 2022; they were divided into the PTSD group (patients with PTSD diagnosed with insomnia after COVID-19 infection) and the non-PTSD group (patients with insomnia without PTSD). A healthy control group was simultaneously included.Results The PTSD group was more significant than the non-PTSD group in partial manifestations of sleep disorders, neuropsychological clinical symptoms, and partial PSG data. Patients with different COVID-19 subtypes showed significant differences in the course of disease, sleep disorders, neuropsychological clinical symptoms, relevant scale scores, and PSG data analysis.Conclusion The emotional anxiety and depression of COVID-19 patients diagnosed with PTSD two years after the COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan are more significant, and will not be self-alleviated with the passage of time. It is necessary to continue to pay attention to the PTSD symptoms and sleep psychology of COVID-19 infected patients, and take appropriate measures. Patients with severe and critical COVID-19 have more severe sleep and mental disorders, and there is a significant correlation between the duration of the disease and the severity of mental and mental disorders and sleep disorders after recovery.

In this study, we explored the relationship between the platelet endothelial aggregation receptor 1 (PEAR1) polymorphisms, platelet reactivity, and clinical outcomes in patients with minor stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Randomized controlled trial subgroups were assessed, wherein patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for at least 21 days. Platelet reactivity was measured at different time intervals. Genotypes were categorized as wild-type, mutant heterozygous, and mutant homozygous. Clinical outcomes were evaluated after 90 days. The rs12041331 polymorphism predominantly influenced adenosine diphosphate channel platelet activity, with the AA genotype displaying significantly lower residual platelet activity to the P2Y12 response unit (p < 0.01). This effect was more evident after 7 days of dual antiplatelet treatment (p = 0.016). Mutant A allele carriers had decreased rates of recurrent stroke and complex endpoint events but were more prone to bleeding (p = 0.015). The rs2768759 polymorphism majorly impacted arachidonic acid (AA) channel platelet activity, which was particularly noticeable in the C allele carriers. Our regression analysis demonstrated that rs12041331 AA + GA and rs2768759 CA predicted 90-day post-stroke bleeding. In conclusion, the PEAR1 polymorphisms rs12041331 and rs2768759 interfere with platelet aggregation and the performance of antiplatelet drugs. These genetic variations may contribute to bleeding events associated with minor stroke and TIA.

Whether aspirin platelet reactivity affects platelet function and clinical outcomes with different antiplatelet therapies in patients with mild stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) remains unclear. We conducted a subgroup analysis of the PRINCE trial. Patients with mild stroke or TIA were randomized into aspirin+ticagrelor, or aspirin+clopidogrel groups; aspirin reaction units (ARU) were measured at the baseline and after 7 ± 2 days to assess response to treatment. High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as ≥550 ARU (poor response to aspirin). The platelet functions of ticagrelor and clopidogrel were measured using the VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay for P2Y₁₂ reaction units (PRU); HPR to P2Y₁₂ was defined as >208 PRU (poor response to P2Y₁₂). Clinical outcomes included stroke and clinical vascular and bleeding events after 90 days. Among 628 enrolled patients, 69 (11%) were poor aspirin responders. After 7 ± 2 days, the proportion of poor P2Y₁₂ responders for ticagrelor versus clopidogrel significantly reduced in poor (2.6% versus 27.4%) and good (14.3% versus 29.4%) aspirin responders. There were significant interactions between treatment groups, and between treatment groups and aspirin platelet reactivity for poor P2Y₁₂ responders (P = 0.01). After 90 ± 7 days, there were no significant interactions between treatment groups and aspirin platelet reactivity for new stroke risk (good aspirin responders: 5.5% versus 8.8%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 1.16; P = 0.13; poor aspirin responders: 8.6% versus 8.8%, HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.20-4.81; P = 0.97; P for interaction = 0.60). Major bleeding was less frequent in poor than good aspirin responders (ticagrelor/aspirin: 0.4%/0%; clopidogrel/aspirin: 1.4%/0%). In patients with minor stroke or TIA, clopidogrel, and particularly ticagrelor, decreased platelet function in poor versus good aspirin responders. The poor platelet reactivity of aspirin could not sufficiently reduce the risk of recurrent stroke with ticagrelor or clopidogrel; however, HPR (poor aspirin response) may have a protective effect on clinically relevant major bleeding.