Background and hypothesis

Negative symptom trajectory in clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis is ill defined. This study aimed to better characterize longitudinal patterns of change in negative symptoms, moderators of change, and differences in trajectories according to clinical subgroups. We hypothesized that negative symptom course will be nonlinear in CHR. Clinical subgroups known to be more severe variants of psychotic illness-deficit syndrome (DS), persistent negative syndrome (PNS), and acute psychosis onset-were expected to show more severe baseline symptoms, slower rates of change, and less stable rates of symptom resolution.

Study design

Linear, curvilinear, and stepwise growth curve models, with and without moderators, were fitted to negative symptom ratings from the NAPLS-3 CHR dataset (N = 699) and within clinical subgroups.

Study results

Negative symptoms followed a downward curvilinear trend, with marked improvement 0-6 months that subsequently stabilized (6-24 months), particularly among those with lower IQ and functioning. Clinical subgroups had higher baseline ratings, but distinct symptom courses; DS vs non-DS: more rapid initial improvement, similar stability of improvements; PNS vs non-PNS: similar rates of initial improvement and stability; transition vs no transition: slower rate of initial improvement, with greater stability of this rate.

Conclusions

Continuous, frequent monitoring of negative symptoms in CHR is justified by 2 important study implications: (1) The initial 6 months of CHR program enrollment may be a key window for improving negative symptoms as less improvement is likely afterwards, (2) Early identification of clinical subgroups may inform distinct negative symptom trajectories and treatment needs.

The FAIR principles, as applied to clinical and neuroimaging data, reflect the goal of making research products Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. The use of the Collaborative Informatics and Neuroimaging Suite Toolkit for Anonymized Computation (COINSTAC) platform in the Enhancing Neuroimaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) consortium combines the technological approach of decentralized analyses with the sociological approach of sharing data. In addition, ENIGMA + COINSTAC provides a platform to facilitate the use of machine-actionable data objects. We first present how ENIGMA and COINSTAC support the FAIR principles, and then showcase their integration with a decentralized meta-analysis of sex differences in negative symptom severity in schizophrenia, and finally present ongoing activities and plans to advance FAIR principles in ENIGMA + COINSTAC. ENIGMA and COINSTAC currently represent efforts toward improved Access, Interoperability, and Reusability. We highlight additional improvements needed in these areas, as well as future connections to other resources for expanded Findability.

Background

Malhi et al. in this issue critique the clinical high risk (CHR) syndrome for psychosis.

Method

Response to points of critique.

Results

We agree that inconsistency in CHR nomenclature should be minimized. We respectfully disagree on other points. In our view: a) individuals with CHR and their families need help, using existing interventions, even though we do not yet fully understand disease mechanisms; b) substantial progress has been made in identification of biomarkers; c) symptoms used to identify CHR are specific to psychotic illnesses; d) CHR diagnosis is not "extremely difficult"; e) the pattern of progression, although heterogenous, is discernible; f) "psychosis-like symptoms" are common but are not used to identify CHR; and g) on the point described as 'the real risk,' CHR diagnosis does not frequently cause harmful stigma.

Discussion

Malhi et al.'s arguments do not fairly characterize progress in the CHR field nor efforts to minimize stigma. That said, much work remains in areas of consistent nomenclature, mechanisms of disease, dissecting heterogeneity, and biomarkers. With regard to what the authors term the "real risk" of stigma associated with a CHR "label," however, our view is that avoiding words like "risk" and "psychosis" reinforces the stigma that both they and we mean to oppose. Moreover, patients and their families benefit from being given a term that describes what is happening to them.