Do neurobiological differences exist between paranoid and non-paranoid schizophrenia? Findings from the bipolar schizophrenia network on intermediate phenotypes study.

Subtypes of schizophrenia, constructed using clinical phenomenology to resolve illness heterogeneity, have faced criticism due to overlapping symptomatology and longitudinal instability; they were therefore dropped from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual-5. Cognitive and imaging findings comparing paranoid (P-SZ) and non-paranoid (disorganized, residual and undifferentiated; NP-SZ) schizophrenia have been limited due to small sample sizes. We assessed P-SZ and NP-SZ using symptomatology, cognition and brain structure and predicted that there would be few neurobiological differences. P-SZ (n = 237), NP-SZ (n = 127) and controls (n = 430) were included from a multi-site study. In a subset of this sample, structural imaging measures (P-SZ, n = 133; NP-SZ, n = 67; controls, n = 310) were calculated using Freesurfer 6.0. Group contrasts were run using analysis of covariance, controlling for age, sex, race and site, p-values were corrected using False Discovery Rate (FDR) and were repeated excluding the residual subtype. Compared to NP-SZ (with and without the residual subtype), P-SZ displayed fewer negative symptoms, faster speed of processing, larger bilateral hippocampus, right amygdala and their subfield volumes. Additionally, NP-SZ (with residual subtype) displayed fewer depressive symptoms and higher left transverse temporal cortical thickness (CT) but NP-SZ without residual subtype showed lower GAF scores and worse digit sequencing compared to P-SZ. No differences in positive symptoms and functioning (global or social) were detected. Subtle but significant differences were seen in cognition, symptoms, CT and subcortical volumes between P-SZ and NP-SZ. While the magnitude of these differences is not large enough to justify them as distinct categories, the paranoid- nonparanoid distinction in schizophrenia merits further investigation.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study.
(Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)