Setpoint Theory

Background: For significant numbers of patients dissatisfied on standard levothyroxine (LT4) treatment for hypothyroidism, patient-specific responses to T4 could play a significant role.
Aim: To assess response heterogeneity to LT4 treatment, identifying confounders and hidden clusters within a patient panel, we performed a secondary analysis using data from a prospective cross-sectional and retrospective longitudinal study.
Methods: Multivariate and multivariable linear models adjusted for covariates (gender, age, and BMI) were stratified by disease-specific treatment indication. During follow-up, pooled observations were compared from the same patient presenting either with or without self-reported symptoms. Statistical analysis was extended to multilevel models to derive intra-class correlation coefficients and reliability measures during follow-up.
Results: Equilibria between TSH, FT4, and FT3 serum concentrations in 342 patients were examined by treatment indication (benign goiter, autoimmune thyroiditis, thyroid carcinoma), consequently displaying complex interactive response patterns. Seventy-seven patients treated with LT4 and monitored for thyroid carcinoma presented, in association with changes in LT4 dose, either with hypothyroid symptoms or symptom-free. Significant biochemical differences appeared between the different presentations. Leveled trajectories by subject to relief from hypothyroid symptoms differed significantly, indicating distinct responses, and denying a single shared outcome. These were formally defined by a high coefficient of the intraclass correlation (ICC1, exceeding 0.60 in all thyroid parameters) during follow-up on multiple visits at the same LT4 dose, when lacking symptoms. The intra-personal clusters were clearly differentiated from random variability by random group resampling. Symptomatic change in these patients was strongly associated with serum FT3, but not with FT4 or TSH concentrations. In 25 patients transitioning from asymptomatic to symptomatically hyperthyroid, FT3 concentrations remained within the reference limits, whilst at the same time marked biochemical differences were apparent between the presentations.
Conclusions: Considerable intra-individual clustering occurred in the biochemical and symptomatic responses to LT4 treatment, implying statistically multileveled response groups. Unmasking individual differences in the averaged treatment response hereby highlights clinically distinguishable subgroups within an indiscriminate patient panel. This, through well-designed larger clinical trials will better target the different therapeutic needs of individual patients.

Set-point trait theories presume homeostasis at a specified level (stability/trait) and a surrounding “bandwidth” (change/state). The theory has been productively applied in studies on subjective well-being (SWB) but hardly in research on stability and change in personality (e.g. neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness). This divergence may be explained by the traditional but wrong assumption that SWB primarily responds to environmental influences, whereas personality traits do not. Three set-point models for personality courses are discussed: (1) The immutable set-point model, in which personality scores fluctuate around their set-point in reaction to experiences, but always return to their person-specific set-point; (2) the experience-dependent set-point model, in which an individual’s set-point can permanently change when prompted by major life events; (3) the mixed set-point model separating variation in personality scores into a stable component and a changing experience-dependent component. Research does not support the immutable model. The experience-dependent and mixed model explains trajectory courses of personality best. The chapter describes environmental changes that may change set-points, including life events. We end with recommendations on optimal research designs and time scales, characteristics of experiences that may have the potential to change set-points, and the potential of dynamic system models for understanding personality development.

The long-held concept of a proportional negative feedback control between the thyroid and pituitary glands requires reconsideration in the light of more recent studies. Homeostatic equilibria depend on dynamic inter-relationships between thyroid hormones and pituitary thyrotropin (TSH). They display a high degree of individuality, thyroid-state-related hierarchy, and adaptive conditionality. Molecular mechanisms involve multiple feedback loops on several levels of organization, different time scales, and varying conditions of their optimum operation, including a proposed feedforward motif. This supports the concept of a dampened response and multistep regulation, making the interactions between TSH, FT4, and FT3 situational and mathematically more complex. As a homeostatically integrated parameter, TSH becomes neither normatively fixed nor a precise marker of euthyroidism. This is exemplified by the therapeutic situation with l-thyroxine (l-T4) where TSH levels defined for optimum health may not apply equivalently during treatment. In particular, an FT3–FT4 dissociation, discernible FT3–TSH disjoint, and conversion inefficiency have been recognized in l-T4-treated athyreotic patients. In addition to regulating T4 production, TSH appears to play an essential role in maintaining T3 homeostasis by directly controlling deiodinase activity. While still allowing for tissue-specific variation, this questions the currently assumed independence of the local T3 supply. Rather it integrates peripheral and central elements into an overarching control system. On l-T4 treatment, altered equilibria have been shown to give rise to lower circulating FT3 concentrations in the presence of normal serum TSH. While data on T3 in tissues are largely lacking in humans, rodent models suggest that the disequilibria may reflect widespread T3 deficiencies at the tissue level in various organs. As a consequence, the use of TSH, valuable though it is in many situations, should be scaled back to a supporting role that is more representative of its conditional interplay with peripheral thyroid hormones. This reopens the debate on the measurement of free thyroid hormones and encourages the identification of suitable biomarkers. Homeostatic principles conjoin all thyroid parameters into an adaptive context, demanding a more flexible interpretation in the accurate diagnosis and treatment of thyroid dysfunction.