Differentiation of Chronic Gout From Arthritis Deformans
Apart from Cullen’s contribution the eighteenth century was unmarked by any further advance in differentiating the mass of heterogenous joint affections, indifferently classed as gout and rheumatism. The physicians of this period, indeed, appear not only to have done little themselves, but had omitted to utilise the useful indications furnished by their predecessors.
Thus how much more swiftly would the clinical distinctness of chronic articular gout from rheumatoid arthritis have been realised had Sydenham’s dicta in the seventeenth century regarding this intricate problem been duly appreciated. Up to his time, the clinical descriptions of rheumatoid arthritis appeared now under gout, now under rheumatism. As for Sydenham himself, he placed the disorder, nosologically speaking, under chronic rheumatism, of which he believed it to be an apyretic variety. But the importance of his researches resides in this—he pointed out that it differed essentially from gout, but that, in resemblance thereof, it might endure throughout life, its course diversified by remissions and exacerbations. Also he tells us that its excruciating pains, even when of prolonged standing, sometimes cease spontaneously, noting also that the joints are, so to speak, turned over, and that there are nodosities, especially on the inside of the fingers.
Nevertheless, if we except Musgrave’s work (1703), “Arthritis ex Chlorosi,” which included some undoubted examples of rheumatoid or atrophic arthritis, no note was taken of Sydenham’s contention until a century afterwards. True, John Hunter in 1759 described the morbid anatomy of osteoarthritis or the hypertrophic forms of arthritis deformans, but not until 1868 was the true significance of Sydenham’s work appreciated, a most generous tribute being then accorded him by the great French physician Trousseau.
In 1800 Landre Beauvais published his clinical description of rheumatoid arthritis under the title “goutte asthenique primitif.” That Beauvais, as Sir Archibald Garrod contends, included under this title some cases of true gout is beyond doubt. But the words “Doit admettre une nouvelle espèce de goutte,” go far to justify Charcot in his claim that Beauvais, despite the title of his brochure, fully realised that the disease differed from gout.
A few years later (1804-1816), Heberden, in his Commentaries, insisted on the essential distinctness of rheumatoid arthritis from gout. Thus he wrote, “The disease called chronical rheumatism, which often passes under the general name of rheumatism and is sometimes supposed to be gout, is in reality a very different distemper from the genuine gout, and from the acute rheumatism, and ought to be carefully distinguished from both.” As to its salient features he noted its afebrile nature, the lack of redness in the skin over the affected joints, the relative absence of pain, and that it displayed no special tendency to begin in the feet. It was further marked by a protracted course involving severe crippling, while the peculiar nodosities on the fingers are still associated with his name.
In 1805 Haygarth published his classical essay, “A Clinical History of the Nodosity of the Joints,” the opening sentence of which shows that, comparably with his successors, he lamented the laxity with which the term “rheumatism” was invoked and applied “to a great variety of disorders which beside pain, have but few symptoms that connect them together.” A purist in nosology, he equally deplored the term “rheumatick gout” as tending to perpetuate its confusion with gout and rheumatism, and suggested the term “Nodosities,” in the hope that “as a distinct genus it will become a more direct object of medical attention.”
Alas, even as late as 1868 Trousseau deplored the retention of the term “rheumatic gout” by Garrod and Fuller and his own countryman Trastour. But, in common justice to Garrod, it must be allowed that in the third edition of his work he definitely applied the term rheumatoid arthritis to the disorder in question. Nor can we refrain from recording Fuller’s words that “the natural history of rheumatic gout accords but little with that of acute rheumatism, and is equally inconsistent with that of true gout.”