Gout, with a section on ocular disease in the gouty

by Llewellyn J. Llewellyn

Hepatic Inadequacy

That some obscure connection obtained between gout and hepatic disorder has been for long an axiom in high favour, with both clinicians and pathologists. This hypothesis found its chief exponents in Murchison and subsequently Latham, and to discussion of their individual views we now proceed. The first named authority held gout to be either merely a result or a variety of what he termed lithæmia. In other words, gout was the outcome of a depraved condition of the blood, due to faulty digestion and functional disturbance of the liver.

Now the conditions that lead to functional derangement of the liver are in the main such as favour the development of gout. Nevertheless, such hepatic disturbances do not inevitably culminate in outbreaks of gout, at any rate of classical type; but, unquestionably, such may eventuate in symptoms currently recognised as distinctive of incomplete gout, e.g., headache, palpitation, cramps, dizziness, sleeplessness, etc. Moreover, if the faulty habits leading to such hepatic derangement be persisted in, they are but too likely to induce outbreaks of frank gout. “Articular gout,” said Murchison, “is so to speak a local accident which, though sometimes determined by an injury, yet may occur at any time in persons in whom the normal process by which albuminous matter becomes disintegrated in the liver into urea is persistently deranged.” Following such hepatic disturbance, the secretion of bile decreased with resultant abnormal metabolism of proteins, and in this way was produced an accumulation of uric acid. This, moreover, according to Murchison, was, especially in the later stages of gout, reinforced by the concurrence of renal inadequacy, which he also postulated as a factor in the production of the disorder.

The tendency to lithæmia Murchison held to be hereditary, and in this was supported by Goodhart, who, discussing its occurrence in young children, was strongly of the opinion that it was due not to dietetic irregularities but to a “constitutional tendency on the part of the individual”; a conclusion, as he thought, strongly supported by the fact that it is more commonly met with in the children or descendants of the “gouty.”

But we have to recollect, as Duckworth observes, that lithæmia, “even when persistent and not due to accidental causes, is not by itself gout.” Moreover, gout is not the only morbid condition in which urates are in excess in the blood, for such obtains, e.g., in leukæmia, pneumonia, anæmia, Bright’s disease, etc. Also, underlying Murchison’s theory is the further unwarrantable assumption, viz., that the “gouty” diathesis is identical with the “uric acid” diathesis.

Now, as we hope to show later, whatever be the proximate cause of gout it is at any rate not uric acid. The fact, too, that higher degrees of lithæmia are to be met with in conditions, not even remotely connected with gout, renders it impossible to accept the view that the excess of urates in the blood is responsible for all the varied symptoms accredited by Murchison and his followers to lithæmia. For the same reason, it is difficult to uphold the hypothesis that “the tendency to lithæmia in early life may be an early expression of the ‘gouty’ diathesis.”

In short, excess of uric acid in the blood or lithæmia is not pathognomonic of gout, much less of “potential” gout. But further discussion of this assumed relationship of lithæmia to gout may well be postponed until, in the light of recent blood analyses, we come to consider more narrowly the contention at one time widely held, that lithæmia is an irregular manifestation of gout.

If we are compelled to adopt a more judicial attitude in regard to lithæmia, what of the similar assumptions as to the relationship of lithuria or lithiasis to gout? Now lithuria, like lithæmia, was and probably still is by some held to be an inherited “gouty” proclivity. Sufferers in youth from lithiasis were deemed likely to develop gout in later years. Not only was lithiasis observed to precede but also to be a concomitant or sequel to gout. Nevertheless, although uric acid, gravel and calculi, sometimes arise in those of “gouty” diathesis, these instances are but isolated, so rare indeed as to entitle them to be regarded as mere coincidences. Moreover, when we recall the fact that the formation of calculi takes place in the urinary passages, i.e., outside the economy, it renders even more improbable the hypothesis that the two morbid phenomena are diverse expressions of the “gouty” diathesis.

As a matter of fact, the large bulk of “gouty” subjects are immune from gravel. Conversely, only a negligible percentage of the victims of gravel develop gout. The geographical distribution of the two disorders is wholly distinct one from the other. The Indian native is a martyr to stone, but notably exempt from gout. Coming nearer home, we find stone relatively common in Scotland, but gout rare. Plowright’s researches, too, revealed no correspondence between the incidence of gout and the prevalence of stone in the several counties of England. In some counties in which the mortality from gout was high that from stone was low, and Norfolk, the one most prolific of stone in England, enjoys comparative immunity from gout.

Reverting now to Latham’s views as to the hepatic origin of gout, we find them very similar to those formulated by Murchison. He held that the defective transmutation of glycocine into urea was responsible for the occurrence of uric acid in the urine. These chemical irregularities were attributed by him to functional disturbance or partial suspension of the normal hepatic metabolism. This, again, was referred back by him to some obscure change in the central system, viz., that part of the medulla oblongata from which the vagus takes origin.