Tardy Dissociation of Chronic Gout From Chronic Rheumatism
Bearing in mind the centuries that elapsed before the acute articular forms of gout and rheumatism were dissociated, one ceases to marvel that the task, incomparably more difficult, of discriminating between the chronic forms of these diseases is even now barely accomplished.
“Rheumatissimus agnatus podagræ” said our forefathers, the axiom postulating not the actual identity of the two affections, but a near relationship, and in this non-committal phrase we may, I think, descry the birth of that modern term “L’arthritisme,” so beloved of the French physicians. Even as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century Chomel at the Saltpetrière taught his pupils that gout and rheumatism were but clinical variants of an underlying “arthritic diathesis,” his successor Pidoux being still more insistent that the two disorders sprang from one common root. Even Charcot and Trousseau, convinced as they were of the essential distinctness of the two disorders, nevertheless admitted that at the bedside their chronic manifestations were with difficulty dissociated, the former pointing to the terms “rhumatisme goutteux” and “rheumatic gout” as tacit acknowledgments of our impotence.
Nor did this view that gout and alike rheumatism are the outcome of a basic arthritic diathesis fail of doughty supporters in this country. Thus Hutchinson, in his “Pedigree of Disease,” observes “gout is but rarely of pure breed, and often a complication of rheumatism. It so often mixes itself up with rheumatism, and the two, in hereditary transmission, become so intimately united, that it is a matter of considerable difficulty to ascertain how far rheumatism pure can go ... when this complication exists. It shows its power, we may suspect, by inducing a permanent modification of tissue, and it is to this modification that the peculiarities in the processes (transitory rheumatic pains in joints, fasciæ, and muscles, chronic crippling arthritis, destructive arthritis with eburnation, lumbago, sciatica) are due. Hence the impossibility under many conditions of discriminating between gout and rheumatism.”
Laycock also subscribed to Charcot’s view, and Sir Dyce Duckworth confesses that the conception of “a basic diathetic habit of body called arthritic has well commended itself to my mind,” while as to the clinical commingling of the two disorders Sir Charles Scudamore spoke with no uncertain voice. That an individual may in youth suffer from acute articular rheumatism, and later in life develop gout, is undeniable, as also the reverse, that a gouty subject may be harassed by manifestations of chronic rheumatism or fibrositis. But this mutual trenching of the one upon the clinical territory of the other must not be allowed to impair our views as to the essential distinctness of gout and rheumatism. It is undeniable that the difficulty of differentiating between the chronic forms of these two disorders is great, for not even the revelations of skiagraphy, in the absence of a clinical history, will suffice to effect a discrimination. But to a further consideration of this vexed matter we refer the reader to the coming chapters on Diagnosis.