(4) In hyperpyræmia.
(5) In the nervous system.
Histogenous Theories
In his classic work, “On Urine” (1860), Parkes expressed his scepticism as to the valency of Garrod’s assumption of a primary renal inadequacy. In shrewd forecast of latter day views he was of opinion that both uric and phosphoric acids existed in some untoward combination in the blood or organs, and that this same impeded its excretion. As he says, “If this be the case, the deficient elimination is, as it were, only a consequence of more important antecedent aberrations in metamorphosis of which impeded excretion is a natural sequence. What these are, however, is quite unknown; but an unnatural formation of uric acid, either from food or tissues, may possibly be part of them.”
In 1866 Barclay lodged another objection to Garrod’s hypothesis, viz., that the baneful influence of uric acid was exercised passively and physically. Not only did he regard it as “far too mechanical,” but he also strongly dissented from his axiom that gouty inflammation was invariably attended by uratic deposits. Thus he asks, “Must we of necessity find urate of soda in the stomach and the bronchi before we can admit gouty gastritis, or gouty bronchitis?” Seemingly he believed in the existence of these two clinical entities, and inasmuch as urate of soda had not been detected in situ in these disorders, he felt justified in denying that “true gouty inflammation is always associated with, or caused by, the deposit.” Moreover, this conclusion, he considered, derived colour from the fact that, “though the deposit and the inflammation were associated together in the joints, the urate of soda was seen in other parts without any evidence of its exciting inflammation there.”
His own view was that the primary change lay in the blood corpuscles, this being induced by the serial ingress of “gout producing elements” into the blood stream. As to the retention of uric acid, he deemed it not the cause, but merely a symptom, a consequence of gout. Thus he says, “The good living and the stimulants do not simply cause an excess of uric acid to form, but they end by causing some more permanent change, and probably one affecting the blood globules, which reacts on the kidney, putting a stop to the excretion of uric acid, and causing its retention in the serum, where, passing in the round of the circulation, it is very apt to become deposited as urate of soda.” Moreover, his observations of the effect of colchicum in checking a gouty paroxysm, seem to indicate, “that there is a disease to which the name ‘gout’ is applied, distinct from the excess of uric acid in the blood serum which attends its progress.”
The imaginative insight of Barclay is very remarkable. If we substitute the white for the red corpuscles we see how closely his views accord with those prevalent at the present time, when so important a rôle in the genesis of gout is attributed to the leucocytes. Moreover, as Ewart observed, the views of Barclay and Parkes approximate in principle to those afterwards propounded by Ord and Ebstein, that the bodily tissues “take an active share in determining the deposition of uric acid.”
It is, however, but fair to note that, long prior (1854) to Barclay, Gairdner held that “the disappearance of urea and uric acid in the urine and their accumulation in the blood” was but symptomatic and not causative of gout, coupling with it the suggestion that there was some antecedent nerve influence at work.
Laycock, too, it may be noted, considered Garrod’s theory inadequate, adding that “Gout is characterised not by urates in the blood but by the genesis of uric acid in the tissues, and its action thereon, and is especially characterised by peculiar changes in the innervation of the individual.”