Gout, with a section on ocular disease in the gouty

by Llewellyn J. Llewellyn

How vivid the light thrown upon the problems of clinical medicine by the bio-chemists! The story of the fate of protein and purin substances in the animal body, at one time a medley of guesses and gaps, is gradually evolving into one of relative certitude and completeness. Revolutionary, in truth, the change, and many a cherished shibboleth has been ruthlessly cast aside! With admiration not unmingled with awe we see them laying well and truly the foundations upon which in the ultimate scientific medicine must inevitably rest.

Of these the very corner-stones are chemical physiology and chemical pathology, the rapid evolution of which is profoundly altering our conceptions of health and disease. Those vital processes of the organism that but yesterday we saw “as through a glass, darkly,” are now in great part illumined, and the distortions wrought in them by disease made more manifest.

How pregnant, too, with warning their findings! Processes that to our untutored minds seem simple are revealed as infinitely complex. Through what a maze must we thread our way if we would disentangle the intricacies of metabolism! Intricate enough, forsooth, in health, but how much more so in disease! For, as Sir Archibald Garrod eloquently phrases it, “it is becoming evident that special paths of metabolism exist, not only for proteins, fats, and carbohydrates as such, but that even the individual primary fractions of the protein molecule follow their several katabolic paths, and are dealt with in successive stages by series of enzymes until the final products of katabolism are formed. Any of these paths may be locked while others remain open.”

It is with chastening reflections such as these that we may best approach our study of gout, that riddle of the ages upon which so many physicians from time immemorial have expended their dialectic skill. But, vast though the increase in our knowledge of the chemical structure of uric acid and its allies, uncertainty still dogs our steps, and, doubtful of the pathway to solution of the pathological mystery of gout, we must perforce approach the problem in a more strictly catholic attitude.

Uric acid has apparently failed us as the causa causans. Neither this substance nor its precursors can be held responsible for the fever, local inflammation and constitutional disturbances in gout, being, as they are, practically non-toxic. Albeit, though I hold this view, I do not for one moment suggest that uric acid has nothing whatever to do with gout. The fact that tophi, its pathognomonic stigmata, are compounded of biurate of soda, would per se stamp such an attitude as untenable. On the other hand, uric acid must be viewed at its proper perspective as a concomitant or sequel of gouty inflammation, the essential cause of which must be sought elsewhere.

“The old order changeth, giving place to new,” and happily with the advent of bacteriology our views, or rather our hazards, as to the nature of joint diseases underwent profound modification. But, strange to say, though quick to apprehend the significance of infection, its causal relation to other joint disorders, we still seem unaccountably loth to discard our timeworn conception of “gouty” arthritis as of purely metabolic origin. This to my mind is the more remarkable in that the onset, clinical phenomena, and course of acute gout, and no less the life history of the disorder as a whole, are emphatically indicative of the intrusion of an infective element in its genesis.

The extreme frequency with which infective foci are met with in the victims of gout, the frequency, too, with which exacerbations of the disorder are presaged by acute glandular affections of undeniably infective source, is by no means adequately realised. For our forefathers gout began, and, forsooth, often ended, in the “stomach,” or it was the “liver” that was impeached. But the portal to the alimentary canal was for them only a cavity, the contained structures of which, albeit, to their mind often betrayed evidences of a “gouty diathesis.” They distinguished “gouty” teeth, “gouty” tonsillitis, “gouty” pharyngitis, even “gouty” parotitis; but all these they classed as tokens or sequelæ of gout, not possible causes or excitants thereof.

Now as to the true significance of these acute glandular affections held by clinicians of repute to be of “gouty” origin. What of “gouty” tonsillitis, pharyngitis, parotitis? Still more, what of our deductions regarding the relationship of these same when met with in association with non-gouty forms of arthritis? Do we not hold them each and all as evidences of infection? and, we may well ask, why not in gout?

The marvel then is that even to-day many still hold that the tonsillitis, pharyngitis, even the gingivitis, like the subsequent articular lesions, are one and all attributable to the underlying gout. We certainly should not do so in the case of any arthritis other than “gouty,” and to my mind the time is ripe for a change of attitude.