Gout, with a section on ocular disease in the gouty

by Llewellyn J. Llewellyn

To the antiquity of gout and no less its distinctive clinical facies, when of classic type, we owe not a little. Its salient phenomena have endured unchanged from the time of Hippocrates onward through the ages. So it is that, even allowing for the enhanced powers of discrimination of latter days, we are in no doubt that the gout of the ancients is the gout of to-day. How signal the advantage thus accruing, when we come to consider the conditions which engender or tend to engender the disease! For, quâ its broad etiological factors, we find ourselves in accord with the physicians of old, our experience a confirmation of their old-time findings.

Our forefathers, like ourselves, realised the innate complexity of the problem, that in the development of the disorder both heredity and environment played a rôle. In other words, that in the genesis of gout not only intrinsic but extrinsic agencies were concerned. Of the intrinsic influences the most important are age, sex, heredity, bodily conformation, and individual peculiarities.

Age.—Gout is slow in evolution, tardy of appearance, confined in the main to the middle and declining years of life. Said Sir Thomas Browne, “Leprosie awakes not sometimes before forty, the gout and stone often later.” Experience but confirms the dictum, for, as Cullen long since observed, it rarely declares itself under the age of five-and-thirty. This relative immunity of youth is not the least striking feature of the disorder; whence the Hippocratic aphorism, “Puer non laborat podagra, ante veneris usum.” Both Sydenham and Heberden were also doubtful of its occurrence before the age of puberty. Gairdner, however, records the incidence of fits of gout even in infants at the breast! and in one death therefrom. Garrod, too, met with two cases of classical type in girls, both of them under ten years of age. But Scudamore states that he never witnessed more than one example of a first attack before twenty, or any after sixty-six.

For myself, I have never seen a case under thirty-five years of age, and am sceptical as to the occurrence of infantile gout of regular type, believing with Scudamore that “the commonly asserted cases which represent the existence of the gout in very early youth are really examples of rheumatism.” Nor am I less but more inclined to cavil at the claims of Comby and others, as to the frequency in children of irregular manifestations. As Osler dryly observes, “The tendency in some families is to call every affection gouty. Even infantile complaints such as scald-head, naso-pharyngeal vegetations, and enuresis, are often regarded, without sufficient grounds, I believe, as evidences of the family ailment.”

To sum up, the majority of cases of gout ensue between thirty-five and fifty years of age. But, given a strong hereditary taint, it may break out in youths and young adults, or haply even in children. But such, in my experience, are phenomenally rare. Indeed, it may be said of gout that only exceptionally is it met with at either extreme of life; though Garrod records several examples in which the initial attack was postponed until nigh eighty years of age; while in one instance, a lady experienced her first classical attack of podagra in her ninety-first year.

Sex.—In the matter of liability to gout the sexes stand in marked contrast, the disorder being infinitely more common in males. Out of eighty cases submitted to the French Academy, seventy-eight were men and only two women; but according to other authorities, this is an under-estimate. Thus in James Lindsay’s series of cases of gout, 84·7 per cent. were males, 15·3 per cent. females, percentages which he notes “are in accordance with the observations of other writers.” J. Lambert, out of 125 examples of gout, noted that 102 were men, i.e., 81·6 per cent., twenty-three women, i.e., 18·4 per cent.

From my own experience, the figures submitted to the French Academy probably represent the ratio of incidence in males as opposed to females. This certainly, if regular, in opposition to “irregular,” types of gout be the criterion; for it must be admitted that regular gout does occur in women, though exceptionally rare either prior or subsequent to the climacteric.

As to the current opinion that the regular manifestations of gout in women are of asthenic as opposed to sthenic character, this has, I think, often proved a source of fallacy. At any rate, in many of these cases the assumed gouty inflammation resolves itself into one of inflamed bunion. Again, in but too many instances, women, showing Heberden’s nodes, are held to have gout or “rheumatic gout.” The latter term, as Pye-Smith observed, “is a bad name for osteoarthritis,” to which category Heberden’s nodes belong.

Judged by the one unequivocal diagnostic criterion, i.e., tophi, gout in women is extremely rare. If to this be added the further fact, viz., the rarity in their sex of classical attacks in the great toe, we see clearly that the diagnosis of gout in women is often a matter of assumption rather than of certitude.

Moreover, having regard to the fact that the diagnosis of gout in women is frequently based on so-called “masked and irregular manifestations,” I must admit that, to my mind, statistics, purporting to indicate the percentage incidence of gout in women and men, are not very convincing.