Gout, with a section on ocular disease in the gouty

by Llewellyn J. Llewellyn

As to the why and wherefore of the relative immunity of women it may be due to the fact that their habits and mode of life are less calculated to evoke the disorder. There is also the further possibility that the catamenial discharges to a certain extent are protective against gout, for most authorities support Hippocrates’ aphorism, “Mulier podagra non laborat nisi ipsi menstrua defecerint.”

Heredity.—By the ancient physicians gout was held to be hereditary, and even to-day most will agree that “From father to son its seeds are transmitted, and bear fruit in exact proportion to the degree in which circumstances prove favourable to their growth.” Cullen, indeed, went further and held it purely hereditary; but, on the other hand, the belief, that it is often acquired is widely countenanced.

That gout is an hereditary disease is, I think, beyond question, and certainly, of all arthritic disorders, gout furnishes by far the greater number of instances in which parents and children are victimised by the same articular affection. Scudamore in 522 cases found that 332 could trace their disease to the father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, or aunt. But in the remaining 190 no evidence of the existence of gout in their forbears could be elicited. Out of eighty examples submitted to the French Academy an hereditary predisposition was established in thirty-four, and in the residue it appeared to have been acquired. Garrod found that 50 per cent. of his hospital examples of gout were hereditary, and of his private patients nearly 75 per cent. came of gouty stock. Again, Sir William Roberts found that “fully three-fourths of the cases of gout occurring among the easy classes, can be traced back distinctly to a gouty ancestry.” Luff’s estimate is even higher, inasmuch as analysis of a series of 300 examples disclosed a “definite family history of gout in 81·3 per cent.”

Nevertheless, Garrod’s experience, he tells us, convinced him that “in this country gout is frequently acquired even at a moderately early age, for in many most inveterate cases not the least hereditary influence could be discovered.” For myself, I find it difficult to appreciate the attitude of those who, like this observer, postulate innate or static morbid proclivities on the part of the “gouty,” and in the same breath, as it were, are equally insistent that it may be “acquired” de novo. Now, in the taking of family histories positive evidence is more valuable than negative. Surely, therefore, in the light of Garrod’s and Luff’s findings, it is obvious that heredity plays not merely an important, but an essential and indispensable rôle in the genesis of gout. To my mind, accordingly, the balance of evidence is more in favour of the same ancestral taint, though apparently undiscoverable, being present in the remaining 20 or 25 per cent., than that the disease in their instance was wholly and newly acquired.

Personally, I therefore question whether the alleged acquisition de novo of gout is not apparent rather than real. My own opinion is that the innate predisposition thereto is always inherited, and the predisposing factors, that we presume may originate gout, are in reality merely excitants or determining agents. In other words, the remote, the primary or essential cause of gout, is an inborn morbid tissue potentiality, and in the absence of this intrinsic warp the various contributory or exciting causes are impotent to evoke the disorder.

Apart from statistical proof of heredity, how else, save on the basis of an organic predisposition to the disease, can we explain the fact that of a large number of individuals, of slothful habit, and given to alcoholic and dietetic excesses, not one may get gout; while others who lead literally “a godly, sober, and righteous life,” become martyrs thereto. How escape then the conviction that in gout “breed is stronger than pasture”? for, apart from gluttony and indolence, gout is much more prone to arise in persons in whose pedigree it can be traced than in others.

It is not gout, but the predisposition thereto, that is inherited. This proclivity, moreover, may descend to the children of those who, in their own persons, have never suffered from the disease. In Luff’s series it was so in 27 per cent. of the cases, i.e., the disease was transmitted from grandparents to grandchildren without the fathers or mothers suffering from “active gout.” In other words, the morbid potentiality may lie latent until evoked. Thus, the females of “gouty” families, infinitely more often than not, escape overt gout, but hand on nevertheless their inborn liability thereto to their offspring. Looked at in this light, I see no difficulty in accepting the fact that gout may skip a generation. The son of a gouty parent, happily warned by the excesses of his father, may remain immune, while in turn his son, forgetful of his evil heritage, may bring it again to fruition.

The more one reflects on the essential cause of gout, the more inevitable seems the conclusion that gouty individuals, as Walker-Hall contends, “possess some inborn defect or alteration of nuclein metabolism.” And the vague phrases “constitutional” or “nutritional,” as applied by older writers to the disorder, are only explicable on the basis of inherited structural peculiarities, with their correlated perversions of tissue function.

That such constitute the pathological groundwork of gout, is, I think, further indicated by the fact that “gouty” inflammation, in virtue of its associated uratic deposition, is sui generis. No tissues, other than the gouty, react in this specific fashion. Does not this seem to indicate that the inborn tissue peculiarities dictate, so to speak, the character of the pathological reaction; this indifferently, whatever the nature of the so-called predisposing causes which, if our assumption be correct, are merely provocative of gout, in other words, do but evoke or make manifest what is already latent.