CONy 4 Barceona
     Welcome Note
     Congress Chairpersons
     Section Heads
     Scientific Topics
     Scientific Program
     Poster presentations
         Guided Poster Tours
         Poster Presentation Guidelines
         Best Poster Prize
         Accompanying Persons Program
     Sponsorship & Exhibition
         Hotel Rey Juan Carlos
         Hotel Husa Arenas
         Hotel Husa Illa
         Hotel Senator Barcelona
     General Information
         About Barcelona
         Italian Agent
         Before you travel...
     Invitation Letter
     Past & Future CONy Congresses
The 4th World Congress on
Controversies in Neurology (CONy)
Barcelona, Spain, Palau de Congressos de Catalunya, October 28-31, 2010
  Scientific Program Print
Thursday, October 28, 2010
15:00-17:00 Plenary Session I
Chairpersons: A. Gil Nagel, Spain; A.D. Korczyn, Israel; W.W. Zhang, China
15:00-15:15 Greetings: J. Porta-Etessam, Spain
Debate: Neuro-epistemology: Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in neurorehabilitation
Yes: V. Homberg, Germany
No: D. Muresanu, Romania
Commentator: K. Von Wild, Germany
16:00-16:45 Debate: Can anti-inflammatory drugs benefit neurodegenerative diseases?
Yes: M. Schwartz, Israel
No: A. Ludolph , Germany
Coffee Break
17:15-19:30 Plenary Session II
Chairpersons: A. Gil Nagel, Spain; A.D. Korczyn, Israel; W.W. Zhang, China
17:30-18: Debate: Free access journals are important and useful
Pro: W. Theodore, USA
Con: R. Castellani, USA
18:00-18:45 Debate: Are there any silent parts in the human brain?
Yes: J. Thome, Germany
No: B.O. Popescu, Romania
18:45-19:30 Debate: Is Alzheimer's disease a homogeneous nosologic entity?
Yes: P. Martinez Martin, Spain
No: A.D. Korczyn, Israel
Welcome Reception
Friday, October 29, 2010 /// Hall A - Epilepsy
Session (1) Epilepsy: Less Conventional Treatments
Capsule: The session addresses less conventional therapeutic approaches to treating epilepsy. It is well known that hormonal cycles influence seizure occurrence and catamenial epilepsy serves as the primary example of this phenomenon. The first debate poses the question whether hornomal therapy is justified. Is there sufficient data to support the use of agents like progesterone to treat seizures? The second debate addresses when physicians should use recently approved drugs, which have a limited number of patient exposures. Should drugs be reserved for patients who have already failed many medications, or is it appropriate to prescribe them as first line agents?
Chairpersons: V. Donath, Slovakia; J. Kruja, Albania
08:30-10:30 Debate: Should hormonal therapy be used to treat epilepsy?
Yes: E. Ben-Menachem, Sweden
No: M. Sperling, USA
Commentator: M. Carreno Martinez, Spain
09:30-10:30 Debate: Should recently approved antiepileptic drugs be used early in the treatment of epilepsy?
Yes: D. Schmidt, Germany
No: E. Beghi, Italy
Commentator: M. Sperling, USA
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
Session (2) Epilepsy: Psychological Aspects
Capsule: Epilepsy is commonly associated with depression and influences may be bidirectional. While it is commonly assumed that stress and sleep deprivation can trigger seizures in people with epilepsy, is this contention supported by objective evidence? Since vagus nerve stimulation can positively affect mood, it is appropriate to prescribe this treatment for depressed patients with epilepsy or are antidepressants always preferred?
Chairpersons: Z. Afawi, Israel; F. Vajda, Australia
11:00-12:00 Debate: Can stress trigger seizures ?
Yes: M. Trimble, UK
No: W. Theodore, USA
Commentator: A. Guekht, Russia
12:00-13:00 Debate: Should patients with epilepsy who are depressed be routinly treated with antidepressant medication or vagus nerve stimulation?
VNS: E. Ben-Menachem, Sweden
Drugs: D. Schmdit, Germany
Commentator: W. Theodore, USA
13:00-14:00 Lunch Break
Session (3) Epilepsy: Therapeutic Aspects
Genetic medications have recently become available for many of the newer antiepileptic agents. These have the potential to significantly reduce healthcare expendituers. Is epilepsy a condition like others in which generic substitution is safe or is epilepsy special conditions for which generics pose undue risk? Many studies assert that etiology is the determinant of outcome after status epilepticus. This raises the question as to the extent to which treatment affects outcome
Chairpersons: K Rejdak, Poland; E. Ben-Menachem, Sweden
14:00-14:45 Debate: Does use of generic medications pose risk with regard to seizure control?
Yes: A. Guekht, Russia
No: T. Tomson, Sweden
Commentator: B. Baykan, Turkey
14:45-15:30 Debate: Does treatment of status epilepticus significantly impact outcome?
Yes: T. Tomson, Sweden
No: E. Beghi, Italy
Commentator: M. Trimble, UK
Lecture: Is valproate (VPA) an obligatory teratogen, or is it just a matter of dose?
F. Vajda, Australia
16:00-16:30 Coffee Break
Session (4) Autoimmune Processes in Epilepsy
Capsule: Epilepsy beginning in midlife is always a cause for concern, and its etiology, diagnosis and treatment are unclear. This session will review the role of neuronal autoantibodies in epilepsy, which are increasingly recognized as a potential etiology of seizure disorders
Chairpersons: M. Mazurkiewicz-Beldinska, Poland; T. Tomson, Sweden
Lecture: Epilepsy and autoimmune disease: Anti-MNDA receptor, LGI1 and other synaptic autoimmune encephaltis:
Lecture: Glutamate receptor antibodies are found in epilepsy patients, activate glutamate receptors and cause brain damage in animal models:
M. Levite, Israel
17:20-17:30 Commentator: A. Gil Nagel, Spain
New Players in Epilepsy
In response to the lack of adequate response, a new generation of antiepileptic medicaitons is being developed. This final series of talks will review some new agents either recently approved, or in the pharmaceutical pipeline
Eslicarbazepine Acetate: E. Ben-Menachem, Sweden
Perampanel: A. Gil Nagel, Spain
Rufinamide: F. Bibbiani, USA
Pregabalin: D. Schmidt, Germany
2-deoxyglucose: K. Rejdak, Poland
Friday, October 29, 2010 /// Hall B - Stroke
Session (5) Stroke Prevention
Chairpersons: A. Halliday, UK; A. Davalos, Spain
08:30-09:30 Debate: What is the future of stroke prevention: Polypill or individualized risk factor modification?
Capsule: Stroke prevention is the key factor to fight and to reduce stroke burden around the world. "Mass" Polypill vs. "High risk" approach in stroke prevention is still a matter of debate
Polypill: A. Shuaib, Canada
Individualized risk factor modification: D. Spence, Canada
Commentator: J. Streifler, Israel
09:30-10:30 Debate: Best medical treatment or stenting for intracranial stenosis?
Capsule: Intracranial artery stenosis is increasingly recognized as an important cause of stroke. However, management of this disorder is still unclear, with data favoring medical therapy with anticoagulants and antiaggregants being advocated by leaders in the field, while others promote stenting
L. Caplan, USA
Commentator: D. Spence, Canada
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
Session (6)
(Supported by an unrestricted grant from EV3)
Chairpersons: M. Bar, Czech Republic; J. Streifler, Israel
11:00-12:00 Debate: What is the best therapy for stroke therapy after thrombolysis fails in acute stroke management?
Capsule: Recanalization and perfusion are the main purposes of thrombolysis. However, the recanalization rate with IV rtPA is insufficient and should be improved. Sonothrombolysis is a feasible, applicable and promising techniques to increase the recanalization rate
Sonothrombolysis: C. Molina, Spain
Clot retrieval: A. Davalos, Spain
Neither: P. Schellinger, Germany
Commentator: A. Shuaib, Germany
12:00-13:00 Debate: Is current advanced neuroimaging sufficient for treating acute ischemic stroke?
Capsule: Currently only small proportions of acute ischemic stroke patients receive thrombolysis mainly due to late arrival and missing the time window of 4.5 hours. Whether the current technology of advanced neuroimaging can identify patients who are suitable for thrombolysis beyond 4.5 hours is still uncertain
Yes: A. Davalos, Spain
No: P. Schellinger, Germany
Commentator: L. Caplan, USA
13:00-14:00 Lunch Break
Session (7) Management of Acute Stroke
Chairperson: E. Diez-Tejedor, Spain; J. Montaner, Spain
14:00-15:00 Debate: Anticoagulants vs. Antipatelets for carotid artery dissection
Capsule: Dissection of the carotid and vertebral arteries is the most common cause for stroke in the young. The common practice is to treat with anticoagulants. However, there are only scanty data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support this approach. The debate will shed light on this controversial issue
Anticoagulants: J. Norris, UK
Antiplatelets: O. Bajenaru, Romania
Commentator: L. Caplan, USA
15:00-16:00 Debate: Should treatment of acute stroke be the same for anterior and posterior strokes?
Verterbrobisilar and carotid strokes may have different pathogenesis, and of course different presentations. Should this be reflected in therapy for acute events and to prevent recurrences?
Yes: L. Caplan, USA
No: W.W. Zhang, China
Commentator: A. Halliday, UK
16:00-16:30 Coffee Break
Session (8) Carotid Stenosis
Chairpersons: J. Wojczal, Poland; O. Bajenaru, Romania
16:30-17:30 Debate: Are the current tools sufficient to identify the vulnerable plaque?
Capsule: Carotid stenosis accounts for 15-20% of all ischemic strokes. The management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACAS) is still controversial. Plaque vulnerability may identify high risk ACAS subjects in whom intervention might be justified
Yes: D. Russell, Norway
No: A. Halliday, UK
Commentator: G. Chrysant, USA
New Players in Stroke
Stem cell and neurotrophic factors in acute ischemic stroke therapy: E. Diez Tejedor, Spain
New anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation: D. Spence, Canada
Cerebrolysin: A. Guekht, Russia
Cooling: D. Krieger, Denmark
Pioglitazone: J. Streifler, Israel
Citicoline: C. Molina, Spain
Friday, October 29, 2010 /// Hall C - Parkinson's disease (PD)/Movement disorders (MD)
Session (9) Neuroprotection and Biomarkers
Capsule: To halt or modify disease progression is one of the leading clinical research questions in neurodegeneration. The implications for the individual patients are fostered by hope and hype. Yet the insight into cell death and its potential retardation also implies an improved understanding of aging, including genetics and neurotocity. Surogate or biomarkers which accompany different stages of disease or age could greatly facilitate these ongoing research endeavors
Chairpersons: E. Martignoni, Italy; U. Bonuccelli, Italy
08:30-09:30 Debate: Can neuroprotection be detected in PD?
Yes: F. Stocchi, Italy
No: A. Kupsch, Germany
Commentator: J. Kulisevsky, Spain
09:30-10:30 Debate: Is Parkinson's disease primarily a genetic disorder?
Yes: J. Hardy, USA
No: R. Castellani, USA
Commentator: E. Melamed, Israel
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
Session (10) Essential Tremor and Physical Therapy
Capsule: Essential tremor (ET), being much more frequent than Parkinson's disease, may be clinically progressive. However it generally is assumed that ET does not belong to neurodegenerative disorders, since cell loss is datable in ET. At the same time, ET and PD may overlap. Thus the present controversy concentrates on the issue of progression in ET and the different subtypes of ET. On the other hand, PD is a clearly progressive disorder. Physical therapy provides pro and contro arguments for the efficacy of physical therapy in PD and discusses the debatable value of specific PD-orientated physical therapy, such as Lee Silverman Voice Training and BIG
Chairpersons: J. Kulisevsky, Spain; R. Castellani, USA
11:00-12:00 Debate: Is essential tremor a neurodegenerative disease?
Yes: U. Bonuccelli, Italy
No: M. Kurtis, Spain
Commentator: A. Antonini, Italy
12:00-13:00 Debate:
Is physical therapy beneficial in PD?: M. Munneke, The Netherlands
Is the clinimetric analysis sufficiently sensitive to functional assessment in PD or should it be supported by kinematic analysis?: S. Katayama, Japan
Commentator: L. Battistin, Italy
13:00-14:00 Lunch Break
Session (11) Camptocormia and Gambling
Capsule: PD may be associated with motor and non-motor copmlications such as camptocormia or gambling. Recently, biopsy-proven evidence has accumulated showing that camptocormia may be a myopathy in PD, contrasting the most traditional view of dystonic disorder which will be discussed in the first part of the session. Gambling on the other hand is a non-motor complication of PD. Is it related to drug intake or disease progression? What are the risk factors? Do genetics play a role and can we predict and influence the evolution of gambling in PD?
Chairpersons: L. Battistin, Italy; P. Martinez Martin, Spain
14:00-15:00 Debate: Camptocormia in PD: Is this a dystonia or a myopathy?
Dystonia: E. Melamed, Israel
Myopathy: A. Kupsch, Germany
Commentator: A. Antonini, Italy
15:00-16:00 Debate: Pathological gambling in PD: Disease related or drug related?
Disease related: J. Kulisevsky, Spain
Drug related: A. Antonini, Italy
Commentator: F. Stocchi, Italy
16:00-16:30 Coffee Break
Session (12) New Players in Neurodegenerative Diseases
Chairpersons: D. Truong, USA; L. Varona, Spain
16:30-17:30 Debate: Their cognitive capacity and judgement allows most ALS patients to make valid life and death decisions that should be respected
Pro: S.C. Blumen, Israel
Con: C. Lomen-Hoerth, USA
Commentator: A. Ludolph, Germany
New Players
Tideglusib: T. del Ser, Spain
Carnosine: A. Boldyrev, Russia
Safinamide: F. Stocchi, Italy
Pramipexole SR in PD: A. Antonini, Italy
PYM50028 (COGANE™): N.L. Meyers, UK
Saturday, October 30, 2010 /// Hall A - Multiple Sclerosis
Session (13) MS: Therapeutic Dilemmas
Capsule: In order to establish unequivocally the benefit of new drugs, they should be compared to placebos in double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies. However, there is a problem when using placebo when an effective drug exists in the market. Another issue is whether sometimes imprecise clinical data are absolutely essential for clinical decisions in MS, or whether at times MRI can be used - for example to declare a therapy not useful and to switch to an alternative, even when the clinical situation is unchanged
Chairpersons: J. Losy, Poland; L. Vecsei, Hungary
08:30-09:30 Debate: Are placebo-controlled clinical trials still ethical/necessary in RRMS?
Yes: G. Ebers, UK
No: T. Derfuss, Switzerland
Commentator: P. Vermersch, France
09:30-10:30 Debate: Should any treatment decisions be made based on MRI, such as change from IFN to other DMD, even if there is no clinical evidence of disease activity?
Yes: V. Brinar, Croatia
No: M. Freedman, Canada
Commentator: D. Leppert, Switzerland
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
Session (14) Etiology and Pathogenesis of MS
Capsule: The search for the cause of MS has been going on for over a century, yet it is unclear whether the disease is due to an infective agent, immune attack, or perhaps a vascular disorder
Chairpersons: J. Kruja, Albania; V. Brinar, Croatia
11:00-12:00 Debate: Does chronic venous insufficiency paly a role in MS pathogenesis?
Yes: P. Zamboni, Italy
No: O. Stuve, USA
Commentator: A. Miller, Israel
12:00-13:00 Debate: Are infections key environmental factors in MS?
Yes: I. Steiner, Israel
No: A. Chaudhuri, UK
Commentator: P. Kennedy, UK
13:00-14:00 Lunch Break
Session (15) MS Treatments
Capsule: The mainstay of treatment of MS particularly today is with injectable drugs, either glatiramer acetate or β-interferons. However, these drugs have limited efficacy and new drugs are being developed, in the hope that their advantages will lead them to replace existing DMDs
Chairpersons: J.A. Garcia Merino, Spain; D. Karussis, Israel
14:00-15:00 Debate: Are we close to patient population oriented treatment algorithm in MS?
(Partially supported by an unresticted grant from Teva Pharma and Sanofi-Aventis)
Yes: D. Karussis, Israel
No: X. Montalban, Spain
Commentator: G. Ebers, UK
15:00-16:00 Debate: How to treat a highly active RRMS patient after one disease modifying drug (DMD) has failed?
(Partially supported by an unrestricted grant from Cardian BCT Europe)
Switch to another DMD: M. Freedman, Canada
Plasmapheresis: O. Stuve, USA
Monoclonal antibody therapies: P. Vermersch, France
Commentator: T. Derfuss, Switzerland
16:00-16:30 Coffee Break
Session (16) New Players in MS
Chairpersons: Z. Stelmasiak, Poland; T. Derfuss, Switzerland
16:30-17:15 Debate: Should all MS patients be treated with statins?
Yes: O. Stuve, USA
No: R. Milo, Israel
Commentator: P. Kennedy, UK
New Players
Fumarate: J. Losy, Poland
Ocrelizumab: D. Leppert, Switzerland
Prolonged-release fampridine tablets: X. Montalban, Spain
Bone marrow transplantation (BMT): D. Karussis, Israel
Teriflunomide: M. Freedman, Canada
Laquinimod: P. Vermersch, France
Cladribine: P. Rieckmann, Germany
Emerging treatments for pseudobulbar affect: D. Wynn, USA
Fingolimod: H.-P. Hartung, Germany
Saturday, October 30, 2010 /// Hall B - Headache / Pain
Session (17) Headache: Tension-type headache vs. migraine - Effectiveness of botulinum toxin
Capsule: An old debate in the headache field is whether the two most common types of chronic headache, tension-type headache and migraine are two separate entities or whether tension-type headaches are actually mild forms of migraine. Post traumatic headache often presents with normal neurological examination and no abnormal studies, just headache. However, there is usually a post head trauma, with many symptoms and some psychological problems. So, is the pathophysiology neurological or psychological?
Chairpersons: H. Hamburger, The Netherlands; R. Weeks, USA
08:30-09:30 Debate: Is tension-type headache a separate and not a type of migraine?
Yes: C. Lampl, Austria
No: N. Mathew, USA
Commentator: M. Levin, USA
09:30-10:30 Debate: Is post traumatic headache is neurological as opposed to a psycho-social- societal disorder?
Yes: M. Kapisyzi, Albania
No: R. Weeks, USA
Commentator: L. Vecsei, Hungary
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
Session (18)
Headache: Where Migraine Starts - When to Give Triptans?
(Partially supported by an unrestricted grant from MSD)
Capsule: A heavily debated topic in migraine today is where in the brain the first phase of the attack begins, some saying the cerebral cortex, and others saying that it originates in the brain stem. There is much scientific evidence for both. Triptans are widely thought of as the most effective medicine to give in a moderate to servere attack of migraine; but must they be given early, when the headache is mild, or can they be given later in the attack?
Chairpersons: M. Kapisyzi, Albania; C. Lampl, Austria
11:00-12:00 Debate: Does the first phase of a migraine attack originate in the cerebral cortex as opposed to the brain stem?
Yes: H. Bolay, Turkey
No: L. Vecsei, Hungary
Commentator: N. Mathew, USA
12:00-13:00 Debate: Do triptans have to be given early in the attack when the headache is mild?
Yes: N. Mathew, USA
No: W. Kozubski , Poland
Commentator: A. Rapoport, USA
13:00-14:00 Lunch Break
Session (19)
Headache: What causes post traumatic headache - Will CRGP antagonists be effective?
(Partialy supported by an unrestricted grant from MSD)
Capsule: There is allot of discussion about off-label use of botulinum toxin type-A for chronic migraine and until recently there has been little scientific evidence that it is effective, although it is widely considered to be an effective treatment by many headache specialists. For 20 years CGRP has been studied scientifically and considered a possible cause of pain in migraine. Soon we may have a CGRP antagonist to treat an acute migriane attack. Will it be a valuable new agent?
Chairpersons: H. Hamburger, The Netherlands; D. Truong, USA
14:00-15:00 Debate: Is botulinum toxin type-A an effective and safe treatment for chronic migraine?
Yes: A. Mauskop, USA
No: C. Lampl, Austria
Commentator: M.-C. Wilson, USA
15:00-16:00 Debate: Will the first marketed CGRP antagonist be an important addition to the migraine treatment armamentarium?
Yes: A. Rapoport, USA
No: M. Levin, USA
Commentator: N. Mathew, USA
16:00-16:30 Coffee Break
Session (20) Headache Treatment: Magnesium and Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Everyone?
Chairperson: H. Bolay, Turkey; R. Weeks, USA
16:30-17:15 Debate: Should magnesium be given to every migraineur?
Capsule: Many studies show that magnesium intravenously or by mouth can help a migraineur. Should every migraineur receive magnesium?
Yes: A. Mauskop, USA
No: A. Pardutz, Hungary
Commentator: M. Kapisyzi, Albania
17:15-18:00 Debate: Occipital nerve stimulation is a valuable and effective form of headache treatment
Capsule: There have been many patients treated successfully with occipital nerve stimulation for chronic headache, but is there any scientific proof of effectiveness and is this a safe and effective treatment for chronic headache?
Pro: M.-C. Wilson, USA
Con: M. Levin, USA
Commentator: H. Bolay, Turkey
Chairpersons: A. de Ru, The Netherlands; A. Rapoport, USA
Lecture: The importance of sleep to the headache patient
H. Hamburger , The Netherlands
Saturday, October 30, 2010 /// Dementia - Hall C
Session (21) Dementia: Diagnostic and Pathogenetic Concepts
Capsule: Mild cognitive impairment is one of the most disputed concepts in the field: Is it really useful as a diagnostic entity, or should it be dropped altogether, replaced by more specific diagnosis wherever this is possible? Another long-standing controversy in the field of Alzheimer's disease is the relative role of tau as opposed to amyloid pathology in the disease pathogenesis. This is not without a reason - all available genetic evidence points towards amyloid whereas pathological correlations rather favor tau
Chairpersons: R. Castellani, USA; M. Emre, Turkey
08:30-09:30 Debate: Is MCI a useful diagnostic concept?
Yes: G. Ransmayr, Austria
No: R. Bullock, UK
Commentator: T. del Ser, Spain
09:30-10:30 Debate: Is tau more important than amyloid in the pathophysiology of AD?
Yes: P. Giannakopoulos, Switzerland
No: B.O. Popescu, Romania
Commenator: M. Windisch, Austria
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
Session (22)
Dementia: Treatment of Alzheimer's disease - When to Start and When to Continue
(Partially supported by an unrestricted grant from Ana Aslan)
Capsule: There are two treatment modalities with proven efficacy in the treatment of patients with AD. Cholinesterase inhibitors have been primarily investigated in mild to moderate stages of the disease whereas NMDA antagonist memantine is indicated in patients with moderate to severe disease. In the backdrop of clinical trials, which are traditionally conducted in selected patient populations the question is when to start treatment of ChE-I. The second question is when to combine the two treatment strategies, in particular in the light of recent trials suggesting that combination treatment may be more beneficial
Chairpersons: L. Battistin, Italy; P. Modrego, Spain
Debate: Should cholinesterase inhibitors (ChE-I) be initiated as early as possible in the treatment of AD?
Yes: M. Davidson, Israel
No: R. Bullock, UK
Commentator: L. Frolich, Germany
12:00-13:00 Debate: Should combination treatment with ChE-I and memantine be started as early as possible?
Yes: L. Spiru, Romania
No: L. Frolich, Germany
Commentator: R. Bullock, UK
13:00-14:00 Lunch Break
Session (23) Dementia: Prospects on Diagnosis and Treatment of AD
Capsule: Amyloid cascade hypothesis was the first integrative mechanistic attempt to explain the pathgenesis of AD. Since its inception, additional data has been gathered, which has been interpreted both as supportive of, as well as against it; an expert discussion on where we stand today is timely. As potential therapeutic interventions to modify the disease process are being investigated early diagnosis which will enable interventions at the earliest stages of the disease, are becoming more important. Can surrogate markers help us in this regard and improve (or even beat) the accuracy of clinical diagnosis?
Chairpersons: J. Cedarbaum, Spain; M. Emre, Turkey
14:00-15:00 Debate: Is the amyloid hypothesis still valid?
(Partially supported by an unrestricted grant from IOS Press)
Yes: J. Hardy, USA
No: M. Smith, USA
Commentator: P. Giannakopoulos, Switzerland
15:00-16:00 Debate: Should statins be used as neuroprotective agents in MCI?
(Partially supported by an unrestricted grant from Ferrer)
Yes: M. Davidson, Israel
No: A. Cedazo-Miguez, Sweden
Commentator: F. Cruz Sanchez, Spain
16:00-16:30 Coffee Break
Session (24)
Present and Future in "Neuroprotection" Related Concepts and Clinical Consequences
(Partially supported by an unrestricted frant from the Society for the Study of Neuroprotection and Neuroplasticity)
Capsule: The more we deepen our understanding about brain biology and brain-mind interface, the better we realize that we have to readapt all our paradigms to reality. The old concept, that neuroprotection means suppressing pathophysiological processes and the idea that a signle mechanism molecule might be effective in clinical practice are obsolete today. This represents the root cause of failure
Chairperson: L. Caplan, USA; M. Seijo, Spain
Quantum mechanics and the brain
Quantum brain and self directed neuroplasticity: J.M. Schwartz, USA
Quantum conception of the mind-brain connection: H. Stapp, USA
Present and future neuroprotection
Clinical neuroprotection is presently disappointing: L. Caplan, USA
Future approaches are very promising: D. Muresanu, Romania
Sunday, October 31, 2010 /// Hall A - Neuroimmunology
Session (25) Therapy of Immune-mediated Peripheral Neuropathies
Capsule: Chronic immune-mediated neuropathies pose serious therapeutic challenges. Failure to treat or failure of therapy is associated with severe neruological disability, but certain therapeutic modalities carry the risk of major side effects. What are the best approaches? Are there gold standards?
Chairperson: M. Dalakas, Greece & UK; A. Chaudhuri, UK
08:30-09:30 Debate: Long term treatment of CIDP: IVIg vs. Immunosuppression
Pro IVIg: H.-P. Hartung, Germany
Pro immunosuppression: E. Nobile-Orazio, Italy
Commentator: A. Chaudhuri, UK
09:30-10:30 Debate: Can rituximab effectively treat myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) neuropathies?
Yes: M. Dalakas, Greece & UK
No: E. Nobile-Orazio, Italy
Commentator: I. Wirguin, Israel
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
Session (26) Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Therapy of Peripheral Neuropathies and Neuroimmunology
Capsule: The session focuses on several important issues in clinical neurology, the major one being the role of oligonclonal bands (OCB). These have been considered (one of) the holy grail(s) of multiple sclerosis. The search at the epitopes that these IgG are directed against have attracted much scientific interest, so far with no success. Is the effort justified?
Chairperson: H.-P. Hartung, Germany; G. Ebers, UK
11:00-11:50 Debate: Guillain Barre Syndrome: Re-treat with a second IVIg infusion vs. No evidence for a second course
Re-treat with a second IVIg infusion: I. Wirguin, Israel
No evidence for a second infusion: A. Chaudhuri, UK
Discussion Lecture: Are the oligoclonal bands in the CSF a red herring?
Yes: A. Vincent, UK
Commentators: M. Dalakas, Greece & UK; H.-P. Hartung, Germany
Debate: Skin biopsy – Is this a useful diagnostic tool for painful neuropathies?
Yes: C. Sommer, Germany
No: J. Vilchez, Spain 
Sunday, October 31, 2010 /// Hall B - Neurodegenerative Diseases
Session (27) Rehabilitation
Capsule: The challenge of clinical neurorehabilitation is that the strategies and techniques should manage high heterogeneity of patients
Chairpersons: V. Homberg, Germany; D. Muresanu, Romania
08:30-09:30 Debate: Spasticity must be treated
Yes: A. Ward, UK
No: L. Saltuari, Austria
Commentator: O. Bajenaru, Romania
Session (28) Biomarkers in Diagnositcs of Neurological Disorders
Capsule: Early diagnosis of neurological disorders can be improved by specific biomarkers. This session presents the currently known biomarkers and will discuss the controversy – the pro's and con's of the various biomarkers. Data will also be presented on clinically applied biomarkers which can be used as screening tools and for accelerating drug discovery. The session will present how these biomarkers can be incorporated into clinical drug trials, translational medicine and be used to elucidate proposed novel mechanisms of disease and drug action
Chairpersons: B.O. Popescu, Romania; K. Wesnes, UK
Lecture: EVP-6124, a potent nicotinic alpha7 co-agonist in cognition models:
G. Koenig, USA
Lecture: The place of surrogate endpoints in the development of new neurological medicines:
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
Session (29) Controversial Biomarkers in Diagnostics of Neurological Disorders
Capsule: Early diagnosis of neurological disorders can be improved by specific biomarkers. This session presents the currently known biomarkers and will discuss the controversy – the pro's and con's of the various biomarkers. Data will also be presented on clinically applied biomarkers which can be used as screening tools and for accelerating drug discovery. The session will present how these biomarkers can be incorporated into clinical drug trials, translational medicine and be used to elucidate proposed novel mechanisms of disease and drug action
Chairperson: R. Ravid, The Netherlands; I. Turcu, Romania
Lecture: Are neuro-psychological tests the best biomarkers for preclinical dementia?:
11:30-11:50 Lecture: The role of Bio markers in Drug development and discovery
E. Vaudano
, Belgium
Lecture: Plasma based biomarkers as screening tools for AD:
H. Soares, USA
Lecture: Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS) in mid cognitive impairment as a marker of early Alzheimer's diease:
P. Modrego, Spain
13:30-14:00 Poster Awards & Closing Ceremony
Chairpersons: A. Gil Nagel, Spain; A.D. Korczyn, Israel; W.W. Zhang, China

Home    Contact Us   
Copyright © 2007 All rights reserved.   The website was last updated on 04/11/2012 Created by