CONy 2024: Key takeaways from the 18th World Congress on Controversies in Neurology
touchNEUROLOGY coverage at CONy 2024
CONy President, Prof. Amos D. Korczyn, a distinguished figure in the field of neurology, shares an update on the 18th World Congress on Controversies in Neurology congress, held in the city of London, UK, brought together leading experts to debate and discuss the most contentious issues within neurology. Prof. Korczyn, with his extensive background in neurodegenerative diseases and his role in shaping discussions at CONy for many years, offers us unique insights into the ground-breaking developments and debates that marked this year’s event.
Disclosures: Amos D. Korczyn has nothing to disclose in relation to this video interview.
This content has been developed independently by Touch Medical Media for touchNEUROLOGY and is not affiliated with the World Congress on Controversies in Neurology (CONy). Unapproved products or unapproved uses of approved products may be discussed by the faculty; these situations may reflect the approval status in one or more jurisdictions. No endorsement of unapproved products or unapproved uses is either made or implied by mention of these products or uses by Touch Medical Media or any sponsor. Views expressed are the speaker’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Touch Medical Media.
Transcript:
I am Professor Amos D. Korczyn, Professor of Neurology in Tel Aviv, and I am the president of CONy. Many of you have attended CONy or heard about it. We just completed our 18th annual meeting, which took place in London. This meeting was excellent. London is, of course, a very nice host city, but the meeting itself was unique in terms of the intensity of the debates we had there.
We had close to 700 participants, which is our usual number. This allows for more intimate discussions and enables attendees to meet and talk with the key opinion leaders leading the debates. The atmosphere was really great, and I received so many letters of appreciation from members—more than I have ever received before. Everyone really enjoyed it, including me, although there was a lot of work to be done.
CONy is based on pro/con debates across several topics in different sections, such as MS, Parkinson’s, stroke, or epilepsy. In each of these, we have about 7-9 pro/con debates. The format involves a suggestion made to the floor, and then people can vote either yes or no. After we see the initial opinions, the experts try to convince the audience of their positions. After about fifteen minutes, the opponent presents the opposite argument. Then, we have another vote to see who wins and what the results of the debate are. But actually, the winner is not just one person—everybody wins. Everyone is there, listening and paying attention, and they get the information they missed.
The debates are really a teaching exercise more than anything else. We had 80 program debates over the three days of the congress. Each day had four panels, and each had seven or eight pro/con cases going on.
Angela Vincent talked about the future of autoimmune diseases. Angela is a well-known scientist from Oxford and the former chairman of the department of neurology there. We awarded her the CONy Prize for her outstanding contribution to science.
Another interesting talk was about aphantasia. Many of you might not have heard this term. It’s about discovering that some of us, when we close our eyes to imagine someone we know, can see their face, while others cannot. Those who cannot—about ten or fifteen percent of the population—have what is called aphantasia.
Professor Adam Zimmern introduced us to this topic. But as I said, most of the debates were about the pro/con format. For example, in neuroimmunology, one topic discussed whether thyroid problems are associated with autoimmune encephalopathy. Another issue in Parkinson’s disease is whether the distinction between dementia of Parkinson’s disease and Lewy body dementia, with its identical pathology, should still be maintained.
In stroke, there was a debate about the time limit for administering tPA—whether we should start it early and limit it to three, four, or four and a half hours, or whether we can extend this time based on imaging data. We also had a debate on cognitive reserve, which I participated in, arguing that it’s not a particularly useful term.
So, that was our meeting a few weeks ago in London, and we are already preparing for the next meeting in Prague, Czech Republic. We always try to find new places; we were last in Prague about fifteen years ago. We’ll return with new debates, new topics, new speakers, and hopefully a large, interested faculty and audience. It will be on March 20th, always the last weekend of March. The dates for the next meeting are March 20-22, 2025, in Prague. I hope to see many of you there.
Interviewer/Editor: Katey Gabrysch
