Articles – Page 19

Junior Traveling Fellowship 2022 report

EAN Congress

By Syrine Ben Mammou

Thanks to World Federation of Neurology, I had the opportunity to attend the Eighth European Academy of Neurology Congress June 25-28, 2022, in Vienna Austria.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many conferences were cancelled or presented virtually. This was my first participation in an international congress of neurology as a junior resident.

During the three days of the conference, I was in sessions revolving around different interesting topics in the field. I am highly interested in inflammatory diseases, and thanks to this opportunity I was able to attend multiple sclerosis discussions. The highlight of my journey was the plenary symposium about improving lives and reducing burden. It was interesting to me as a medical doctor from a low-income country.

Overall, it was an enriching experience during which I had the opportunity to meet and connect with professors and residents in neurology from all over the world. We had various talks about our countries’ health systems, our current work, and future projects. I also had the honor to meet Dr. Claudio Bassetti.

Finally, I hope that I will have the opportunity to attend a conference again in the upcoming years to do presentations about the work that we do in my country. I hope these opportunities of travel fellowships will be more accessible for junior doctors/residents from low-income countries. •

Dr. Ben Mammou is a neurology resident in Tunis, Tunisia.

Arthur Knight Asbury, MD 1928-2022

by Robert P. Lisak, MD, and John D. England, MD

When Arthur K. Asbury, Van Meter professor of neurology emeritus at the Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, died on Oct. 19, 2022, at the age of 93, the neurologic world lost a true giant, and many of us lost a friend and mentor.

Art was born in Cincinnati to a medical family. He was raised in Cincinnati and Nicholas County, Kentucky, where his family bred horses, including the 1954 Kentucky Derby winner, Determine. He received his BS in agriculture from the University of Kentucky, and after two years of active service in the army, decided on a career in medicine.

Art graduated first in his class from the University of Cincinnati School of Medicine and then trained in medicine, neurology, and pathology at the Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medicine. It was there as a faculty member he began his research into diseases of the peripheral nervous system, including several important papers on diabetic neuropathies and the classic seminal paper, co-authored with Barry Arnason and Raymond Adams, on Guillain-Barre syndrome.

Art moved to the University of California, San Francisco, as vice chair and chief of neurology at the Ft. Miley Veterans Affairs Hospital. Subsequently, he was appointed professor and chair of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) in 1973, arriving there in 1974. He served as chair until 1982. During that period, he rapidly expanded and enhanced the department by building on the foundation provided by his predecessors, G. Milton Shy and Lewis “Bud” Rowland.

After stepping down as chair, he continued to be active nationally and internationally in academic neurology. Over the next several decades, he remained one of the world’s leading figures in the field of peripheral nerve neurology and clinical neurology.

In addition, at the University of Pennsylvania, he served as interim dean and executive vice president for health affairs on two occasions as well as serving at different times as associate dean for research and associate dean for faculty affairs. Other institutions and societies benefited greatly from Art’s remarkable administrative and leadership skills. In the American Neurological Association (ANA), he served as program committee chair, membership advisory committee chair, and president. He was also a vice pPresident of the World Federation of Neurology (WFN), and served as editor-in-chief of the Annals of Neurology, the official journal of the ANA. He served in many leadership positions in the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, including president and interim CEO. His papers from his time at the University of Pennsylvania are in the college’s historical library.

Arthur Asbury’s scientific contributions in the field of peripheral nerve disease are remarkable for their quality, breadth, and impact. Notable contributions include seminal papers on inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathies (especially Guillain-Barre syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy), diabetic neuropathies and neuropathies associated with renal disease. He was the author of over 230 articles, reviews, and chapters as well as serving as an editor and section editor of multiple well-known treatises and books.

Of equal importance was his role as a thought leader, teaching us how to approach the diagnosis and management of patients with peripheral neuropathy in a logical manner. Neurologists and patients are forever in his debt for this. Art served as the principal adviser to Estelle and Robert Benson for the Guillain Barre Syndrome Foundation, which grew to become the GBS/CIDP Foundation International.

Art was a superb teacher and adviser for residents, fellows, and faculty. His mentoring in career development was one of his major accomplishments and was not limited to those at his own institutions. The mentoring also included advice on leadership. Both of the authors of this article, and others, were counseled by Art, a devoted baseball fan, upon accepting positions as chairs: “You don’t need to swing at every pitch.” When asked how to create outstanding training programs in neurology, his advice was pithy and timeless: “You just need to recruit excellent people.”

Both of us (RPL and JDE) were inspired by him to expand and focus our research on the pathophysiology of peripheral neuropathies. Although one of us (RPL) has a tremendous aversion to flying, he nonetheless got on a plane so as not to miss Art’s wedding to his wife, Carolyn. Art was instrumental in several major fundraising efforts for medical education, junior faculty development, and research at the University of Pennsylvania and for the Philadelphia College of Physicians. He and Carolyn endowed the Arthur Knight Asbury MD Professorship in Neurology to be held by the chair of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania.

A listing of Arthur Asbury’s honors would fill an entire book. Notable mentions include election to the Institute for Medicine (now named the National Academy of Medicine), The Royal College of Physicians (by distinction), IS Ravdin Master Clinician Award, the Lindback Award for Teaching Excellence, and Honorary Doctor of Sciences from the University of Pennsylvania. He was elected an Honorary Member of the American Neurological Association, the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, the Association of British Neurologists, and the European Academy of Neurology. He also received the Daniel Drake Medal and the Distinguished Graduate Award from the University of Cincinnati, the Lifetime Achievement Award from the World Federation of Neurology, and the Meritorious Service Award from the College of Physicians of Philadelphia.

Arthur Asbury is survived by his wife Dr. Carolyn Asbury, his children (Dana, Lyndia and William) with his first wife Patricia Asbury, two grandchildren, and three great grandchildren. We have all lost a most remarkable, inspiring, and gentle individual. •

Ettore Beghi

By Alla Guekht

Prof. Ettore Beghi, researcher at Istituto Di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri – IRCCS where he developed important contributions to the neuroepidemiological study of ALS and epilepsy, among other areas of neurological diseases.

Ettore Beghi passed away Oct. 10, 2022 at the age of 75 in Milan, Italy, fighting his last battle against a very serious illness with dignity.

Ettore Beghi was born in Milan, Italy, on Aug. 15, 1947. He received his MD at the University of Milan (1972), completed post-doctoral clinical fellowship in neurology with graduation at the neurologic clinic of the same university (1976), obtained a masters of pharmacologic sciences research at the Istituto Mario Negri in Milan (1981), and served as a research fellow in the department of medical statistics and epidemiology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester Minnesota (1982–1983).

His professional life was also associated with his favorite city. He was the head of the Laboratory of Neurological Disorders, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche “Mario Negri,” contract professor of neuroepidemiology at the University of Milan; past head of the neurophysiology unit and epilepsy center, Ospedale di Monza, Milan.

Although it is tragic to think of Ettore leaving us so early, he left behind a lifetime of extraordinary memories. He published more than 480 scientific articles, was one of the world leaders in neuroepidemiology with the special interest to epilepsy and motor neuron diseases, participated in the creation of registries for rare neurological diseases and COVID-19.

He made a prominent contribution to numerous working groups and research committees in the World Federation of Neurology (WFN), European Academy of Neurology (EAN), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), International League against epilepsy (ILAE), extensively collaborated with the WHO, especially at the time of COVID-19 pandemic. He was a prominent member of the WFN, contributing significantly to the WFN Research Group on motor neuron diseases. He was a Fellow of the AAN, Fellow of the EAN, and received the Ambassador for Epilepsy Award of the ILAE. Prof. Beghi chaired the AAN Neuroepidemiology Section and ILAE Commission on the Epidemiology of Epilepsy. He was a coordinator of the European ALS registry and one of the founders of the EAN NEuro-covid ReGistrY (ENERGY). He worked very actively in the Italian Neurologic Society (INS), being the president of its neuroepidemiology section, served in the executive committee of the Italian League against Epilepsy. Prof. Beghi was a consultant for ENEA, editor of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group, member of Commission on the Burden of Epilepsy of the ILAE, International Committee “Epilepsy and the Law,” AAN Research Group in Neuroepidemiology. He was the associate editor of Epilepsia and Neuroepidemiology, served on the editorial boards of the journals Clinical Drug Investigation, Inpharma, Drugs R & D, Neurological Sciences, Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery (CNN) and was a reviewer of the major journals in neurology.

Ettore Beghi was a great teacher and mentor to many young neurologists and researchers in many countries all over the world. He was a very kind and remarkable person, great colleague, and collaborator. Prof. Beghi is survived by his beloved wife, Maria Lidia, his three children Massimilìano, Emanuele, and Nadia, and his grandchildren.

It was a great pleasure and honor to work with him, admiring his tireless passion for research and clinical practice, his excellence, humanity, and dignity.

We will always remember Ettore as a dear friend, remarkable scientist, excellent doctor. He will always be in our thoughts and prayers. •

Obituary: Ettore Beghi

By Specialty Group on Neuroepidemiology, World Federation of Neurology

With deep sadness, we inform you that Ettore Beghi, after a long illness, has left us. We all remember the friendliness and devotion that Ettore has always shown in his excellent scientific work, presenting himself with humility, ready to pass on his skills to anyone who was close to him,

Prof. Beghi has been a key point of reference in neuroepidemiology, epilepsy, and motor neuron disease research in the global world by building new and original research paths. He worked closely with the World Federation of Neurology (WFN), being an active member of the WFN epidemiological group. In many instances, he was instrumental to build up the network of scientific and human relation of people from many countries that has been so characteristic of our group. In our meetings, he was always able with a smiling and calm leadership to convey a shared extraordinary and positive energy to all participants.

A great researcher and friend who will be missed by all of us.

New Metrics Released for the Journal of the Neurological Sciences

By John D. England, MD

John England

I am pleased to announce that new metrics have been released for the Journal of the Neurological Sciences, the official journal of the World Federation of Neurology (WFN). The widely cited Impact Factor (IF) has risen to 4.553, which is a +46.2% increase compared to the previously reported IF. This is an all-time high for the journal’s Impact Factor.

The Cite Score, which is the average citations per published peer-reviewed document, has risen to 5.2, and the Cite Tracker Score for 2022 is 5.5, another all-time high for the journal. Moreover, the worldwide penetration, usage, and number of downloads from the journal have increased steadily. The Journal of the Neurological Sciences is now truly an international and well-respected journal.

Many individuals are responsible for the success of our journal. I especially wish to recognize Dr. Nicole Villemarette-Pittman, our managing editor; and Drs. Carmel Armon, Andreas Charidimou, Hamilton Farris, Daniel Truong, and Donald Silberberg, our associate editors. The continued support of Elsevier and the World Federation of Neurology (WFN) have allowed our journal to prosper and improve. I am grateful to the leadership of the WFN for its continued encouragement and support. Drs. William Carroll, Wolfgang Grisold, Walter Struhal, and Steven Lewis have all provided notably important contributions to the Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

In addition, I wish to thank our editorial board members, authors, reviewers and readers for their support and encouragement. With the help of so many, I am confident that our journal will continue to serve the global community of neurology and neuroscience. •

John D. England, MD, is editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

Does Migraine Exist?

By Joost Haan, MD, PhD, BA

There is no objective test for migraine. Migraine cannot be proven with a scan, blood test, or EEG. The neurological examination during and outside attacks is usually normal. A diagnosis of “migraine” can only be made on the words with which patients describe past experiences. Their words must be “read” to get a diagnosis. Based on sparse, remembered, and metaphorical information, doctors worldwide make a diagnosis of migraine to distinguish it from, for example, tension-type headaches, a diagnosis that is also based on words.

There are strict rules that advise doctors when to diagnose migraine. These rules depend on an agreement. The currently used classification of headache is from 1988¹ with updates in 2004, 2013, and 2018. Most clinical features mentioned in the criteria for migraine (such as pain severity, pulsating, sensitivity to stimuli) have no reference in reality, except for the words of the patient. This may lead to the question of whether migraine really exists.

The criteria were seen as a major breakthrough and one of the most important developments in the headache field of the last 100 years². The Danish neurologist Jes Olesen was the main force behind this classification. The preface of the 1988 classification mentions that “mistakes have inevitably been made.” Next to scientific use, the authors expected that the criteria would probably influence how to diagnose patients. Further, they stated that “only patients who really have the disease should have the diagnosis, but on the other hand, all patients who really have the disease should fulfill the diagnostic criteria.” The question here is what it really means in “patients who really have the disease.” How is this reality defined? The words of the patients have to be translated into the criteria. The criteria are used to give a name to a disease state. The “patients who really have the disease should fulfill the diagnostic criteria” make it a self-fulfilling prophesy.

This was recently illustrated in an article with Olesen as co-author. The article starts with: “Only when headache attacks fulfill specific diagnostic criteria consistently does a primary headache disorder occur³. Here, it even seems that the occurrence of the headache depends on the criteria.

Due to the nature of an agreement and not that of a biological test, the criteria are subjected to choices and interpretations. There is always the possibility that these choices and the selection are wrong. As such, the headache criteria strongly resemble a discourse.

There are numerous definitions of “discourse.” Here, I will use the definition of the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984). For him, “a discourse provides a set of possible statements about a given area, and organizes and gives structure to the manner in which a particular topic, object, process is to be talked about⁴.” An important aspect of this philosophy is that discourses construct reality and produce meaning. They include and exclude, and form a way of thinking. Discourses are based on arbitrary choices, but sometimes it becomes invisible that these only are assumptions. One had lost sight on the alternatives and the reasons for some of the choices. The human need to provide order, unfortunately, can have negative effects by blocking new thoughts and preventing from thinking otherwise. Such discourses will become the paradigm and make a paradigm shift very difficult. This is also true for the current headache classification.

It may be difficult at first sight to see the role of discourse when we are dealing with a biological process such as migraine. One of the reasons for this role is that natural and biological processes are not fixed and often depend on interpretations, shared opinions, and subjective observations. So, a diagnosis made by doctors can be seen as emerging as something that is simultaneously certain and uncertain. Except for the so-called “evidence-based medicine,” which exists between very narrow borders and must apply to very strict rules, most diagnoses are conceptual entities. This is not a problem as long as one realizes that it is not the “truth” or “reality.”

Foucault asks: “Who has the power to make a discourse?” He stresses the importance of persons with authority in the process⁴. Founders of discursivity are individuals whose ideas become so important that it is difficult to talk about a given domain without referring back to them. Obviously, Jes Olesen may be seen as the authority in this sense.

His criteria became the “truth” of headache diagnosis. The terminology of the criteria gradually took root in the daily conversation and writings of headache specialists. Although the criteria were created to separate recognizable and “pure” groups of patients for scientific investigations, they became also increasingly used to diagnose patients in daily practice. Thousands of scientific studies were based on the basis of these criteria, mainly published in devoted journals, such as Cephalalgia, Headache, and The Journal of Headache and Pain.

In these publications, it sufficed to mention that the diagnoses were “made according to the criteria of the International Headache Society” when describing the patient groups included. As Lane and Davies (2015) write, “it would now be impossible to publish a paper on headache without referencing the ICHD-3 beta or reiterating the ICHD-3 beta criteria for the headache entity under consideration⁵.” In most studies, a control of whether the diagnoses of the individual patients were correct was, however, never performed (and was also impossible from the point of view of the reviewers and the publishers of the articles). Medication trials and clinical and genetic studies were based on the semiology of the criteria; drugs were allowed to the market and only reimbursed by insurance companies when used for the “right” diagnosis according to the criteria and studied in the “right” trials.

The sparse criticism arguing that there is no real scientific basis for the classification has been ignored5,6. Nevertheless, the arguments of Shevel and Shevel that the required number of attacks, duration of headache, unilaterality, pulsating quality, severity of pain, and aggravation by activity are insufficiently supported by scientific and clinical observations (not to speak of its self-fulfilling prophesy) seems sound⁶. They were right in stating that the criteria were mainly based on opinions.

Likewise, Lane and Davies argue that “the ICHD-3 beta criteria have assumed a status that is not justified by evidence5.” It may be said that although the criteria are not the “truth” they have produced the reality of the headache patient. No doctor, scientist, or patient can ignore the discourse produced by these criteria, based on opinions and inclusions and exclusions. In 2014, Olesen admitted that there are “some problem areas” in the classification, but in the meantime also emphasized that there are “no competing classifications⁷.” Indeed, this is a dominant discourse.

The separation of “migraine” from other headache types is artificial, the distinction by criteria leads to a process of inclusion and exclusion. The headache diagnoses only exist due to the internationally accepted agreements of the dominant discourse offered by the International Headache Society. In fact, there is no place for alternatives, as even the inventors of the criteria admit themselves.

However, the reality of someone with “migraine” might not differ very much from that of someone with “tension-type headache.” There is much overlap between the various headache types, not only clinically, but also with regard to treatment. Also, different headache types often co-occur. The criteria, however, have categorized, split, and unfortunately also stigmatized headache and its sufferers. It even seems that being diagnosed as a migraine patient is a favor in contrast with getting a diagnosis of tension-type headache. Migraine gets more attention in the form of scientific research and funding, and therefore a better chance of effective treatment.

We have to do with the criteria as long as there is no robust identification available of migraine and other headache-types based on genes or other biomarkers. Only then, a transition of a symptomatic to an etiologic classification would be possible. In the meantime, we must rely on the words and the metaphors of the patients. It may be said that it “does not matter what we call migraine as long as all of us agree on what is called migraine⁸”, but we must always keep in mind the discursive (and therefore sometimes deforming) interpretation of the word “migraine.” The criteria have built a new entity, and its definition only results in a demarcation from other objects. Their significance does not lie in the fact that they offer a most detailed and accurate image of reality, but in the scientific consensus to use the word “migraine” in this particular way and to see this as what is really the matter.

Does migraine exist? Yes, in the form of a discursive definition, but also “No” in its real distinction from non-migraine headache types. In my opinion, this is what one should always keep in mind when dealing with headache patients. •

Joost Haan is a neurologist and headache specialist working in the Leiden University Medical Centre and the Alrijne Hospital, Leiderdorp, the Netherlands.

References

International Classification of Headache Disorders (1988). Cephalalgia 8, 1-96.
Tfelt-Hansen, Peer C. and Peter J. Koehler (2011). “One Hundred Years of Migraine Research: Major Clinical and Scientific Observations from 1910 to 2010.” Headache 51, 752-778.
Mitsikostas, Dimos D., Messoud Ashina, Alexander R. Craven, Hans C. Diener, Peter J. Goadsby, Michel D. Ferrari, Christian Lampl, Koen Paemeleire, Julio Pascual, Aksel Siva, Jes Olesen, Vera Osipova and Paolo Martelletti; on behalf of the EHF committee (2016). “European Headache Federation Consensus on Technical Investigation for Primary Headache Disorders.” Journal of Headache and Pain 17, 5.
Foucault, Michel. The Archeology of Knowledge. London, Tavistock, 1972.
Lane, Russell and Paul Davies (2015). Can Migraine be Defined?” Cephalalgia 35, 1339-1340.
Shevel, Elliot and Daniel Shevel (2014). “The International Headache Society Classification of Migraine Headache – A Call for Substantiating Data.” The Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering 7, 112-114.
Olesen, Jes (2014). “Problem Areas in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta).” Cephalalgia 34, 1193-1199.
Schulte, Laura and Arne May (2015). “What Makes Migraine a Migraine – of the Importance of Disease Classifications in Scientific Research.” Cephalalgia 35, 1337-1338.

Commentary: Does Migraine Exist?
by Richard Stark

Dr. Haan raises some important points that have practical as well as semantic implications.

It is obviously legitimate to raise questions about the definition of migraine when this is based on criteria derived from the patient’s description of symptoms (without objective biomarkers) with the criteria determined by expert opinion. However, there would be few people who would deny the existence of a condition that approximates the current definition and which, one day, may have more precisely defined biomarkers.

If one accepts that a condition approximating the current definition of migraine exists, criteria for diagnosis are necessary to enable research into the underlying biology, including potential treatments. It has been argued that such criteria need to be strict so that studies of “migraine” exclude borderline, atypical, or “non-migrainous” cases from research studies to improve power and precision of conclusions.

A problem arises then when the same criteria are used in clinical practice. Borderline or atypical cases may share biological features with strictly defined migraine and may, for example, respond well to treatments for migraine. If the strict criteria for defining migraine are used by insurers or other health funders, these patients may be disadvantaged.

The distinction between migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) is an example of this dilemma. There appears to be a range of clinical opinion about the practicalities of distinguishing between these disorders. Some take the view that with detailed and directed history taking, most patients with disabling headache initially considered to be TTH will prove to meet criteria for migraine. As Dr. Haan points out, many effective treatments have been established for migraine and few for TTH, so patients carrying the diagnosis of TTH are disadvantaged compared with those carrying a diagnosis of migraine.

The incidence of migraine is so high that it is tempting to believe that we all have the pathophysiological substrate for this disorder which, if sufficiently provoked, may produce the clinical picture of migraine. Of course, some are clearly more susceptible than others, resulting in a range of thresholds and severity. This may help explain why some, but not all, patients suffering from mild traumatic brain injury, or idiopathic intracranial hypertension, or COVID-19 (for example) develop persistent headaches with a migrainous phenotype. These headaches would be considered secondary headaches under ICHD3, but may, in some cases at least, respond to migraine treatments.

I believe we would all accept that objective diagnostic criteria based on biomarkers derived from a sound understanding of the pathophysiological basis for migraine are preferable to the current consensus-based criteria derived from the patient’s history. But at present, no such biomarkers exist, and the ICHD3 criteria seem to most to be a practical solution. The ICHD has justifiably been considered one of the foundations on which our rapidly expanding understanding of migraine is based. We must remember however that these criteria can and must be changed as more information becomes available, and the criteria have been written primarily to ensure “purity” in clinical research studies rather than as a constraint to clinical practice. •

Richard Stark is treasurer of the WFN.

From the Editors

By Steven L. Lewis, MD, Editor, and Walter Struhal, MD, Co-Editor

Steven L. Lewis, MD, Walter Struhal, MD

We’d like to welcome all readers to the December 2022 issue of World Neurology.

This issue begins with this issue’s President’s Column, where WFN President Dr. Wolfgang Grisold reports on the recent Council of Delegates (COD) meeting that occurred in Amsterdam in October and updates us on many of the continuing and evolving global activities of the WFN including the active preparations for the upcoming World Congress of Neurology (WCN) to be held in Montreal in October 2023. Dr. Hany Aref and Dr. Nevine El Nahas then discuss the successful development and ongoing activities of the stroke center in Ain Shams University in Cairo. Dr. Steven Peters then updates us on the history of the Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation and the unique federated model of this organization, in anticipation of the WCN in Montreal.

In a unique article in the issue, and in lieu of the usual history contribution, Dr. Joost Haan provides a thought piece on the existence of migraine as an entity; this is accompanied by a thoughtful commentary of this article by Dr. Richard Stark. Dr. Christina Zjukovskaja and Dr. Jacques Reis then update us on the fifth international meeting on environmental health held in Strasbourg, France in September.

Dr. Syrine Ben Mammou provides a report of her experience as a recipient of a WFN Junior Traveling Fellowship that provided the funding for her to present her research at the EAN Congress in Vienna this past June. Dr. Ovidiu Selejan and Dr. Dafin Muresanu then report on the successful 17th International Summer School in Neurology that was held on the shores of the Black Sea in Romania in July 2022. Dr. John England next updates us on the new metrics of the Journal of the Neurological Sciences, the official journal of the WFN.

Finally, this issue features in memoriam articles on two international giants of neurology. Dr. Robert Lisak and Dr John England provide their obituary on Dr. Arthur Knight Asbury. Dr. Alla Guekht and the WFN Specialty Group on Neuroepidemiology each present their obituaries on Dr. Ettore Beghi.

In this last issue of World Neurology of this calendar year, we want to thank all readers for their interest in and attention to World Neurology and we continue to invite ideas for contributions to be sent to us at the email addresses listed in the issue. We hope everyone is marking their calendars and making plans to attend the WCN in Montreal in October 2023—it will be a remarkable international event. •

Monkeypox and Neurology

By Chandrashekhar Meshram

Chandrashekhar Meshram

The World Health Organization recently declared monkeypox a global public health emergency of international concern. Monkeypox is a viral zoonosis caused by a double-stranded DNA virus in the Orthopoxvirus genus, transmitted to humans from animals—with symptoms similar to smallpox although clinically less severe. Details about the disease are available on WHO’s website.¹

Since early May 2022, cases of monkeypox have been reported in countries where the disease is not endemic and continue to be reported in several endemic countries. Most confirmed cases with travel history reported travel to countries in Europe and North America, rather than West or Central Africa, where the monkeypox virus is endemic. This is the first time that many monkeypox cases and clusters have been reported concurrently in non-endemic and endemic countries in widely disparate geographical areas.² As of Aug. 8, 30,189 cases have been reported from 88 countries, out of which 29,844 cases are from countries that have not historically reported monkeypox³.

Most reported cases so far have been identified through sexual health or other health services in primary and secondary health care facilities and have involved mainly, but not exclusively, men who have sex with men.

Human infection with monkeypox virus was initially identified in 1970, with almost all subsequent cases confined to rainforest regions of central and west Africa. In Africa, human case fatality rates from monkeypox infection are approximately 10%, and nearly half of infected individuals develop severe complications. In recent times, case fatality rate is around 3% to 6%¹.

In the summer of 2003, there was an outbreak of monkeypox virus infection in 72 individuals (34 confirmed cases) in the midwestern United States, the first human infections reported from outside the African continent⁵. Fifteen percent of the confirmed cases were seriously ill, including one patient with severe encephalitis.

The most common symptoms included rash, fever, chills and/or rigors, adenopathy, headache, myalgia, sweats, and cough. Rash, predominantly centrifugal involving palms and soles, follows the viral-like prodrome after one to three days.

Neurological manifestations in the form of headache and malaise are observed in more than 50% of patients, while more serious complications like encephalitis and seizures are seen in less than 3% of patients.⁶ Anxiety and depression are common in hospitalized patients. Two cases of encephalitis due to monkeypox, both in girls requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, are reported in the literature during past outbreaks⁷.

The U.S. patient with monkeypox encephalitis was a 6-year-old girl who initially presented with fever, pharyngitis, anorexia, malaise, and headache and was noted to have adenopathy and a vesiculopapular rash. She subsequently became somnolent and unresponsive and developed presumed seizure activity. Her MRI brain, EEG, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) revealed abnormalities. Diagnosis was confirmed by detection of monkeypox virus IgG and IgM in serum and IgM in CSF and by positive culture, immunohistochemical, and PCR results on skin lesion material. The patient gradually improved over several weeks, eventually recovering fully^8,4. The other was a 3-year-old girl who died on day 2 of hospitalization but CSF diagnostics were not performed⁷.

Because IgM does not generally cross the blood-brain barrier, the presence of IgM in CSF indicates active central nervous system infection with intrathecal antibody production. The absence of demyelination, cytotoxic changes caused by diffuse and focal edema, and intrathecal antibodies (IgM) all point to monkeypox as a possible cause of acute encephalitis7.

Monkeypox appears to have a fatal course almost exclusively in infants and young children, specifically those who have not received vaccination against smallpox.

These are early days, and we may find more cases with neurological involvement in the coming weeks or months. Any person with fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, and altered sensorium should be suspected as a case of monkeypox encephalitis. •

Chandrashekhar Meshram is co-opted trustee of the WFN.

References and further reading

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/monkeypox
https://www.who.int/emergencies/situations/monkeypox-oubreak-2022
https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/response/2022/world-map.html
Tyler KL emerging viral infections of central nervous system part 2. Arch Neurol 2009:66(9):1065-1074.
Reed KDMelski JWGraham MB et al. The detection of monkeypox in humans in the Western hemisphere. N Engl J Med 2004;350 (4) 342- 350
James B Badenoch, Isabella Conti, Emma R Rengasamy, Cameron J Watson, Matt Butler, Zain Hussain, Alasdair G Rooney, Michael S Zandi, Glyn Lewis, Anthony S David, Catherine F Houlihan, Ava Easton, Benedict D Michael, Krutika Kuppalli, Timothy R Nicholson, Thomas A Pollak , Jonathan P Roger Neurological and psychiatric presentations associated with human monkeypox virus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.03.22277069
Caleb RS McEntire, Kun-Wei Song, Robert P McInnis, John Y Rhee, Michael Young, Erica Williams, Leah L Wibecan, Neal Noha, Amanda M Nagy, Jeffrey Gluckstein, Shibani S Mukerji and Farrah J Matin Neurologic Manifestations of the World Health Organization’s List of Pandemic and Epidemic Diseases Front. Neurol., 22nd February 2021 Sec. Neuroinfectious Diseases https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.634827
Sejvar JJ, Chowdary Y, Schomogyi M, et al. Human monkeypox infection: a family cluster in the Midwestern United States. J Infect Dis. 2004;190(10):1833-1840.
Shafaati M, Zandi M. Monkeypox virus neurological manifestations in comparison to other orthopoxviruses Travel Medicine and infectious diseases Volume 49, September October 2022, 102414

President’s Column

Wolfgang Grisold

This issue of World Neurology contains the statements of the candidates for the new Secretary General and one Elected Trustee. They are all well prepared and focus on different angles to these important positions. Most importantly, all of the applicants radiate energy and enthusiasm, which is the important content of fuel of neurology and the WFN. I want to thank them all for standing up and “running.” I know from experience that this engagement needs much energy and efforts. Only two of the seven candidates will be successful, but despite the results, we will need you all in the future.

We look forward to the Council of Delegates (COD) meeting as this is the formal presentation of the past year, contains the trustees reports, and statements from committees. As a U.K. charity, we have a privileged status, but need to comply with all charity rules.

We will hear the state of the preparation for the WCN 2023 in Montreal, a closer look at the WCN in Korea in 2025, and the call will also allow us a first glance for possible applicants for the WCN 2027 in Africa and the Panarab region.

The regions are not only represented with the trustees, but we have regional meetings every three months and have composed the committees strictly by members recommended by regions, and also the World Brain Day (WBD) committee for the first time was not neurological topic related, and was composed of representatives of the regions.

In the following visions, we have three more important tasks:

Install gender and diversity at all levels (including subcommittees)
Establish structures for young neurologists (subcommittee)
We are creating a global patient platform to have this important input.

Most advanced of these visions is the subcommittee for young neurologists (chaired by Dr. Lehmann from Germany), who will make a proposal for a young first neurologists’ program at WCN 2023.

The past month has been interesting and exciting, not only because of the final acceptance of the IGAP, and the release of the WHO Brain Health paper and statement on Brain Health, but resulting from this, an enormous momentum for neurology worldwide. These plans define the importance of the IGAP in politics, treatment, prevention, innovation and research, and public health. All the WHO member states (all have agreed) to implement the concepts in their health systems within 10 years. Due to circumstances, income, regions, and per health capita, this is not a linear task, but it has been put out and is now ready to be implemented. The WFN is aligning with the WHO and other non-state actors and NGOs to implement and advocate, and it will be an important task to implement and progressively develop. The momentum could not be bigger, and the time is now.

We have had a successful WBD, themed “Brain Health for All,” which was a good and useful alignment with IGAP and Brain Health. We are glad that so many countries took this up, and please look also at our website for more reports.

The WHO is not the only international body for the WFN; also the target to be part of Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (UN) was reached, and the WFN will be allowed to attend the ECOSOC meetings at the UN and will have a stronger voice internationally. The ECOSOC has issued the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a call for action by all countries—developed and developing—in a global partnership to end poverty and other deprivations and improve health and education among other goals.

Education is the backbone of the WFN, and reaches from congresses, individual support, grants toward Department Visits and Teaching Centers, and as a successful new implantation the WFN has created the Educational Days.

Publications, CME: The issue of CME is important, and needs to be free from industrial influence. See “Education, Congresses, and CME: Sponsoring and Influence of Industry” by Wolfgang Grisold and Steven Lewis on this page.

The WFN Teaching Centers are well under way and it is now planned to add a four-year training post in Rabat and a one-year stroke fellowship in Cape Town.

Since the implementation of the Teaching Centers in Rabat in 2013 and the subsequent Teaching Centers and the Department Visits, these have become successful educational tools. For the last two calls for Department Visits, we had as many as 18 applicants for one country.

With regard to the WFN Department Visit development, we are glad to have Spain host a Department Visit from Latin America, and India will invite a Department Visit from Asia in the near future.

The model of the WFN educational days has proved a successful concept. After sessions devoted to stroke and epilepsy, this year the topic was “Movement Disorders” and took place Sept. 3, in a joint activity with AFAN and the MDS and also endorsed by the AAN and the EAN.

The EAN is holding its regional teaching course (RTC) in Douala, Cameroon, this year, and the WFN will continue to support RTCs.

Our WFN Specialty Group on Neuromuscular Disease had a successful ICNMD 2023 Congress in Brussels with 1,400 participants. The next ICNMD meeting will be in Perth in 2024, and the call for 2026 is presently out.

We are happy to say that the Journal of the Neurological Sciences, the official journal of the WFN, has reached a new, higher Impact Factor, and is also renovating the editorial board. The eNS is flourishing under Walter Struhal’s leadership, and still has a way to go in the rankings.

Our most frequented media are World Neurology (Steven Lewis) and social media, which have ever-expanding readerships, and the social media that started a long time ago is now gaining momentum, with approximately 14,000 followers on Facebook, 7,000 on Twitter, and 4,000 on LinkedIn.

Special thanks go to Steven Lewis, Kimberly Karlshoej, Chiu Keung Man, and Walter Struhal, who are enthusiastically working on these information loops. •

Education, Congresses, and CME: Sponsoring and Influence of Industry

By Wolfgang Grisold and Steven L. Lewis

The WFN’s policies regarding industry sponsorship, continuing medical education (CME), and conflicts of interest (COI) are provided here.

In many countries and regions, the separation of scientific content and industry events is strictly carried out. Examples include the United States via the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), and in Europe via the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) and its European Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (EACCME), and these policies of separation of CME and Continuing Professional Development accreditation of Congresses and Meetings from industry events is strictly defined and monitored.

Educational programs point out this separation and strive to avoid influence of industry on education. CME rules need to be strictly adhered to, and only unrestricted sponsoring of industry can be accepted.

The pharmaceutical and device manufacturers have great merits in research and in producing products that are prescribed and used, and we have observed incredible developments in vaccines and genetic and other therapies in the past years.

Industry is often a main sponsor of scientific events and congresses, as well as online events, yet these sponsorships must be strictly separated from industry sales and advertisement, either overt or hidden.

For neurologists worldwide, all proceedings with industry, and possibly other stakeholders with specific competing interests, need to be transparent, and need to be declared.

The WFN

The policy of the WFN is to abstain from direct pharma sponsoring and remain as autonomous as possible to perform its duties and obligations in an equitable and unbiased role worldwide.

Congresses, including the WFN’s World Congress of Neurology (WCN), are usually organized by professional conference organizers (PCOs) who have a clear mission to accept industry support for exhibition halls as well as industrially sponsored symposia, which need to be clearly indicated and separated from the scientific program. In the UEMS regulations, these industry symposia may only appear in a separate program, or at the end of the program.

For most CME accreditors, there is a clear distinction between a scientific program and industry sponsored symposium. This distinction needs always to be adhered to.

Grants and supports of industry should be unrestricted, or in case of a project or research, must be defined to what extent the support is made, and what is expected from the recipient. Research internationally is often supported by industry or other sources, which need to be defined, and also mentioned in disclosures, such as in the disclosures of WCN speakers.

The WFN is aware that regulations and industry relations with scientific and professional societies vary worldwide, but it is important to openly declare any COI that comes from relations with industry or other organizations and institutions.

Lectures and Publications

Currently, one or more declared COIs are often found in the announcement of a lecture or a paper, and just define and explain that some relations could be seen as a COI and depending on the content of the COI this could be explored in more detail. It is often criticized that in lectures these slides appear only within a few seconds, and the audience would not be able to perceive the content. One possible solution would be to add the COI after the speaker’s name in the program.

We must also be aware that indirectly or directly, the main interests of industry and new products for specific diseases may influence the programs of industry. Studies show that popular congress themes are often driven by recent topics related to new products related to disorders such as headache and MS, and other topics may be neglected.

Equity and Access

There is also another important point to be made in regard to mainly lower-middle income and low-income countries, where activities either depend on industry money, or are restricted because of the lack thereof. We are painfully aware that even those drugs on the WHO list of essential medications are often not available, with issues related to access and equity.

Conclusion

For the moment, our homework will be to keep education, congresses, and CME free from direct influence of industry and other stakeholders. Disclosures at meetings, congresses, and papers need to be clear and tangible. In addition to individual responsibility, international neurological societies including the WFN need to have their own locally adapted policy regarding sponsoring and industry.

The WFN seizes on this opportunity to make the neurological community introspective and aware of its relations with industry which are often fruitful and necessary but need to be strictly regulated and adhered to.

The WFN is committed to full disclosure and adherence to independence from industrial and pharma influence. •

Wolfgang Grisold is president of the WFN. Steven Lewis is acting secretary general of the WFN.

World Brain Day in India

By Chandrashekhar Meshram, Nirmal Surya and U. Meenakshisundaram

World Brain Day 2022 was celebrated with great fanfare and enthusiasm in India, and the campaign was extended over a week. This year’s theme “Brain Health for All” was appropriate, and it generated a lot of interest. Although the Dynamic President of the Indian Academy of Neurology (IAN) Nirmal Surya had given an ambitious target of 100 activities during the week, we ended up doing many more events across the country. The activities were focused on increasing awareness of common people and students about brain health and neurological diseases.

Dr. Chandrashekhar Meshram, chief coordinator of public education activities of IAN, had issued the press release. Participation of WFN President Prof. Wolfgang Grisold in four national webinars brought a lot of cheers for the organizers.

The spectrum of activities included webinars, drawings, paintings and poster competitions, sports events, a walkathon, Run for Brain, school and college talks, public talks, interviews on radio, television, and newspapers, and social media interactions.

The weeklong celebration ended with a concluding function attended by Prof. Grisold. Doing so many activities was an extremely satisfying experience, and this event will certainly contribute toward promotion of brain health and early diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of neurological disorders and in turn improving patient care.

Subsection Webinars—6 Activities

Man Monahan Mehndiratta, chair, and Abhishek Shrivastava, convener of Neurorehabilitation subsection of IAN, conducted four webinars: Brain Health, Neuroplasticity—Rewiring the Brain, Cognition and Brain Health, and Update on Neuromodulation.

The webinar by Epilepsy Foundation was organized by Nirmal Surya.

The webinar was organized by Tamil Nādu and Puducherry Association of Neurologists under guidance of Sunil Narayan and K. Ramadoss.

Activities at Different Centers

Nagpur—14 Activities Plus 43 Publications

All India Radia talks and interviews of Chandrashekhar Meshram on Brain Health for All, Dhruv Batra on Parkinson’s Disease, Satish Lahoti on Stroke, Vasant Dangra on Epilepsy, Abhishek Wankar on Dementia, Vaibhav Nasre on Head Injury, and Shyam Babhulkar on Headache were relayed daily during the week.

Talks in four Schools: Hadas High School, Somalwar High School, Sainath High School, and Gayatri Convent in Nagpur by Vasant Dangra, Dhruv Batra, Anand Somkuwar.

Two interviews of Chandrashekhar Meshram on Awaaz India TV and Doordarshan TV

Walk for Your Brain Walkathon was organized in Nagpur on July 24 and various placards carrying important messages were displayed.

Newspaper Publications—43 publications during the week highlighted the event, as these contributed immensely toward public health awareness and education.

Chennai—10 Activities

World Brain Week started with a cake-cutting ceremony. Daily lectures: U. Meenakshisundaram on Brain Health, Ritesh Nair on Stroke, U. Meenashisundaram on Parkinsonson’s Disease, Head Injury, Ravikumar on Headache, Epilepsy, and Brain Tumors. Poster and quiz competition received overwhelming response. The posters were exhibited, and the best entries were given awards. U. Meenakshisundaram gave a talk on Red FM on Brain Health.

Bangalore—14 Activities

Suvarna Alladi and NIMHANs team organized a cricket match with cricketer Robin Uthappa who is brand ambassador of Karnataka’s brain health initiative. Policymakers, patients, care givers, institutional heads, and neurologists participated in the event. Karnataka Health Minister K. Sudhakar inaugurated the first of its kind brain health clinic in the Bangalore Hospital. It was supported by six newspaper publications. Amit Kulkarni delivered a public talk at Global Institute of Technology. Suryanarayan Sharma gave lectures in two colleges, and also at Toyota Industries. He organized the painting competition for school children. His interview was published in the newspaper and he did two digital platform activities. B. K. Madhusudan gave a talk at the university and had one Facebook live event on brain health.

Nellore—8 Activities

Bindu Menon organized eight activities in Nellore during the week.

Day 1: Awareness to Shar Employees on stroke prevention. Awareness to Lions Club of Nellore. Time Is Brain: Adani Group. Webinar on neurological health, hero group of employees. Topic on stroke, SembCorp Group employees. Topic on responding to stroke and preventing stroke, SBI Main branch. Interactive session on improving children’s brain health, NeuroVoice podcast welcomed Mrs. Padma Subrahmanyam, founder and Director Rainbow School, Nellore who spoke about the challenges children face, the way forward, and how to improve brain health. Eight stalls were arranged for patients, caregivers, and accompanying persons at Apollo Hospital premises. Each stall focused on the prevention campaign run on one risk factor.

Delhi—9 Activities

Public health lecture on brain health issues in school children was organized by Sheffali Gulati and her team at AIIMS, New Delhi. Web-based application for dyslexia children was launched on occasion of WBD.

Program of Sheffali Gulati, Debashish Choudhary on DD Kissan. Public lecture series was organized at G B Pant Hospital. Debashish Chaudhury gave a talk on brain health, Rohit Bhatia on stroke, Ashish Duggal on headache and Swapan Gupta on epilepsy. This was followed by a panel discussion. The event was also showcased on Doordarshan. Rajinder Dhamija gave a talk at Institute of Human Behavior and Allied Sciences. Two talks were given by P. N. Ranjan.

Gurgaon—7 Activities

Manish Mahajan and Sumit Singh organized the press conference and explained the concept of brain health. Talks in Amity International School and Shiv Nagar School Gurgaon by Sumit Singh and Manish Mahajan of Artemis Institute. Students of AIS performed the nukkad to convey the message of brain health. Manish Mahajan gave a talk on Facebook Live. Health talk at Make My Trip head office was given. Article was published in Punjab Keasari newspaper.

Chandigarh—5 Activities

Director PGIMER Chandigarh Dr. Vivek Lal conducted innovative sessions during the week. Programs like Train the Brain poster-making competition in Chandigarh Schools, Games for brain slogan writing competition, No Stain on Brain distribution of educative material and public awareness talks, Food for thought avoidance of addiction, Don’t drain your brain – importance of sleep were organized.

Mumbai—9 Activities

Talks were given at Jaslok Hospital Mumbai

Fali Poncha on Stroke, Joy Desai on Dementia, Pettarusp Wadia on Parkinson’s Disease, Joy Desai on Sleep, Ravishankar on Migraine, Anaita Udwadia on Epilepsy, and Azad Irani on Rehabilitation. Interviews of Nirmal Surya were published in two newspapers.

Ludhiana—2 Activities

Gagandeep Singh arranged two talks on epilepsy for the general public.

Trichy—4 Activities

Brain health awareness and a talent detection program for special children was organized at Trichy Central Library. M. A. Aleem gave a talk in school. Aleem published interview in newspaper. Talk on brain health on YouTube by M. A. Aleem.

Amaravati—2 Activities

Sikander Advani arranged a painting competition on World Brain Day. There were 157 entries. Exhibition of paintings was held, and prizes were given to best creative works.

Nanded—3 Activities

Pramod Dhonde held a painting competition on brain health for school children. He also organized a Brain Quiz and gave a talk on stroke, migraine, and brain.

Cuttack—3 Activities

Siumyadarshan Nayak organized an essay writing competition in School in Barhampur and held a drawing competition for school children. He also did an awareness program for school children.

Hyderabad—2 Activities

Interviews of Subhash Kaul and Suresh Kumar were published in newspapers.

Lucknow—2 Activities

Two interviews of Rajesh Verma were published in Live Hindustan and Jagran.

Pune—1 Activity

Talk by Shripad Pujari on lifestyle modification.

Amritsar—1 Activity

Jaslovleen Kaur has written a poem on dementia.

Patna—1 Activity

Ujjawal Roy composed a song on brain health.

Jaipur—1 Activity

Talk by Bhawna Sharma on brain health.

Ahmedabad—4 Activities

Interviews of Sudhir Shah and Heli Shah were published in four newspapers and periodicals.

More activities were done at other centers but their reports were not available at press time.

FM Radio

Twenty two neurologists gave messages on brain health on FM radio.

There were 45 interviews of neurologists on Red FM Radio.

Social Media

114 tweets, 360 posts on social media. 1,410 viewers on Instagram, 6,458 on Facebook and 11.5 K on Twitter.

Run for Brain

Twenty eight neurologists in runners groups from different regions participated in this event and completed 2.4 million steps during the week. •

Chandrashekhar Meshram is co-opted trustee of the WFN. Nirmal Surya is president of the Indian Academy of Neurology. U. Meenakshisundaram is head of the department of neurology at SIMS hospital in Chennai, India.