Background: Treatment of gastric cancer is based on accurate staging. Emerging methods, such as PET‐CT, are increasingly being used for this purpose. Our aim was to analyze the results of EUS and PET‐CT in staging and restaging our patients with gastric cancer, comparing both of them with the histological results.Methods: Patients with confirmed gastric cancer were prospectively enrolled. Inclusion criteria for the final analysis included only patients who finally received a surgical resection. All patients underwent preoperative TNM staging by means of EUS and PET‐CT within 21 days prior to the surgical treatment.Results: A total of 256 patients were included. The overall EUS accuracy for T staging was 78% and 80.2% in restaging. EUS showed its best accuracy when distinguishing T1–T2 tumors vs. T3–T4, with an increased accuracy in restaging. Regarding N staging, the overall accuracy of EUS was 76.2%, and 72.5% for PET‐CT (p = 0.02). With regards to restaging, accuracy of EUS and PET‐CT for N staging was 88.5% and 69%, respectively, with significant differences (p < 0.0001).Conclusions: EUS performed better than PET‐CT in gastric cancer N staging and restaging. EUS accuracy in this setting is still suboptimal and probably more than one single diagnostic procedure should be used.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management stands at the cusp of a transformative era, with recent breakthroughs heralding a paradigm shift in treatment strategies. Traditionally, IBD therapeutics revolved around immunosuppressants, but the landscape has evolved significantly. Recent approvals of etrasimod, upadacitinib, mirikizumab, and risankizumab have introduced novel mechanisms of action, offering renewed hope for IBD patients. These medications represent a departure from the status quo, breaking years of therapeutic stagnation. Precision medicine, involving Artificial Intelligence, is a pivotal aspect of this evolution, tailoring treatments based on genetic profiles, disease characteristics, and individual responses. This approach optimizes treatment efficacy, and paves the way for personalized care. Yet, the rising cost of IBD therapies, notably biologics, poses challenges, impacting healthcare budgets and patient access. Ongoing research strives to assess cost-effectiveness, guiding policy decisions to ensure equitable access to advanced treatments. Looking ahead, the future of IBD management holds great promise. Emerging therapies, precision medicine, and ongoing research into novel targets promise to reshape the IBD treatment landscape. As these advances continue to unfold, IBD patients can anticipate a brighter future, one marked by more effective, personalized, and accessible treatments.

Background: One aspect of the distancing measures imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is that telemedicine consultations have increased exponentially. Among these consultations, the assessment and follow-up of patients with chronic diseases in a non-presential setting has been strengthened considerably. Nevertheless, some controversy remains about the most suitable means of patient follow-up. Objective: To analyze the impact of the telemedicine measures implemented during the COVID-19 period on chronic patients. Material and Methods: A systematic review was carried out using the following databases: PubMed, Pro-Quest, and Scopus. The systematic review followed the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The search equation utilized descriptors sourced from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus. The search equation was: “hypertension AND older AND primary care AND (COVID-19 OR coronavirus)” and its Spanish equivalent. Results: The following data were obtained: 14 articles provided data on 6,109,628 patients and another 4 articles focused on a study population of 9684 physicians. Telemedicine was less likely to be used by elderly patients (OR 0.85; 95% C.I. 0.83–0.88; p = 0.05), those of Asian race (OR 0.69; 95% C.I. 0.66–0.73; p = 0.05), and those whose native language was not English (OR 0.89; 95% C.I. 0.78–0.9; p = 0.05). In primary care, lower use of telemedicine was associated with residents of rural areas (OR 0.81; p = 0.05), patients of African American race (OR 0.65, p = 0.05), and others (OR 0.64; p = 0.05). A high proportion (40%) of physicians had no prior training in telemedicine techniques. The highest quality in terms of telephone consultation was significantly associated with physicians who did not increase their prescription of antibiotherapy during the pandemic (OR = 0.30, p = 0.05) or prescribe more tests (OR 0.06 p = 0.05), i.e., who maintained their former clinical criteria despite COVID-19. Conclusions: Telemedicine is of proven value and has been especially useful in the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed remote–presential model is most efficient. Appropriate training in this area for physicians and patients, together with correct provision, is essential to prevent errors in implementation and use.

Recent advancements in the treatment landscape of ulcerative colitis (UC) have ushered in a new era of possibilities, particularly with the introduction of Janus kinase (JAK)-signal transducer and activator of transcription inhibitors. These novel agents offer a paradigm shift in UC management by targeting key signaling pathways involved in inflammatory processes. With approved JAK inhibitors (JAKis), such as tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib, clinicians now have powerful tools to modulate immune responses and gene expression, potentially revolutionizing the treatment algorithm for UC. Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of JAKis in inducing and maintaining remission, presenting viable options for patients who have failed conventional therapies. Real-world data support the use of JAKis not only as first-line treatments but also in subsequent lines of therapy, particularly in patients with aggressive disease phenotypes or refractory to biologic agents. The rapid onset of action and potency of JAKis have broadened the possibilities in the management strategies of UC, offering timely relief for patients with active disease and facilitating personalized treatment approaches. Despite safety concerns, including cardiovascular risks and infections, ongoing research and post-marketing surveillance will continue to refine our understanding of the risk-benefit profile of JAKis in UC management.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management traditionally focuses on intestinal inflammation, yet extraintestinal manifestations can substantially impair patient quality of life. In this perspective, we emphasize the broad systemic impact of IBD—from highly prevalent conditions such as anemia, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, or fatigue to rare but severe complications like interstitial lung disease and drug-induced glomerulonephritis. We review underlying mechanisms linking gut inflammation to distant organs, including immune dysregulation, microbial translocation, and metabolic derangements. Advances in diagnostics—such as biomarker panels, high-resolution imaging, and genomic/microbiome profiling—enable early detection and risk stratification. Emerging therapies, including targeted biologics (anti-TNF, anti-integrin, anti-IL-23), JAK and S1P modulators, precision nutrition, and microbiome modulation, offer new opportunities to address systemic inflammation. A multidisciplinary framework integrating gastroenterology with hepatology, hematology, neurology, nephrology, endocrinology, dermatology, pulmonology, and cardiology is essential to recognize hidden complications, facilitate timely intervention, and deliver personalized, comprehensive care for IBD.