We intended to investigate the presence and medical application of serum hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1α) along with the already known systemic inflammatory markers and the new one’s inflammatory indices, the proportion of mean corpuscular volume and lymphocytes (MCVL) and the cumulative inflammatory index (IIC), for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). We sought to establish correlations that may be present between the serum levels of HIF-1α and these inflammatory indices, as well as their relationship with disease activity and the extent of UC, which can provide us with a more precise understanding of the evolution, prognosis, and future well-being of patients. Serum samples were collected from 46 patients diagnosed with UC and 23 controls. For our assessment of the serum levels of HIF-1α, we used the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) technique. Thus, for HIF-1α we detected significantly higher values in more severe and more extensive UC. When it came to MCVL and IIC, we observed statistically significant differences between the three groups being compared (Severe, Moderate, and Mild). Our study highlighted that HIF-1α correlated much better with a disease activity score, MCVL, and IIC. With MCVL and IIC, a strong and very strong correlation had formed between them and well-known inflammation indices. By examining the ROC curves of the analyzed parameters, we recognized that TWI (accuracy of 83.70%) provides the best discrimination of patients with early forms of UC, followed by HIF-1α (73.90% accuracy), MCVL (70.90% accuracy), and PLR (70.40%). In our study, we observed that HIF-1α, MCVL, and PLR had the same sensitivity (73.33%) but HIF-1α had a much better specificity (60.87% vs. 58.70%, and 54.35%). Also, in addition to the PLR, HIF-1α and MCVL can be used as independent predictor factors in the discrimination of patients with early forms of UC.

(1) Background: The assessment of mortality and rebleeding rate in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is essential, and several prognostic scores have been proposed. Some patients with UGIB did not undergo endoscopy, either because they refused the procedure, suffered from alcohol withdrawal symptoms or altered general status, or because the bleeding was severe enough to cause death before the endoscopy. The mortality risk in the subgroup of patients without endoscopy is poorly evaluated in the literature. (2) Methods: The purpose of the study was to identify the most useful scores for the assessment of in-hospital mortality in patients with UGIB with no endoscopy performed and no known etiology. A total of 198 patients with UGIB and no endoscopy performed were admitted between January 2017 and December 2021 and the accuracy of 12 prognostic scores and the Charlson comorbidity index for in-hospital mortality prediction were analyzed, as well as Child–Pugh Turcotte (CPT) and Meld scores in patients with cirrhosis. (3) Results: The mortality rate was 37.9%, higher than in variceal (21.9%, p < 0.0001) and non-variceal bleeding (7.4%, p < 0.0001). The most accurate scores by AUC were the International Bleeding score (INBS, 0.844), Glasgow Blatchford (0.783), MAP score (0.78), Iino (0.766), AIM65 and modified N-score (0.745 each), modified Glasgow-Blatchford (0.73), H3B2 and N-score (0.701); Rockall, Baylor, and T-score had an AUC below 0.7. MELD score was superior to CPT in patients with cirrhosis (AUC 0.811 versus 0.670). (4) Conclusions: The mortality rate in UGIB with no endoscopy was higher than in both variceal and non-variceal bleeding and was higher in the pandemic period but with no statistical significance (45.3% versus 32.14%, p = 0.0586), mainly because of positive cases. Only one case of rebleeding was noted; the hospitalization period was significantly shorter. The most accurate score was International Bleeding Score; the MELD score had a higher but moderate accuracy compared with CPT in patients with cirrhosis.

The diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can sometimes be challenging. By corroborating clinical, imaging and histological data, the two main entities of IBD, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease (CD), can be differentiated in most cases. However, there remains 10–20% of patients where the diagnosis cannot be accurately established, in which case the term “IBD unclassified” is used. The imaging techniques most used to evaluate patients with IBD include colonoscopy, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Endoscopic ultrasonography is mainly recommended for the evaluation of perianal CD. Through this work, we aim to identify other uses of this method in the case of patients with IBD.

Introduction: In some cases, there may be a discrepancy between the symptomatology alleged by Crohn’s disease (CD) patients and the results of laboratory tests or imaging investigations. Ileocolonoscopy with biopsy is the primary investigation for diagnosing and monitoring CD patients. Cross-sectional imaging techniques such as CT or MR enterography (MRE) and intestinal ultrasonography (IUS) have been proposed as complementary methods to colonoscopy for a complete evaluation of this category of patients. This study aims to identify the role of IUS, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and MRE in evaluating ileal CD activity, using clinical severity scores (Crohn’s disease activity index—CDAI, Harvey–Bradshaw index—HBI) and faecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein (CRP) levels as reference methods. Materials and Methods: A total of 44 adult patients with ileal CD confirmed using an ileocolonoscopy with biopsy and histopathological examination were assessed by IUS, CEUS and MRE. The evaluation of the disease activity based on the results obtained from the cross-sectional imaging tests was carried out by using some severity scores available in the literature. The sensitivity and specificity of IUS + CEUS and MRE for differentiating active from inactive forms of CD were determined using CDAI, HBI, faecal calprotectin and CRP as reference methods. The accuracy of the results was assessed by the receiver operating characteristics method. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine the types of correlation. A p-value less than 0.05 suggested a statistically significant relationship. Results: Compared to CDAI, the best correlation was identified for Limberg score (r = 0.667, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.46, 0.8], p < 0.001), followed by MaRIAs score (r = 0.614, 95% CI [0.39, 0.77], p < 0.001). A sensitivity of 93.33% and a specificity of 71.43% (AUC = 0.98) were demonstrated in the case of Limberg score for differentiating patients with active disease from those in remission and for MaRIAs score a sensitivity of 100.00% and a specificity of 57.14% (AUC = 0.97). Regarding HBI, the best correlation was observed for MaRIAs score (r = 0.594, 95% CI [0.36, 0.76], p < 0.001). Also, faecal calprotectin showed the best correlation with MaRIAs score (r = 0.697, 95% CI [0.46, 0.84], p < 0.001), but in the case of CRP, there was only a weak correlation for all evaluated scores. Conclusions: Although magnetic resonance imaging does not appear to be superior to ultrasonography in terms of accuracy for differentiating active forms of CD from those in remission, the results of our study suggest that MRE associates a better correlation with clinical severity scores and faecal calprotectin levels compared to ultrasonography. More studies are needed to validate these results.

Background: In the last 30 years, we have seen an increase in the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Most cases are diagnosed in the 2nd and 3rd decades of life, a population group that is most familiar with the latest innovations in technology. Patients want to obtain more information about their disease and have complete control over the pathology, while reducing physical meetings with their doctor. Starting from these ideas, the present study aimed to develop a mobile application (app) to support IBD patients on symptoms/events reporting and on treatment administration monitoring. Methods: A multidisciplinary team was created to document and develop the app requirements and design its functionality. The app was beta-tested by several IBD patients. Their feedback was used to further refine the app. Results: We developed connected apps for both smartphones and smartwatches, with dedicated sections for event reporting and medication administration reminders/reporting. Conclusions: The development of apps dedicated to IBD patients is still in early progress. By creating this app, we aim to improve the evolution and compliance of IBD patients and to obtain new information that will have a beneficial impact on the management of these patients and open the door for personalized medicine.

Background/Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly disrupted gastric cancer care, reducing access to screening, delaying diagnosis, and altering therapeutic pathways worldwide. Beyond clinical challenges, it exposed structural weaknesses in healthcare systems but also accelerated innovation. Methods: We conducted a narrative review supported by a structured literature search (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science; 1 January 2014–30 November 2025), with a narrative synthesis of observational studies, registry analyses, and meta-analyses addressing COVID-19–related changes in gastric cancer epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, vaccination, and telemedicine. A PRISMA-style flow diagram was used to illustrate study selection. Results: Elective endoscopy volumes fell by up to 80%, leading to diagnostic backlogs and increased proportions of advanced-stage gastric cancer. Surgical postponements, modified chemotherapy and radiotherapy schedules, and reduced molecular/genetic testing further compromised outcomes. Conversely, vaccination, telemedicine, capsule endoscopy, and adaptive triage frameworks enabled partial recovery of services. Geographical variations were observed in the recovery of gastric cancer care services, with regions that had established screening infrastructure generally resuming activity more rapidly, whereas others experienced ongoing delays and diagnostic backlogs. Conclusions: This review integrates epidemiological, diagnostic, and therapeutic evidence to demonstrate how COVID-19 redefined gastric cancer care. By highlighting regional disparities and outlining a conceptual model for oncologic resilience, it provides an innovative framework for future crisis preparedness. The lessons of the pandemic—digital health integration, flexible treatment protocols, and international collaboration—represent a foundation for more robust, equitable gastric cancer management in the post-pandemic era.