Background: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) summarizing the best evidence regarding the effect of COVID-19 on maternal and child health following Cochrane methods and PRISMA statement for reporting (PROSPERO-CRD42020208783).Methods: We searched literature databases and COVID-19 research websites from January to October 2020. We selected relevant SRs reporting adequate search strategy, data synthesis, risk of bias assessment, and/or individual description of included studies describing COVID-19 and pregnancy outcomes. Pair of reviewers independently selected studies through COVIDENCE web-software, performed the data extraction, and assessed its quality through the AMSTAR-2 tool. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Each SR’s results were synthesized and for the most recent, relevant, comprehensive, and with the highest quality, by predefined criteria, we presented GRADE evidence tables.Results: We included 66 SRs of observational studies out of 608 references retrieved and most (61/66) had "critically low" overall quality. We found a relatively low degree of primary study overlap across SRs. The most frequent COVID-19 clinical findings during pregnancy were fever (28–100%), mild respiratory symptoms (20–79%), raised C-reactive protein (28–96%), lymphopenia (34–80%), and pneumonia signs in diagnostic imaging (7–99%). The most frequent maternal outcomes were C-section (23–96%) and preterm delivery (14–64%). Most of their babies were asymptomatic (16–93%) or presented fever (0–50%), low birth weight (5–43%) or preterm delivery (2–69%). The odds ratio (OR) of receiving invasive ventilation for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 pregnant women was 1.88 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.36–2.60) and the OR that their babies were admitted to neonatal intensive care unit was 3.13 (95%CI 2.05–4.78). The risk of congenital transmission or via breast milk was estimated to be low, but close contacts may carry risks.Conclusion: This comprehensive overview supports that pregnant women with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes and low risk of congenital transmission.

Assessment of COVID-19 vaccines safety during pregnancy is urgently needed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components and technological platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy and animal studies to complement direct evidence. We searched literature databases from its inception to September 2021 without language restriction, COVID-19 vaccine websites, and reference lists of other systematic reviews and the included studies. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, data extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. (PROSPERO CRD42021234185). We retrieved 8,837 records from the literature search; 71 studies were included, involving 17,719,495 pregnant persons and 389 pregnant animals. Most studies (94%) were conducted in high-income countries, were cohort studies (51%), and 15% were classified as high risk of bias. We identified nine COVID-19 vaccine studies, seven involving 309,164 pregnant persons, mostly exposed to mRNA vaccines. Among non-COVID-19 vaccines, the most frequent exposures were AS03 and aluminum-based adjuvants. A meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed no association with adverse outcomes, regardless of the vaccine or the trimester of vaccination. Neither the reported rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes nor reactogenicity exceeded expected background rates, which was the case for ASO3- or aluminum-adjuvanted non-COVID-19 vaccines in the proportion meta-analyses of uncontrolled studies/arms. The only exception was postpartum hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccination (10.40%; 95% CI: 6.49-15.10%), reported by two studies; however, the comparison with non-exposed pregnant persons, available for one study, found non-statistically significant differences (adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.56-2.12). Animal studies showed consistent results with studies in pregnant persons. We found no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Additional experimental and real-world evidence could enhance vaccination coverage. Robust safety data for non-mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are still needed.

Background: We performed a systematic review of studies conducted in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) to assess the impact of oral diseases on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Materials and methods: Searches were performed of the following PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and LILACS databases. Randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies, case and control studies, and cross-sectional studies which included at least 100 participants evaluating the impact of oral diseases on OHRQoL were included. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42020156098. Results: After exclusion of duplicates, 3310 articles were identified, 40 of which were included in this review. 90% of the studies were conducted in Brazil. The most commonly used OHRQoL measuring instruments were CPQ 11–14 (n = 9), ECOHIS (n-8) and B-ECOHIS (n = 8). The study designs included 32 cross-sectional, 2 cohort and 6 case and control studies. Most of the studies were conducted in children (n = 25) and adolescents (n = 9). Most studies identified an impact on OHRQoL in children, adolescents and adults with oral diseases. Moreover, greater oral disease severity had a greater impact on OHRQoL. Conclusions: Most studies in LAC report a negative impact of diseases on OHRQoL. More longitudinal studies are required to confirm the results of these studies.

Chagas disease is caused by the flagellate protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi (T. cruzi). It is endemic in Latin American countries outside the Caribbean. The current criterion for cure in the chronic phase of the disease is the negativization of at least two serological tests such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIF) and indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA). The serological evolution of treated subjects with chronic T. cruzi infection is variable. Treatment failure is indicated by a positive parasitological and/or molecular test (persistence of parasitemia). To summarize the pattern of response to treatment of parasitological, molecular and serological tests performed during the follow-up of subjects with chronic T. cruzi infection. Electronic searches in relevant databases and screening of citations of potentially eligible articles were accomplished. Organizations focusing on neglected infectious diseases were asked for help in identifying relevant studies. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cohort studies involving adults and children with chronic infection who received trypanocidal treatment (benznidazole or nifurtimox) and were followed over time. The assessment of risk of bias was performed separately for each study design. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and the guidelines developed by Hayden et al. were used. Two reviewers extracted all data independently. A third review author was consulted in case of discordant opinion. Additional analyses were defined in ad-hoc basis. Scatter plots for percentage of positive parasitological and molecular tests and for negative serological tests were developed by using the lowess curve technique. Heterogeneity was measured by I². The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic review protocols (Registration Number CRD42012002162). Out of 2,136 citations screened, 54 studies (six RCTs and 48 cohort studies) were included. The smoothed curves for positive xenodiagnosis and positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were characterized by a sharp decrease at twelve month posttreatment. Afterwards, they reached 10–20% and 40% for xenodiagnosis and PCR, respectively. The smoothed curves for negative conventional serological tests increased up to 10% after 48 months of treatment. In the long-term, the rate of negativization was between 20% and 45%. The main sources of bias identified across cohort studies were the lack of control for confounding and attrition bias. In general, RCTs were judged as low risk of bias in all domains. The level of heterogeneity across included studies was moderate to high. Additional analysis were incomplete because of the limited availability of data. In this regard, the country of origin of study participants might affect the results of parasitological and molecular tests, while the level of risk of bias might affect serological outcomes. Subgroup analysis suggested that seronegativization occurs earlier in children compared to adults. We acknowledge that there is a dynamic pattern of response based on parasitological, molecular and serological tests in subjects chronically infected with T. cruzi after treatment. Our findings suggest a trypanocidal effect in the long-term follow-up. Further research is needed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity and to conduct reliable subgroup analysis.