Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on health-care systems and potentially on pregnancy outcomes, but no systematic synthesis of evidence of this effect has been undertaken. We aimed to assess the collective evidence on the effects on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of the pandemic. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the effects of the pandemic on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from Jan 1, 2020, to Jan 8, 2021, for case-control studies, cohort studies, and brief reports comparing maternal and perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity, pregnancy complications, and intrapartum and neonatal outcomes before and during the pandemic. We also planned to record any additional maternal and offspring outcomes identified. Studies of solely SARS-CoV-2-infected pregnant individuals, as well as case reports, studies without comparison groups, narrative or systematic literature reviews, preprints, and studies reporting on overlapping populations were excluded. Quantitative meta-analysis was done for an outcome when more than one study presented relevant data. Random-effects estimate of the pooled odds ratio (OR) of each outcome were generated with use of the Mantel-Haenszel method. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020211753). Findings The search identified 3592 citations, of which 40 studies were included. We identified significant increases in stillbirth (pooled OR 1·28 [95% CI 1·07–1·54]; I 2 =63%; 12 studies, 168 295 pregnancies during and 198 993 before the pandemic) and maternal death (1·37 [1·22–1·53; I 2 =0%, two studies [both from low-income and middle-income countries], 1 237 018 and 2 224 859 pregnancies) during versus before the pandemic. Preterm births before 37 weeks' gestation were not significantly changed overall (0·94 [0·87–1·02]; I 2 =75%; 15 studies, 170 640 and 656 423 pregnancies) but were decreased in high-income countries (0·91 [0·84–0·99]; I 2 =63%; 12 studies, 159 987 and 635 118 pregnancies), where spontaneous preterm birth was also decreased (0·81 [0·67–0·97]; two studies, 4204 and 6818 pregnancies). Mean Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale scores were higher, indicating poorer mental health, during versus before the pandemic (pooled mean difference 0·42 [95% CI 0·02–0·81; three studies, 2330 and 6517 pregnancies). Surgically managed ectopic pregnancies were increased during the pandemic (OR 5·81 [2·16–15·6]; I 2 =26%; three studies, 37 and 272 pregnancies). No overall significant effects were identified for other outcomes included in the quantitative analysis: maternal gestational diabetes; hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; preterm birth before 34 weeks', 32 weeks',...

Interpretation: Reduced maternity healthcare-seeking and healthcare provision during the COVID-19 pandemic has been global, and must be considered as potentially contributing to worsening of pregnancy outcomes observed during the pandemic.

IntroductionThe Adverse Event Scale in Patients With Epilepsy (aESCAPE) European study (NCT00394927) explored and analyzed adverse events (AEs) and reasons for modifying treatment in patients treated with newer and older antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) used in monotherapy or polytherapy. The present analysis concerns the results of patients recruited in Poland.Material and methodsMulticentre, international, observational, cross-sectional study investigating AEs in patients with epilepsy (aged ≥ 4 years), on stable AED treatment with one or two AED(s) for ≥ 3 months, using standardized questionnaires completed by a physician during a single study visit.ResultsOut of 309 patients, 24.6% were treated exclusively with newer AED(s) in monotherapy or in combination, while 75.4% were treated with older AED(s) or a combination of older and newer AED(s). 60.8% were on monotherapy, and 39.9% on polytherapy. In general, 73.8% of patients reported ≥ 1 AE(s). There were no significant differences in the frequency of reported AEs in compared groups. The most common were disturbances in cognitive function (40.5%), psychological problems (36.2%), and sedation (32.7%). Some AEs were found to be more specific for particular types and treatment regimens. Changes in treatment or dose during the study visit occurred in 22.3% of the patients, mainly due to lack of efficacy (10.7%), AEs (5.2%) or absence of seizures (4.5%).ConclusionsA detailed structured interview revealed high frequency of AEs in patients treated with AEDs. The main reasons for treatment modifications at the study visit were lack of efficacy, adverse events and absence of seizures.