Search

Abstract Background Vaccination against COVID-19 is a primary tool for controlling the pandemic. However, the spread of vaccine hesitancy constitutes a significant threat to reverse progress in preventing the disease. Studies conducted in Mexico have revealed that vaccination intention in Mexico among the general population ranges from 62 to 82%. Objective To know the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and associated factors among academics, students, and administrative personnel of a public university in Mexico City. Methods We administered an online survey investigating sociodemographic aspects, knowledge, attitudes, practices, and acceptance/hesitancy regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. Using generalized linear Poisson models, we analyzed factors associated with vaccine hesitancy, defined as not intending to be vaccinated within the following six months or refusing vaccination. Results During May and June 2021, we studied 840 people, prevalence of vaccine hesitancy was 6%. Hesitancy was significantly associated with fear of adverse effects, distrust of physician’s recommendations, lack of knowledge regarding handwashing, age younger than 40 years, refusal to use face masks, and not having received influenza vaccination during the two previous seasons. Conclusions Vaccine hesitancy in this population is low. Furthermore, our results allowed us the identification of characteristics that can improve vaccine promotion.

Tuberculosis (TB) associated with diabetes mellitus (DM) is a growing problem, particularly in low- and medium-resource countries. We conducted an open-label, parallel-group, randomized, and controlled trial in a tertiary care center in Mexico City to assess TB preventive treatment (TPT) with isoniazid (INH) or rifampicin (RIF) in people with type 2 DM. Participants were assigned six months of INH 300 mg/day plus pyridoxine 75 mg or three months of RIF 600 mg/day. The primary outcomes were adverse events resulting in permanent treatment cessation and considered possibly or probably related to study drugs. We included 130 subjects, 68 randomized to INH and 62 to RIF. We prematurely halted the study based on recommendations of the Adverse Event Safety Panel. There was no difference between arms in the overall frequency of adverse events. However, the INH group had significantly more permanent treatment interruptions due to grade 2 recurrent or grade 3 or 4 hepatoxicity. In comparison, the RIF arm had more treatment interruptions due to grade 3 or 4 gastrointestinal intolerance. TPT using INH or RIF is not safe enough to be considered a universal indication to patients with type 2 DM and TB infection. These results underline the need to search for alternative TB preventions with better safety profiles for type 2 DM patients.