VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2824813

Received Feb 6, 2025

A note on interpretation. VAERS reports are unverified and may be incomplete or coincidental. A report does not establish that a vaccine caused an event, and counts should not be used to calculate incidence or infer causation. Full disclaimer

Overview

Sex
Female
Age
19 yrs
State
CA
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
Jan 21, 2025
Onset
Jan 21, 2025
Days to onset
0
Hospital days
—

Vaccines (1)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
MENMENINGOCOCCAL (NO BRAND NAME)UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER3U8194AAOT / RA

Symptoms (2)

Extra dose administeredNo adverse event

Symptom narrative

19 year old patient who received her MENQUADFI dose mistakenly. She received it 2 1/2 years after her 2nd dose with no reported adverse event; Initial information received on 03-Feb-2025 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a nurse. This case involves a 19 years old female patient who received her MENINGOCOCCAL A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) VACCINE [MENQUADFI] dose mistakenly she received it 2 1/2 years after her 2nd dose with no reported adverse event. The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), vaccination(s) and family history were not provided. On 21-Jan-2025, the patient received a dose 3 of suspect MENINGOCOCCAL A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) VACCINE dose 0.5 ml 1x(once) Solution for injection (strength standard) lot U8194AA expiry-30-Sep-2027 via intramuscular route in the right deltoid for Immunization mistakenly. she received it 2 1/2 years after her 2nd dose with no reported adverse event (extra dose administered) (latency same day). Action taken: not applicable. It was not reported if the patient received a corrective treatment for the event (19 year old patient who received her MENQUADFI dose mistakenly. She received it 2 1/2 years after her 2nd dose with no reported adverse event). At time of reporting, the outcome was Unknown for the event. This suspected adverse reaction report is submitted and classified as a medication error solely and exclusively to ensure the marketing authorization holder's compliance with the requirements set out in the Directive 2001/83/EC and Module VI of the Good Pharmacovigilance Practices. The classification as a medical error is in no way intended, nor should it be interpreted or construed as an allegation or claim made by the marketing authorization holder that any third party has contributed to or is to be held liable for the occurrence of this medication error.