VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2842401

Received May 23, 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
Male
Age
12 yrs
State
CT
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
Sep 13, 2023
Onset
May 14, 2024
Days to onset
244
Hospital days
—

Vaccines (1)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
MENMENINGOCOCCAL (NO BRAND NAME)UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER1U7939ABOT

Symptoms (2)

Extra dose administeredNo adverse event

Symptom narrative

administration of a menquadfi dose too early with no reported adverse event; Initial information received on 20-May-2025 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a other health professional. This case involves a 12 years old male patient who received meningococcal a-c-y-w135 (t conj) vaccine [Menquadfi] too early with no reported adverse event. The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), vaccination(s) and family history were not provided. Concomitant medications included Hepatitis a vaccine and HPV VACCINE VLP RL1 4V (YEAST) (GARDASIL) for Immunisation. On 13-Sep-2023, the patient received a dose 1 of suspect meningococcal a-c-y-w135 (t conj) vaccine, and on 14-May-2024 also received an extra dose 2 of same vaccine, both with formulation:Solution for injection, lot U7939AB,expiry date :31-Mar-2026, lot number : U7827AD,expiry date: 30-Sep-2025, strength :standard, frequency: twice, via unknown route in unknown administrative site for immunization, too early with no reported adverse event (extra dose administered) (latency: same day). Reportedly, The first MENQUADFI dose was given on 13-Sep-2023 and then the second one was administered on 14-May-2024. Physician assistant asks if they still needs to give a third dose to the patient or if that second one already counts the full series. Both dose of vaccine were administered by different providers. Action taken was not applicable. 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.

Other medications

Hepatitis a vaccine; GARDASIL