VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2846991

Received Jun 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
33 yrs
State
MI
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
Jun 20, 2025
Onset
Jun 20, 2025
Days to onset
0
Hospital days
—

Vaccines (2)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
TDTD ADSORBED (TENIVAC)SANOFI PASTEURUNKU7927AAOT / LA
TDAPTDAP (ADACEL)SANOFI PASTEURUNK—OT

Symptoms (2)

No adverse eventWrong product administered

Symptom narrative

patient was supposed to receive adacel, but they received tenivac with no reported adverse event; Initial information received on 20-Jun-2025 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a pharmacist. This case involves a 33 years old male who was supposed to receive diphtheria-2/tetanus/5 AC pertussis vaccine [Adacel], but they received diphtheria-2/tetanus-5 adsorbed toxoids NO preservative adult [Tenivac] with no reported adverse event. The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), concomitant medication, vaccination(s) and family history were not provided. On 20-JUN-2025 the patient was supposed to receive diphtheria-2/tetanus/5 AC pertussis vaccine, but they received 0.5 of suspect diphtheria-2/tetanus-5 adsorbed toxoids NO preservative adult Suspension for injection of standard strength, frequency once with lot U7927AA and expiry date 13-Oct-2025 via intramuscular route in the left deltoid for Immunization with no reported adverse event (wrong product administered) (latency same day). Reportedly, The pharmacist explains that the patient's wife is giving birth soon, which is why he needs pertussis coverage. When he was vaccinated, he was expecting pertussis coverage. However, he was erroneously given tenivac; he did not receive adacel. 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.