Received Aug 6, 2025
| Type | Name | Manufacturer | Dose | Lot | Route / Site |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEN | MENINGOCOCCAL (NO BRAND NAME) | UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER | 1 | — | OT |
was prescribed to get 3-doses of MENQUADFI starting back in 2020; that they were to receive one dose and then 6- months later the second dose; that the consumer never got the second dose until now in 2025 with no adverse event; Initial information received on 05-Aug-2025 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a pharmacist. This case involves a 19 years old and unknown gender patient who was prescribed to get 3-doses of Meningococcal A-C-Y-W135 (T Conj) Vaccine [Menquadfi] starting back in 2020; that they were to receive one dose and then 6- months later the second dose; that the consumer never got the second dose until now in 2025 with no adverse event. The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), vaccination(s) and family history were not provided. On an unknown date in 2020, the patient received a dose 1 (at 14 years old) of suspect Meningococcal A-C-Y-W135 (T Conj) Vaccine Solution for injection (strength, dose, batch and expiry date unknown) via unknown route in unknown administration site for Immunization. On an unknown date in 2025 patient received a dose 2 of same vaccine with an unknown batch number via unknown route in unknown administration site. Information on batch number and expiry date corresponding to the one at time of event occurrence was requested. The patient was prescribed to get 3-doses of menquadfi starting back in 2020; that they were to receive one dose and then 6- months later the second dose; that the consumer never got the second dose until now in 2025 with no adverse event (Routine immunization schedule incomplete) (latency same day). Action taken: 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.