VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2861506

Received Sep 25, 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
Unknown
Age
Age unknown
State
—
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
—
Onset
—
Days to onset
—
Hospital days
—

Vaccines (1)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
MENMENINGOCOCCAL (NO BRAND NAME)UNKNOWN MANUFACTURERUNK—OT

Symptoms (1)

Incorrect route of product administration

Symptom narrative

menquadfi 0.1 amount of the vaccine was administered intradermally instead of intramuscularly with no reported ae; menquadfi 0.1 amount of the vaccine was administered intradermally instead of intramuscularly with no reported ae; menquadfi 0.1 amount of the vaccine was administered intradermally instead of intramuscularly with no reported ae; Initial information received on 23-Sep-2025 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a other health professional. This case involves an unknown age and gender patient who had received Meningococcal A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) Vaccine [Menquadfi] 0.1 amount of the vaccine was administered intradermally instead of intramuscularly with no reported ae (adverse event). The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), vaccination(s) and family history were not provided. On an unknown date, the patient received a 0.1 (units unspecified) dose of suspect Meningococcal A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) Vaccine Solution for injection (strength, expiry date and lot number not reported) via intradermal route instead of intramuscularly in unknown administration site for immunization with no reported ae (incorrect route of product administration) (incorrect dose administered) (underdose) (same day latency) . 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.