VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2865254

Received Oct 13, 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
PA
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
—
Onset
—
Days to onset
—
Hospital days
—

Vaccines (1)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
MENMENINGOCOCCAL (NO BRAND NAME)UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER2—OT

Symptoms (2)

Extra dose administeredNo adverse event

Symptom narrative

they got the first dose and 3 and a half week later, they got the 2nd dose with no adverse event; Initial information received on 08-Oct-2025 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a pharmacist. This case involves a 74 years old and unknown gender patient who got the first dose and 3 and a half week later, they got the 2nd dose of meningococcal A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) vaccine [Menquadfi] with no adverse event. The patient's past medical history included Splenectomy. The patient's past medical treatment(s), vaccination(s) and family history were not provided. On unknown date patient received dose 1 of meningococcal A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) vaccine, Solution for injection (dose, strength, lot number and expiry date not reported) via unknown route in unknown administration site, and in unknown date in 2025, 3 and a half week later the patient received a Dose 2 of same vaccine (lot number not reported) via unknown route in unknown administration site for Immunization with no adverse event (inappropriate schedule of product administration) (unknown latency). Information on batch number and expiry date corresponding to the one at time of event occurrence was requested. They wanted to know now if the patient should forgo the 8 to 12th week dose, and if the one given earlier would count as the 2nd dose. They also wanted to know if there are any recommendations for early dose 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.

Medical history

Medical History/Concurrent Conditions: Splenectomy