VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2865919

Received Oct 15, 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
Female
Age
16 yrs
State
IN
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
—
Onset
—
Days to onset
—
Hospital days
—

Vaccines (1)

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

Symptoms (3)

Incorrect route of product administrationNo adverse eventWrong technique in product usage process

Symptom narrative

possibly injected Subcutaneously due to the angle of injection being 45° and the administrator reported that they made a mistake after injecting with no reported adverse event; Initial information received on 10-Oct-2025 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a consumer/non-hcp (non-healthcare professional). This case involves a 16-year-old female patient who was possibly injected with Meningococcal A-C-Y-W135 (T Conj) Vaccine [Menquadfi] via the subcutaneous route, due to the angle of injection being 45 degree, with no reported 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 an unknown dose of suspect Meningococcal A-C-Y-W135 (T Conj) Vaccine, Solution for injection (unknown strength and expiry date) lot number not reported via subcutaneous route in the left arm for immunisation, due to the angle of injection being 45 degree, with no reported adverse event (incorrect route of product administration) (latency Same day). Information regarding batch number corresponding to the one at time of event occurrence is requested. 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.