VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2875462

Received Nov 28, 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
17 yrs
State
WA
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
Aug 19, 2019
Onset
Nov 18, 2025
Days to onset
2283
Hospital days
—

Vaccines (2)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
MENMENINGOCOCCAL (NO BRAND NAME)UNKNOWN MANUFACTURERUNKU8574AAOT / LA
MENBMENINGOCOCCAL B (BEXSERO)NOVARTIS VACCINES AND DIAGNOSTICS2—OT

Symptoms (2)

No adverse eventWrong product administered

Symptom narrative

patient was supposed to get bexsero but was given menquadfi instead with no reported adverse event; Initial information received on 21-Nov-2025 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a other health professional. This case involves a 17 years old female patient received Meningococcal A-C-Y-W135 (T Conj) Vaccine [Menquadfi] instead of Meningococcal Vaccine B RFHBP/NADA/NHBA OMV (BEXSERO) with no reported adverse event. The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), vaccination(s) and family history were not provided. On 18-Nov-2025, the patient received a dose of 0.5ml of suspect MENINGOCOCCAL A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) VACCINE Solution for injection (lot U8574AA, standard strength and expiry date-30-Sep-2028) via unknown route in the left deltoid for Immunization instead of Meningococcal Vaccine B RFHBP/NADA/NHBA OMV (BEXSERO) with no reported adverse event (wrong product administered) (latency-same day). It was reported "they inadvertently gave MENQUADFI to a patient who was supposed to get Bexsero and wanted to know what to look out for. Patient already had two doses:1st dose: 19-Aug-2019 2nd dose: 11-Dec-2024". 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.