VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2880690

Received Jan 6, 2026

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
Male
Age
16 yrs
State
CA
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
May 27, 2025
Onset
Dec 16, 2025
Days to onset
203
Hospital days
—

Vaccines (2)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
MENMENINGOCOCCAL (NO BRAND NAME)UNKNOWN MANUFACTURERUNK——
MENBMENINGOCOCCAL B (BEXSERO)NOVARTIS VACCINES AND DIAGNOSTICSUNK—OT

Symptoms (2)

No adverse eventWrong product administered

Symptom narrative

after turning [redacted] years old, the patient was supposed to receive another vaccine named bexsero, but he instead received another dose of menquadfi with no reported adverse event; after turning [redacted] years old, the patient was supposed to receive another vaccine named bexsero, but he instead received another dose of menquadfi with no reported adverse event; Initial information received on 31-Dec-2025 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a other health professional. This case involves a 17-year-old male patient who received MENINGOCOCCAL A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) VACCINE [MENQUADFI] instead of Bexsero with no reported ae (adverse event). The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), vaccination(s) and family history were not provided. On 16-Dec-2025, the patient received an unknown dose of suspect MENINGOCOCCAL A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) VACCINE lot U86008A, standard strength, frequency-once and via intramuscular route in the right deltoid. On 27-May-2025 he also received an unknown dose of vaccine with an unknown batch number in unknown administration site for Immunization instead BEXSERO with no reported ae (wrong technique in product usage process) and (extra dose administered) (latency-same day). Reportedly-The patient was supposed to receive another vaccine named Bexsero, but he instead received another dose of MENQUADFI. 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.