VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2884137

Received Feb 4, 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
Female
Age
Age unknown
State
SC
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
Jan 20, 2026
Onset
Jan 20, 2026
Days to onset
0
Hospital days
—

Vaccines (1)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
MMRMEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (PRIORIX)GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALSUNK4N222IM

Symptoms (2)

Incorrect route of product administrationProduct administered at inappropriate site

Symptom narrative

Priorix administered inappropriate Route and Site of administration; Priorix administered inappropriate Route and Site of administration; This non-serious case was reported by a pharmacist via call center representative and described the occurrence of intramuscular formulation administered by other route in a female patient who received MMR (Priorix) (batch number 4N222, expiry date 13-SEP-2026) for prophylaxis. On 20-JAN-2026, the patient received Priorix (intramuscular, unknown deltoid). On 20-JAN-2026, an unknown time after receiving Priorix, the patient experienced intramuscular formulation administered by other route (Verbatim: Priorix administered inappropriate Route and Site of administration) and vaccine administered at inappropriate site (Verbatim: Priorix administered inappropriate Route and Site of administration). The outcome of the intramuscular formulation administered by other route and vaccine administered at inappropriate site were not applicable. This report is made by GSK without prejudice and does not imply any admission or liability for the incident or its consequences. Additional Information: GSK Receipt Date: 21-JAN-2026 The pharmacist reported that Priorix vaccine had been administered to a patient on 20-JAN-2026 near the deltoid muscle area using a subcutaneous technique at a forty five degree angle. The pharmacist was concerned that the Priorix administration would be considered an intramuscular injection instead of a subcutaneous injection. The pharmacist did not know the patient initials or date of birth. The batch number was provided upon follow up with the reporter.