VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2892964

Received Apr 16, 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
15 yrs
State
WA
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
Mar 12, 2026
Onset
Mar 12, 2026
Days to onset
0
Hospital days

Vaccines (1)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
MENMENINGOCOCCAL (NO BRAND NAME)UNKNOWN MANUFACTURERUNKU8660AC

Symptoms (2)

Extra dose administeredNo adverse event

Symptom narrative

got the first dose of MENQUADFI when they were 12 years old and received a 2nd dose at 15 years old, with no reported adverse event; Initial information received on 01-Apr-2026 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from other or unknown healthcare professional. This case involves a 15 years old female patient who got the first dose of MENINGOCOCCAL A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) VACCINE [MENQUADFI] when they were 12 years old and received a 2nd dose at 15 years old, with no reported adverse event. The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), vaccination(s), family history were not provided. On 12-Mar-2026, the patient received a dose 2 of MENINGOCOCCAL A-C-Y-W135 (T CONJ) VACCINE solution for injection (batch number: U8660AC, expiry date: 31-Mar-2029) (strength: unknown) via unknown route in an unknown administration site for immunization This situation was pre-assessed as a medication error (unintentional)/an inappropriate use (unknown intention) due to 2nd dose of MENQUADFI was given to a 15 year old patient. they got the first dose of MENQUADFI when they were 12 years old and received a 2nd dose at 15 years old (Extra dose administered, onset: 12-Mar-2026, latency: same day), with no reported adverse event. No further information was provided by the reporter. 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

Comments: NONE