VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2892976

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
Unknown
Age
0.8 yrs
State
GA
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
Nov 3, 2025
Onset
Mar 31, 2026
Days to onset
148
Hospital days

Vaccines (1)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
FLU3INFLUENZA (SEASONAL) (FLUZONE)SANOFI PASTEURUNK

Symptoms (2)

Extra dose administeredNo adverse event

Symptom narrative

multiple administrations of fluzone np during the current flu season, received two extra doses of fluzone np with no reported adverse event; Initial information received on 31-Mar-2026 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a physician. This case involves a 10-month-old patient of unknown gender received multiple Influenza Usp Trival A-B Subvirion No Preservative Vaccine (Fluzone NP) during the current flu season, received two extra doses of fluzone np with no reported adverse event. The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), vaccination(s), and family history were not provided. On 03-Nov-2025, the patient received dose 1 of influenza usp trival a-b subvirion no preservative vaccine suspension for injection (batch and expiry: unknown) (strength: unknown) via unknown route in an unknown administration site for influenza (Influenza immunisation). On 03-Feb-2026 patient received dose 2 of same vaccine and on 31-Mar-2026 the patient received dose 3 of influenza usp trival a-b subvirion no preservative vaccine (fluzone np) during the current flu season, received two extra doses of fluzone np with no reported adverse event (Inappropriate schedule of product administration) (Latency same day). 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