VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2893127

Received Apr 17, 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
49 yrs
State
FL
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
Mar 28, 2026
Onset
Mar 28, 2026
Days to onset
0
Hospital days

Vaccines (1)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
YFYELLOW FEVER (YF-VAX)SANOFI PASTEURUNKUK219AASC / LA

Symptoms (1)

Extra dose administered

Symptom narrative

inappropriate use due to they had received a Yellow Fever Vaccine. Later it was confirmed they received Stamaril in 2020 with no AE; Initial information received on 02-Apr-2026 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a nurse. This case involves a 49-year-old male patient who had inappropriate use due to they had received a YELLOW FEVER VACCINE - US (YF-VAX), later it was confirmed they received Stamaril in 2020 with no adverse event (AE). The patient's past medical history, past drugs, family history were not provided. List concomitant: no other vaccines The patient past vaccination includes Yellow fever vaccine live (17D-204) (Stamaril) in 2020. On 28-Mar-2026, the patient received YELLOW FEVER VACCINE - solution for injection (strength: standard) (batch: UK219AA, expiry: 30-Jun-2026) as 0.5 mL once subcutaneously in left arm for immunization; inappropriate use due to they had received a yellow fever vaccine, later it was confirmed they received Stamaril in 2020 with no AE (Extra dose administered, latency: same day). Nurse stated that they vaccinated a family of 4 with YF-VAX on Saturday. At that time the family was not aware that they had received a yellow fever vaccine. Later it was confirmed they received Stamaril in 2020. Nurse would like safety information related to a second vaccination. 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