VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2893250

Received Apr 20, 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
47 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

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 healthcare professional (HCP). This case involves a 47-year-old female patient who had Yellow Fever Vaccinwith an inappropriate use because they already had received it, with no reported adverse event. The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), vaccination(s), family history, concomitant medications were not provided. On 28-Mar-2026, the patient received a 0.5 mL of yellow fever vaccine live [YF-VAX], Solution for injection (batch: UK219AA, expiry: 30-Jun-2026) (strength: unknown) via subcutaneous route in an unknown administration site for immunisation. The patient was vaccinated with YF-VAX on 28-Mar-2026. At that time, the patient was not aware that they had previously received a Yellow Fever Vaccine (Stamaril) in 2020. This constituted inappropriate use because they had received a Yellow Fever Vaccine. Later it was confirmed they received Stamaril in 2020 with no adverse event [(Extra dose administered, onset: 28-Mar-2026, latency: unknown)]. 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