VAERS Explorer
Back to explore

Report #2900927

Received Jun 22, 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
Age unknown
State
TN
Recovered
Unknown
Vaccinated
Apr 20, 2026
Onset
Apr 20, 2026
Days to onset
0
Hospital days

Vaccines (2)

TypeNameManufacturerDoseLotRoute / Site
DTAPDTAP (DAPTACEL)SANOFI PASTEURUNK
TDAPTDAP (ADACEL)SANOFI PASTEURUNK

Symptoms (2)

No adverse eventWrong product administered

Symptom narrative

administered adacel, when they should have been given daptacel with no reported adverse event; Initial information received on 23-Apr-2026 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a healthcare professional. This case involves a patient of unknown age and unknown gender who was administered (DIPHTHERIA-2/TETANUS/5 AC PERTUSSIS VACCINE [ADACEL]), when they should have been given (DIPHTHERIA-15/TETANUS/5 AC PERTUSSIS VACCINE [DAPTACEL]) with no reported adverse event. The patient's past medical history, past drugs, vaccination(s), family history, concomitant medications were not provided. On 20-Apr-2026, the patient received a dose of unknown frequency of DIPHTHERIA-2/TETANUS/5 AC PERTUSSIS VACCINE [ADACEL] suspension for injection (batch/lot number and expiry: unknown) (strength: unknown) via unknown route in an unknown administration site for immunization (Immunisation), when they should have been given (DIPHTHERIA-15/TETANUS/5 AC PERTUSSIS VACCINE [DAPTACEL]) with no reported adverse event (Wrong product administered, onset: 20-Apr-2026, latency: same day). Information regarding batch number and expiration date corresponding to the one at time of event occurrence was requested. 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