Symptomtext
given an extra Hib dose and IPV 1 year early with no reported adverse event; given an extra Hib dose and IPV 1 year early with no reported adverse event; Initial information received on 09-Aug-2022 regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case received from a other health professional. This case involves a 2 years old male patient who was given an extra HIB dose and IPV 1 year early with no reported adverse event , and it involved vaccines HIB and DIPHTHERIA/TETANUS/5 HYBRID AC PERTUSSIS/IPV(VERO)/HIB(PRP/T) VACCINE [PENTACEL (VERO)]. The patient's past medical history, medical treatment(s), vaccination(s) and family history were not provided. Concomitant medications included PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINE CONJ 13V (CRM197) (PREVNAR 13) for Immunisation. On 08-Aug-2022, the patient received 0.5 ml dose of suspect DIPHTHERIA/TETANUS/5 HYBRID AC PERTUSSIS/IPV(VERO)/HIB(PRP/T) VACCINE, with an unknown formulation and strength, once, ( lot: UJ620AAA ; expiry date: 07-Dec-2022) via intramuscular route in the left thigh for immunization and also received an unknown dose of suspect HIB not produced by Sanofi Pasteur , with an unknown formulation and strength , (lot number and expiry date: not reported) in unknown administration site for immunization. It was reported that the doctor ordered Dtap, hib and Prevnar13 but the patient was administered PENTACEL and ACTHIB, which means the patient got an extra hib dose as well as the 4th IPV dose before age 4 On 08-Aug-2022 the patient was given an extra Hib dose and IPV 1 year early with no reported adverse event (inappropriate schedule of product administration) (extra dose administered) (latency: same day) following the administration of DIPHTHERIA/TETANUS/5 HYBRID AC PERTUSSIS/IPV(VERO)/HIB(PRP/T) VACCINE and following the administration of HIB. The patient turned 3 , a day after administration. Action taken : not applicable. Outcome: unknown 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 guidelines. 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.