Symptomtext
12 year old patient was given pentacel instead of meningococcal vaccine with no reported adverse event; 12 year old patient was given pentacel instead of meningococcal vaccine with no reported adverse event; Initial information regarding an unsolicited valid non-serious case was received from the other health professional via global medical information (GMI) (Reference number- 00718276) and transmitted to Sanofi on 10-Aug-2021. This case involves a 12-year-old female patient was given DIPHTHERIA/TETANUS/5 HYBRID AC PERTUSSIS/IPV(MRC5)/HIB(PRP/T) VACCINE [PENTACEL] instead of MENINGOCOCCAL VACCINE (product administered to patient of inappropriate age and wrong product administered). Medical history, medical treatment, vaccination and family history were not provided. On 05-Aug-2021, the patient received DIPHTHERIA VACCINE TOXOID, PERTUSSIS VACCINE ACELLULAR, TETANUS VACCINE TOXOID (TDAP) and HPV VACCINE (HPV VACCINE) as a concomitant medication. On 05-Aug-2021, the patient received a 48 ug dose of suspect DIPHTHERIA/TETANUS/5 HYBRID AC PERTUSSIS/IPV(MRC5)/HIB(PRP/T) VACCINE [lot UJ436AAA, expiry date: 17-May-2022, vaccine presentation/ national drug code (NDC): 49281-051005] via an intramuscular route at the left deltoid for prophylactic vaccination instead of MENINGOCOCCAL VACCINE (not produced by Sanofi Pasteur) [lot number, expiry date and other dosing details not applicable] (product administered to patient of inappropriate age wrong product administered). It was a case of actual medication error due inappropriate age at vaccine administration and wrong vaccine administered. (Latency: on the same day). It was reported that, "caller asks how to proceed, caller states she also received Tdap and HPV vaccines on the same day and received meningococcal vaccine a day later". At the time of report, no adverse event reported. 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 by the regulatory authority. 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.