DOCSLIB.ORG

Use of Unapproved Products, Off-Label Use, and Black-Box Warning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Use of Unapproved Products, Off-Label Use, and Black-Box Warning Use of Unapproved Products, Off-Label Use, and Black-Box Warning ... A Variation of Newton’s Third Law or the Practical Application of the Rule of Unin- tended Consequences … Considerations in Military Operational Medicine Jerome F. Pierson, RPh, PhD Executive Editors Note: As multiple medical research and development efforts (both in SOF and in conventional research units) offer new drugs and medical equipment to the battlefield, we need to understand the rules of engagement for use, which, are dif- ferent for individual providers versus military heath care systems. ABSTRACT This article discusses the regulatory requirements for the use of unapproved drugs and off-label use of drugs and provides specific examples for military medicine. Additionally, it explains issues associated with standardization by the Service as a designated set, kit, or outfit as opposed to a general guidance. The former situation can be interpreted as a de facto policy whereas the latter is an adaptation of practice of medicine. Recent news stories brought to light the challenges assaulted from many sides to include consumer groups who facing military medicine in an environment where dramatic at times advocate for greater safety and at other times de- life-saving measures have become the expected rather then mand quicker access to therapeutic breakthroughs as well the exception.1,2 However, many of these same life-saving as the pharmaceutical industry which faces demands from measures have the potential to place a practitioner in situa- stockholders for return on investment. Reliance upon re- tions of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” with re- sults from controlled clinical trials is problematic in that it gard to adherence to various regulatory and legal hurdles. is difficult to derive a robust safety profile of a product due This paper is intended to help explain the regula- to the tight inclusion/exclusion criteria involved with an ef- tory issues associated with unapproved (investigational new ficacy study. The FDA is well aware that when a product drug – IND) products, off-label use of approved products, is introduced into the market place, the patient population and the practical implications of black-box warnings on will be anything but homogenous and the manner in which drug labels. Furthermore, specific examples will be de- prescribers use the product will not necessarily reflect the scribed with regard to the application of the respective reg- labeled indications. In recent years, the FDA has addressed ulations. Finally, practical considerations will be discussed the potential blind spot associated with limited safety data to guide practitioners as they wade through the medical- through the requirement for additional post-marketing stud- legal environment. ies, also known as Phase IV studies, and reliance upon 4 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regula- MedWatch reports submitted from practitioners. Regard- tory processes for approval of new pharmaceuticals, bio- less of these initiatives, the introduction of a pharmaceuti- logics, and medical devices focus on the evaluation of these cal, biological, or medical device into a human host can be products from well-controlled clinical trials. The approval viewed as an application of Newton’s Third Law: For every process for a new product or a labeling change to an ap- action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The prob- proved product requires several years and several hundred lem with the introduction of that pharmaceutical, biologic, million dollars.3 Furthermore, regardless of the exhaustive or medical device is that it is difficult to know how that op- nature of the approval process, it is not perfect and has been posite reaction will manifest itself. Therefore, managing Journal of Special Operations Medicine Volume 7, Edition 4 / Fall 07 50 medication related adverse events is often an exercise in the key consideration for the FDA is the balancing of the seri- application of the law of unintended consequences. Con- ousness of the emergency against the body of knowledge of sequently, various laws and regulations have been imple- the risks and benefits of the proposed product. For exam- mented over the years to address some of the potential ple, EUA approval for a product with a known safety pro- problems that can arise when the best intentions of pre- file that is in Phase III clinical trials for use in a fatal disease scribing by policy can result in unintended consequences. pandemic represents one end of a spectrum for FDA evalu- ation as compared to a novel product that has yet to be in- APPLICABLE LAWS,REGULATIONS AND POLICIES troduced in humans. Of note with the EUA is that the FDA Department of Defense policy regarding unap- also evaluates the information to be provided to healthcare proved medical products (investigational new drugs – providers on how to use the product and the information to INDs) and off-label use of medical products in military op- be provided to recipients of the product. Furthermore, in erations emanate from 10 United States Code (USC) 1107,5 the absence of a Presidential waiver, recipients are to pro- 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50.23,6 and Depart- vide consent approved by the FDA to receive the product. ment of Defense Directive 6200.2.7 For most practitioners, However, the consent does not necessarily need to be ap- the laws and regulations are somewhat nebulous numbers proved by an institutional review board as the FDA research that do not pertain to their practice environments. How- rules do not typically apply for EUAs. ever, while the specific numbers associated with these laws The EUA is different from an emergency use of an and regulations may represent relatively low priority infor- investigational product for the treatment of an individual mation in the context of required knowledge in order to treat patient or for the conduct of emergency research. The FDA patients, an orientation to the precepts of these documents has specific provisions to allow for an investigational prod- will help the practitioner understand the basis for why the uct to be used in an emergency situation when that product laws/regulations exist. represents the only potential life-saving intervention.9,10 10 USC 1107 describes the basic legal require- These are distinctly different situations where in one case, ments for the use of unapproved, investigational products in an unapproved drug or device may represent an interven- military operations. These requirements center around the tion of last resort. The other situation involves a deliberate need to inform recipients of the investigational or unap- effort to conduct a well controlled trial with an investiga- proved nature of the product provided, the reasons for pre- tional product where the study involves enrolling research scribing, and the respective risks and benefits associated participants who cannot provide their own consent due to with the product. Furthermore, regarding any exception the nature of their illness or injury.11 Both of these situa- from informed consent requirements, the President is the tions will be briefly discussed later in this paper. approval authority. 10 USC 1107 reflects a Congressional Another consideration for healthcare providers is recognition that when an IND product is the only means the language in Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) available to protect against a lethal chemical or biological 6200.2. DoDD 6200.2 states that “DoD Components shall weapon, the lives of individual members, the safety of their make preferential use of products approved by the FDA for comrades who rely on them, and the success of the military general commercial marketing, when available, to provide operation may require uniform use of the medical protec- the needed medical countermeasure.” DoDD 6200.2 goes tion. 21 CFR 50.23 (an FDA regulation) describes the pro- on to describe the requirements for using unapproved prod- cedures for review of the use of force health protection ucts and off-label products for force health protection. Key investigational products by the FDA and requirements for in this description is the definition of force health protec- an Institutional Review Board (the Army Human Subjects tion, “an organized program of healthcare preventive or Research Review Board – HSRRB). These reviews are re- therapeutic treatment, or preparations for such treatment, quired prior to implementation of any usage and prior to designed to meet the actual, anticipated, or potential needs any requests through the Secretary of Defense to the Pres- of a group of military personnel in relation to military mis- ident if a waiver of consent is requested. sions.” The practical take home point from DoDD 6200.2 In the BioShield legislation of 2004, Congress pro- is the differentiation between practice of medicine and force vided some relief to the many stringent requirements asso- health protection when it comes to off-label prescribing. ciated with investigational products and created a category Practice of medicine is the interaction between a provider known as the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).8 The and his/her patient based on a personal knowledge of the EUA allows the FDA to authorize the use of products that medical history and needs of a specific patient. Off-label have not been fully approved in the event of a real or po- use of prescription products in the practice of medicine is tential public health or military emergency if there is suffi- not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The cient evidence to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. A FDA regulation on investigational products specifically Use of Unapproved Products, Off-Label Use, and Black-Box Warning ... 51 states that the document “does not apply to the use in the FDA pulled the approval status. The DoD went through practice of medicine for an unlabeled indication of a new the process of identifying the potential emergency situa- drug approved under part 314 or of a licensed biological tion that existed for the use of anthrax as a biological product.”12 However, misadventures associated with off- weapon and submitted an EUA request to the FDA.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Free Executive Summary
    Giving Full Measure to Countermeasures: Addressing Problems in the DoD Program to Develop Medical Countermeasures Against Biological Warfare Agents http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10908.html Committee on Accelerating the Research, Development, and Acquisition of Medical Countermeasures Against Biological Warfare Agents Medical Follow-up Agency and Board on Life Sciences Lois M. Joellenbeck, Jane S. Durch, and Leslie Z. Benet, Editors Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Giving Full Measure to Countermeasures: Addressing Problems in the DoD Program to Develop Medical Countermeasures Against Biological Warfare Agents http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10908.html THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medi- cine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this project was provided by Contract No. DAMD17-02-C-0099 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Army. The views presented in this report are those of the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Committee on Accelerat- ing the Research, Development, and Acquisition of Medical Countermeasures Against Bio- logical Warfare Agents and are not necessarily those of the funding agencies. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Giving full measure to countermeasures : addressing problems in the DOD program to de- velop medical countermeasures against biological warfare agents / Committee on Acceler- ating the Research, Development, and Acquisition of Medical Countermeasures against Bio- logical Warfare Agents, Medical Follow-up Agency and Board on Life Sciences ; Lois M.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Management of Biologic Casualties Handbook
    USAMRIID’s MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK Fourth Edition February 2001 U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES ¨ FORT DETRICK FREDERICK, MARYLAND 1 Sources of information: National Response Center 1-800-424-8802 or (for chem/bio hazards & terrorist events) 1-202-267-2675 National Domestic Preparedness Office: 1-202-324-9025 (for civilian use) Domestic Preparedness Chem/Bio Help line: 1-410-436-4484 or (Edgewood Ops Center - for military use) DSN 584-4484 USAMRIID Emergency Response Line: 1-888-872-7443 CDC'S Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Center: 1-770-488-7100 John's Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense: 1-410-223-1667 (Civilian Biodefense Studies) An Adobe Acrobat Reader (pdf file) version and a Palm OS Electronic version of this Handbook can both be downloaded from the Internet at: http://www.usamriid.army.mil/education/bluebook.html 2 USAMRIID’s MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK Fourth Edition February 2001 Editors: LTC Mark Kortepeter LTC George Christopher COL Ted Cieslak CDR Randall Culpepper CDR Robert Darling MAJ Julie Pavlin LTC John Rowe COL Kelly McKee, Jr. COL Edward Eitzen, Jr. Comments and suggestions are appreciated and should be addressed to: Operational Medicine Department Attn: MCMR-UIM-O U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702-5011 3 PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION The Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook, which has become affectionately known as the "Blue Book," has been enormously successful - far beyond our expectations. Since the first edition in 1993, the awareness of biological weapons in the United States has increased dramatically.
    [Show full text]
  • The President
    3 1999 Compilation and Parts 100±102 Revised as of January 1, 2000 The President Published by: Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration A Special Edition of the Federal Register VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190004 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 8091 Sfmt 8091 Y:\SGML\190004F.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 190004F U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 2000 For sale by U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402±9328 ii VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190004 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 8092 Sfmt 8092 Y:\SGML\190004F.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 190004F Table of Contents Page List of Title 3 Compilations ....................................................................... iv Explanation of the Code of Federal Regulations ........................................... v Explanation of This Title ........................................................................... ix How To Cite This Title ............................................................................... xi Title 3 ......................................................................................................... xiii 1999 CompilationÐPresidential Documents .................................... 1 Chapter IÐExecutive Office of the President .................................. 325 Title 3 Finding Aids .................................................................................... 335 Tables .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook
    USAMRIID’s MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK Sixth Edition April 2005 U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES FORT DETRICK FREDERICK, MARYLAND Emergency Response Numbers National Response Center: 1-800-424-8802 or (for chem/bio hazards & terrorist events) 1-202-267-2675 National Domestic Preparedness Office: 1-202-324-9025 (for civilian use) Domestic Preparedness Chem/Bio Helpline: 1-410-436-4484 or (Edgewood Ops Center – for military use) DSN 584-4484 USAMRIID’s Emergency Response Line: 1-888-872-7443 CDC'S Emergency Response Line: 1-770-488-7100 Handbook Download Site An Adobe Acrobat Reader (pdf file) version of this handbook can be downloaded from the internet at the following url: http://www.usamriid.army.mil USAMRIID’s MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK Sixth Edition April 2005 Lead Editor Lt Col Jon B. Woods, MC, USAF Contributing Editors CAPT Robert G. Darling, MC, USN LTC Zygmunt F. Dembek, MS, USAR Lt Col Bridget K. Carr, MSC, USAF COL Ted J. Cieslak, MC, USA LCDR James V. Lawler, MC, USN MAJ Anthony C. Littrell, MC, USA LTC Mark G. Kortepeter, MC, USA LTC Nelson W. Rebert, MS, USA LTC Scott A. Stanek, MC, USA COL James W. Martin, MC, USA Comments and suggestions are appreciated and should be addressed to: Operational Medicine Department Attn: MCMR-UIM-O U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702-5011 PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION The Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook, which has become affectionately known as the "Blue Book," has been enormously successful - far beyond our expectations.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Order 13139—Improving Health Protection of Military
    Administration of William J. Clinton, 1999 / Sept. 30 1875 (7) Department of Transportation; continue to serve after the expiration of their (8) Environmental Protection Agency; term until a successor is appointed. A mem- (9) Office of Management and Budget; ber appointed to fill an unexpired term will (10) National Security Council; be appointed for the remainder of such (11) Office of National Drug Control Pol- term.'' icy; Sec. 9. This order shall be effective Sep- (12) Council on Environmental Quality; tember 30, 1999. (13) Office of Cabinet Affairs; William J. Clinton (14) National Economic Council; (15) Domestic Policy Council; and The White House, (16) United States Coast Guard.'' September 30, 1999. Sec. 7. Executive Order 12367, as amend- ed, is further amended as follows: [Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, (a) in section 1, the text ``the director of 9:23 a.m., October 1, 1999] the International Communication Agency,'' NOTE: This Executive order was published in the is deleted; Federal Register on October 4. (b) in section 2, delete the first sentence and insert in lieu thereof ``The Committee shall advise, provide recommendations to, Executive Order 13139ÐImproving and assist the President, the National En- Health Protection of Military dowment of the Arts, the National Endow- Personnel Participating in Particular ment for the Humanities, and the Institute Military Operations of Museum and Library Services on matters September 30, 1999 relating to the arts and the humanities. The Committee shall initiate and assist
    [Show full text]
  • (HE) Technologies in the Military Be Ethically Assessed? Philip Andrew Taraska
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 1-1-2017 How Can the Use of Human Enhancement (HE) Technologies in the Military Be Ethically Assessed? Philip Andrew Taraska Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Taraska, P. A. (2017). How Can the Use of Human Enhancement (HE) Technologies in the Military Be Ethically Assessed? (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/148 This One-year Embargo is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOW CAN THE USE OF HUMAN ENHANCEMENT (HE) TECHNOLOGIES IN THE MILITARY BE ETHICALLY ASSESSED? A Dissertation Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Philip Andrew Taraska May 2017 Copyright by Philip Andrew Taraska 2017 HOW CAN THE USE OF HUMAN ENHANCEMENT (HE) TECHNOLOGIES IN THE MILITARY BE ETHICALLY ASSESSED? By Philip Andrew Taraska Approved April 5, 2017 ________________________ ________________________ Henk ten Have, MD, PhD Gerard Magill, PhD Director, Center for Healthcare Ethics The Vernon F. Gallagher Chair Professor of Healthcare Ethics Professor of Healthcare Ethics (Committee Chair) (Committee Member)
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN DOE #1, Et Al, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________ ) JOHN DOE #1, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 03-707 (EGS) ) DONALD H. RUMSFELD, et al ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, members of the active duty and selected National Guardsmen components of the Armed Forces as well as civilian contract employees of the Department of Defense ("DoD") who have submitted or have been instructed to submit to anthrax vaccinations without their consent pursuant to the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program ("AVIP"), commenced this action against the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Tommy Thompson), and the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (Mark McClellan). Because plaintiffs maintain that Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed ("AVA") is an experimental drug unlicensed for its present use and that the AVIP violates federal law (10 U.S.C. § 1107), a Presidential Executive Order (Executive Order 13139), and the 1 DoD's own regulations (DoD Directive 6200.2), plaintiffs ask that in the absence of a presidential waiver the Court enjoin the DoD from inoculating them without their informed consent. Plaintiffs allege three causes of action against defendants: (1) violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") by defendant DoD based on the DoD's failure to follow federal law, a presidential executive order, and DoD directive with respect to its AVIP; (2) violation of the APA by defendant DoD for its intent to inoculate plaintiffs with an unlicensed drug that is unapproved for its intended use; and (3) violation of the APA by the defendants' alteration of the licensed Federal Drug Administration ("FDA")- approved schedule of vaccination which rendered AVA a drug unapproved for its intended use.1 Defendants DoD and FDA maintain that the issues plaintiffs present are non-justiciable and that plaintiffs fail to present an evidentiary basis sufficient to support standing at the preliminary injunction stage.
    [Show full text]
  • 2002 CBDP Report
    Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program Volume I: Annual Report to Congress APRIL 2002 Copies of this report may be downloaded from the World Wide Web through the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense Web Site at http://www.acq.osd.mil/cp under the reports section as an Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file. The information in this report is updated as of February 28, 2002 unless specifically noted otherwise. Cleared for Public Release. Unlimited Distribution. Executive Summary The vision of the DoD Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) is to ensure U.S. military personnel are the best equipped and best prepared force in the world for operating in future battlespaces that may feature chemically and biologically contaminated environments. To fulfill this vision, the CBDP has defined the mission of the program to provide world-class chemical and biologi- cal defense capabilities to allow the military forces of the United States to survive and successfully complete their operational missions across the entire spectrum of conflict—from peacetime contingen- cy missions through overlapping major conflicts—in environments contaminated with chemical or bio- logical warfare agents. The CBDP supports the overall Department of Defense policies and strategies outlined in the September 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review Report. The DoD Joint Service CBDP FY 2003 President’s budget has been submitted to Congress. In accordance with 50 USC 1523 (Section 1703, Public Law No. 103-160) this annual report on the CBDP is submitted to Congress, and it is intended to assess: (1) the overall readiness of the Armed Forces to fight in a chemical-biological warfare environment and steps taken and planned to be taken to improve such readiness; and (2) requirements for the chemical and biological warfare defense program, including requirements for training, detection, and protective equipment, for medical prophylaxis, and for treatment of casualties resulting from use of chemical and biological weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhanced Warfighters: Risk, Ethics, and Policy
    Enhanced Warfighters: Risk, Ethics, and Policy Maxwell J. Mehlman Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies Working Paper 2013-2 Jan., 2013 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2202982 For a complete listing of this series: http://www.law.case.edu/ssrn Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2202982 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Enhanced Warfighters: Risk, Ethics, and Policy Prepared for: The Greenwall Foundation Prepared by: Patrick Lin, PhD Maxwell J. Mehlman, JD Keith Abney, ABD California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo College of Liberal Arts Philosophy Department Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group Case Western Reserve University School of Law School of Medicine The Law-Medicine Center Prepared on: January 1, 2013 Version: 1.0.0 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2202982 ▌i Index Executive summary iii Disclosures iv 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Purpose 2 1.2. Background 3 1.3. Questions 8 2. What is human enhancement? 11 2.1. Controversies 12 2.2. Working definition 17 2.3. Variables 18 2.4. Technology survey 21 3. Law and policy 28 3.1. International humanitarian law 28 3.2. US domestic law 36 3.3. Operations 38 4. Bioethics 43 4.1. Research model 44 4.2. Medical model 50 4.3. Public-health model 54 5. Risk Assessment 57 5.1. Risk-benefit model 57 5.2. Risk factors 61 6. A hybrid framework 66 6.1. Legitimate military purpose 66 6.2. Necessity 67 6.3. Benefits outweigh risks 67 Enhanced Warfighters: Risk, Ethics, and Policy Copyright 2013 © Patrick Lin, Maxwell J.
    [Show full text]
  • For Legal Weapons of Mass Destruction Seminars
    Preliminary Report on Literature Search for Legal Weapons of Mass Destruction Seminars March 26, 2002 Prepared for: Defense Threat Reduction Agency Advanced Systems and Concepts Office Contract No: DTRA01-00-D-0003, Delivery Order 0027 Prepared by: Marsha “Wendy” Reid Team Lead: Giuseppe Donadio This report represents the views of its authors, not necessarily those of its sponsor or any United States Government Agency Table of Contents I. Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 1 II. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 2 III. Legal Issues in WMD Consequence Management. ............................................................ 3 A. Presidential Decision Directive-39 ..................................................................................... 3 B. The Stafford Act ................................................................................................................. 4 C. Executive Order 12656, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities.......... 7 D. Title 50, Chapter 40, Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction ............................ 11 E. The National Contingency Plan (NCP)............................................................................. 12 F. Military Assistance to Civil Authorities in a WMD Emergency: The Posse Comitatus Act and DoDD 5525.5 ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 CBDP Annual Report Volume 1
    Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program Volume I: Annual Report to Congress APRIL 2003 Copies of this report may be downloaded from the World Wide Web through the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense Web Site at http://www.acq.osd.mil/cp under the reports section as an Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file. The information in this report is updated as of February 28, 2003 unless specifically noted otherwise. Cleared for Public Release. Unlimited Distribution. Executive Summary The DoD Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) FY 2004 President’s budget has been submitted to Congress.1 In accordance with 50 USC 1523 (Section 1703, Public Law No. 103-160) this annual report on the CBDP is submitted to Congress, and it is intended to assess: (1) the overall readiness of the Armed Forces to fight in a chemical-biological warfare environment and steps taken and planned to be taken to improve such readiness; and (2) requirements for the chemical and biological warfare defense program, including requirements for training, detection, and protective equipment, for medical prophylaxis, and for treatment of casualties resulting from use of chemical and biological weapons. This report is provided in two volumes. Volume I provides an assessment of the plans and programs, and Volume II provides a performance plan for the CBDP in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act. The DoD CBDP is a key part of a comprehensive national strategy to counter the threat of chemical and biological (CB) weapons as outlined in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, and The National Strategy for Homeland Security, July 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Biological Warfare Agent Casualties
    C1, FM 8-284 NTRP 4-02.23 (NAVMED P-5042) AFMAN (I) 44-156 MCRP 4-11.1C Change 1 HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY, THE NAVY, AND THE AIR FORCE, AND COMMANDANT, MARINE CORPS Washington, DC 8 July 2002 TREATMENT OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENT CASUALTIES 1. Change FM 8-284/NAVMED P-5042/AFMAN (I) 44-156/MCRP 4-11.1C, 17 July 2000, as follows: Remove old pages Insert new pages i and ii i and ii 1-11 and 1-12 1-11 and 1-12 1-17 and 1-18 1-17 and 1-19 2-1 through 2-4 2-1 through 2-4 2-13 and 2-14 2-13 and 2-14 2-21 and 2-22 2-21 and 2-22 Glossary-3 and Glossary-4 Glossary-3 and Glossary-4 Glossary-7 Glossary-7 References-1 and References-2 References-1 and References-2 Index-3 through Index-6 Index-3 through Index-6 Back cover Back cover 2. New or changed material is indicated by a star (). 3. File this transmittal sheet in front of the publication. DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited. C1, FM 8-284 NTRP 4-02.23 (NAVMED P-5042) AFMAN (I) 44-156 MCRP 4-11.1C FIELD MANUAL HEADQUARTERS NO. 8-284 DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY, NTRP 4-02.23 (NAVMED P-5042) THE NAVY, AND THE AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE MANUAL (INTERSERVICE) AND COMMANDANT, MARINE CORPS NO. 44-156 Washington, DC 17 July 2000 MARINE CORPS MCRP 4-11.1C TREATMENT OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENT CASUALTIES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]