Objectives: The World Health Organization convened a panel of experts to rank the evidence for medical countermeasures for management of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in a hypothetical scenario involving the hospitalization of 100 to 200 victims. The goal of this panel was to achieve consensus on optimal management of ARS affecting nonhematopoietic organ systems based upon evidence in the published literature.

Methods: English-language articles were identified in MEDLINE and PubMed. Reference lists of retrieved articles were distributed to conferees in advance of and updated during the meeting. Published case series and case reports of ARS, publications of randomized controlled trials of relevant interventions used to treat nonirradiated individuals, reports of studies in irradiated animals, and prior recommendations of subject matter experts were selected. Studies were extracted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. In cases in which data were limited or incomplete, a narrative review of the observations was made.

Results: No randomized controlled trials of medical countermeasures have been completed for individuals with ARS. Reports of countermeasures were often incompletely described, making it necessary to rely on data generated in nonirradiated humans and in experimental animals. A strong recommendation is made for the administration of a serotonin-receptor antagonist prophylactically when the suspected exposure is >2 Gy and topical steroids, antibiotics, and antihistamines for radiation burns, ulcers, or blisters; excision and grafting of radiation ulcers or necrosis with intractable pain; provision of supportive care to individuals with neurovascular syndrome; and administration of electrolyte replacement therapy and sedatives to individuals with significant burns, hypovolemia, and/or shock. A strong recommendation is made against the use of systemic steroids in the absence of a specific indication. A weak recommendation is made for the use of fluoroquinolones, bowel decontamination, loperamide, and enteral nutrition, and for selective oropharyngeal/digestive decontamination, blood glucose maintenance, and stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients.

Conclusions: High-quality studies of therapeutic interventions in humans exposed to nontherapeutic radiation are not available, and because of ethical concerns regarding the conduct of controlled studies in humans, such studies are unlikely to emerge in the near future.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:183–201)

Objective: Hematopoietic syndrome (HS) is a clinical diagnosis assigned to people who present with ≥1 new-onset cytopenias in the setting of acute radiation exposure. The World Health Organization convened a panel of experts to evaluate the evidence and develop recommendations for medical countermeasures for the management of HS in a hypothetical scenario involving the hospitalization of 100 to 200 individuals exposed to radiation. The objective of this consultancy was to develop recommendations for treatment of the HS based upon the quality of evidence.

Methods: English-language articles were identified in MEDLINE and PubMed. Reference lists of retrieved articles were distributed to panel members before the meeting and updated during the meeting. Published case series and case reports of individuals with HS, published randomized controlled trials of relevant interventions used to treat nonirradiated individuals, reports of studies in irradiated animals, and prior recommendations of subject matter experts were selected. Studies were extracted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. In cases in which data were limited or incomplete, a narrative review of the observations was made. No randomized controlled trials of medical countermeasures have been completed for individuals with radiation-associated HS. The use of GRADE analysis of countermeasures for injury to hematopoietic tissue was restricted by the lack of comparator groups in humans. Reliance on data generated in nonirradiated humans and experimental animals was necessary.

Results: Based upon GRADE analysis and narrative review, a strong recommendation was made for the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor and a weak recommendation was made for the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Conclusions: Assessment of therapeutic interventions for HS in humans exposed to nontherapeutic radiation is difficult because of the limits of the evidence.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:202-212)

Objective: To document the ability of public health laboratories to respond to radiological emergencies.

Methods: The Association of Public Health Laboratories developed, distributed, and analyzed two separate surveys of public health laboratories representing the 50 US states and major nonstate jurisdictions. The 2009 All-Hazards Laboratory Preparedness Survey examined overall laboratory capability and capacity, with a subset of questions on radiation preparedness. A 2011 survey focused exclusively on radiation readiness.

Results: The 50 state and District of Columbia public health laboratories responded to the 2009 All-Hazards Laboratory Preparedness Survey, representing a 98% response rate. In addition to the above laboratories, environmental and agricultural laboratories responded to the 2011 Radiation Capabilities Survey, representing a 76% response rate. Twenty-seven percent of the All-Hazards Survey respondents reported the ability to measure radionuclides in clinical specimens; 6% reported that another state agency or department accepted and analyzed these samples via a radioanalytical method. Of the Radiation Capabilities Survey respondents, 60% reported the ability to test environmental samples, such as air, soil, or surface water, for radiation; 48% reported the ability to test nonmilk food samples; 47% reported the ability to test milk; and 56% reported sending data for drinking water to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Conclusions: Survey data reveal serious gaps in US radiological preparedness. In 2007, federal experts estimated it would take more than 4 years to screen 100 000 individuals for radiation exposure and 6 years to test environmental samples from a large-scale radiological emergency, relying on existing laboratory assets. Although some progress has been made since 2007, public health laboratory radiological test capabilities and capacities remain insufficient to respond to a major event. Adequate preparation requires significant new investment to build and enhance laboratory emergency response networks, as well as investments in the broader public health system in which public health laboratories function.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:213-217)

Objective: To describe the role of academic institutions in the community response to Federal Emergency Management Agency–declared disasters from September 11, 2001, to February 1, 2009.

Methods: We conducted a review of the published literature and Internet reports to identify academic institutions that participated in the community response to disaster events between September 11, 2001, to February 1, 2009, inclusive. From retrieved reports, we abstracted the identity of the academic institutions and the resources and services each provided. We characterized the resources and services in terms of their contribution to established constructs of community disaster resilience and disaster preparedness and response.

Results: Between September 11, 2001, and February 1, 2009, there were 98 published or Internet-accessible reports describing 106 instances in which academic institutions participated in the community response to 11 Federal Emergency Management Agency–declared disaster events that occurred between September 11, 2001, and February 1, 2009. Academic institutions included academic health centers and community teaching hospitals; schools of medicine, nursing, and public health; schools with graduate programs such as engineering and psychology; and 4-year programs. The services and resources provided by the academic institutions as part of the community disaster response could be categorized as contributing to community disaster resilience by reducing the consequences or likelihood of an event or to specific dimensions of public health preparedness and response, or both. The most common dimensions addressed by academic institutions (in order of occurrence) were resource management, enabling and sustaining a public health response, information capacity management, and performance evaluation.

Conclusions: Since September 11, 2001, the participation of academic institutions in community disaster response has contributed to community resilience and the achievement of specific dimensions of disaster preparedness and response.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:218–226)

Objectives: Racially/ethnically diverse communities suffer a disproportionate burden of adverse outcomes before, during and after a disaster. Using California as a locus of study, we sought to identify challenges and barriers to meeting the preparedness needs of these communities and highlight promising strategies, gaps in programs, and future priorities.

Methods: We conducted a literature review, environmental scan of organizational Web sites providing preparedness materials for diverse communities, and key informant interviews with public health and emergency management professionals.

Results: We identified individual-level barriers to preparing diverse communities such as socioeconomic status, trust, culture, and language, as well as institutional-level barriers faced by organizations such as inadequate support for culturally/linguistically appropriate initiatives. Current programs to address these barriers include language assistance services, community engagement strategies, cross-sector collaboration, and community assessments. Enhancing public-private partnerships, increasing flexibility in allocating funds and improving organizational capacity for diversity initiatives were all identified as additional areas of programmatic need.

Conclusions: Our study suggests at least four intervention priorities for California and across the United States: engaging diverse communities in all aspects of emergency planning, implementation, and evaluation; mitigating fear and stigma; building organizational cultural competence; and enhancing coordination of information and resources. In addition, this study provides a methodological model for other states seeking to assess their capacity to integrate diverse communities into preparedness planning and response.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:227–234)

Objective: To study when and how an urgent public health message about a boil-water order reached an urban population after the Massachusetts water main break.

Methods: In-person surveys were conducted in waiting areas of clinics and emergency departments at a large urban safety net hospital within 1 week of the event.

Results: Of 533 respondents, 97% were aware of the order; 34% of those who lived in affected cities or towns were potentially exposed to contaminated water. Among those who were aware, 98% took action. Respondents first received the message through word of mouth (33%), television (25%), cellular telephone calls (20%), landline calls (10%), and other modes of communication (12%). In multivariate analyses, foreign-born respondents and those who lived outside the city of Boston had a higher risk of exposure to contaminated water. New modes (eg, cellular telephones) were used more commonly by females and younger individuals (ages 18 to 34). Individuals who did not speak English at home were more likely to receive the message through their personal networks.

Conclusions: Given the increasing prevalence of cellular telephone use, public officials should encourage residents to register landline and cellular telephone for emergency alerts and must develop creative ways to reach immigrants and non–English-speaking groups quickly via personal networks.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:235–241)