Source record · United States · 1998–2008

U.S. Military & Navy HBOC Research

Key dates, amounts and original documents behind the Army trauma program and the Naval Medical Research Center’s RESUS collaboration with Biopure on Hemopure (HBOC-201).

Research agreement, not product approval.The RESUS CRADA set out research and planned clinical development. It did not authorize Hemopure for U.S. marketing or establish routine military deployment.

The record in six facts

22 May 1998Army report described the forward-care and blood-logistics problem.Brooke Army Medical Center · DoD archive ↗
$7.0 millionAdditional research funding recommended by a House committee in 2001.Recommendation, not a documented payment · House Report 107-194 ↗
$908,900Army research grant awarded in September 2002 for a proposed trauma trial.Company disclosure in 2002 annual report · SEC archive ↗
4 Mar 2003NMRC and Biopure entered the RESUS cooperative research agreement.NCRADA-NMRC-03-1497 · Agreement ↗
$22.5 millionCumulative DoD appropriations described by Biopure in its FY2005 filing.$16m Navy; $6.5m Army. Appropriation is not a company grant total · SEC filing ↗
July 2005FDA placed the proposed RESUS trial on clinical hold.Hold still described in the November 2008 filing · SEC filing ↗

Dated milestones

Each entry names what the source documents. Statements of intent remain labelled as plans.

  1. Army clinical context.A Defense news report described testing at Brooke Army Medical Center and the military problem of blood storage and positioning near casualties.

    Defense archive ↗
  2. Congressional testimony.Carl W. Rausch presented Biopure’s oxygen-therapeutics rationale, including storage and emergency logistics. These were his historical statements.

    Prepared testimony ↗
  3. Pre-9/11 research requirement.House Report 107-194 described a need for a room-temperature-stable oxygen carrier for combat casualties and recommended $7.0m in additional research funding.

    House report ↗
  4. Disaster readiness testimony.Rausch discussed locally stockpiled oxygen-carrying support before donated blood could be processed after a crisis.

    House hearing ↗
  5. Army grant.Biopure reported a $908,900 Army award for a proposed controlled Phase II trial in trauma patients.

    2002 annual report ↗
  6. Navy RESUS agreement.NMRC and Biopure formalized CRADA NCRADA-NMRC-03-1497, “Restore Effective SUrvival in Shock.” Daniel Freilich was the Navy principal investigator.

    CRADA and amendments ↗
  7. FDA clinical hold.The proposed NMRC RESUS trial could not start under its submitted protocol; Biopure reported the hold and later FDA concerns about the product’s risk-benefit profile.

    FY2005 Form 10-K ↗
  8. Conditional defense supply term.CRADA Amendment #3 contemplated a written NMRC request for 1,500 HBOC-201 units for military units totaling at least 10,000 personnel. Biopure’s estimated total cost was capped at $650 per unit. This provision does not establish that the units were bought or fielded.

    Amendment #3 ↗
  9. Modified formulations.Biopure reported that the Navy agreed to buy Hemopure and seven modifications for preclinical testing. This describes a research purchase, not a field-use approval.

    FY2007 Form 10-K ↗
  10. Three proposed protocols.Biopure said the Navy expected to submit revised RESUS, military Op RESUS and a phase 1b nitric-oxide-donor safety study to FDA. RESUS was still described as on clinical hold.

    Form 8-K ↗

Funding: what each number means

A recommendation, an awarded grant and a company-reported appropriation describe different events. They should not be added together.

2001 · Committee recommendation

+$7.0m for oxygen-therapeutics research

House Report 107-194 recommended this increase for room-temperature-stable oxygen therapeutics. The report itself does not establish a payment to Biopure.

Open House report ↗
2002 · Army award

$908,900 research grant

Biopure’s annual report described an Army award for a controlled trauma-trial plan. It is a company disclosure, not evidence that the proposed study was completed.

Open SEC archive ↗
2005 · Conditional defense contingency

At cost, no more than $650 per unit

Amendment #3 set a ceiling on estimated manufacturing, regulatory, administrative and distribution costs for a possible 1,500-unit HBOC-201 supply upon a written NMRC request. This is a contract term, not the documented price of the Navy’s later preclinical purchases or proof of delivery.

Open CRADA Amendment #3 ↗
FY2005 · Appropriations reported by company

$22.5m to DoD in total

Biopure reported that Congress had appropriated $16m to the Navy and $6.5m to the Army for Hemopure trauma development. This is not a statement that Biopure received $22.5m.

Open FY2005 Form 10-K ↗
FY2007 · Preclinical purchase plan

Hemopure + seven modified formulations

The Navy agreed to buy material for testing; the filing described expected proceeds, not a clinical purchase or operational supply.

Open FY2007 Form 10-K ↗

Primary document index

Direct links to government archives, SEC-filed agreements and contemporary filings. Company records are identified as company disclosures.

Original agreement · 2003

NMRC–Biopure RESUS CRADA

Agreement number NCRADA-NMRC-03-1497; objectives, research responsibilities and amendments.

Read signed record ↗
Government report · 2001

House Report 107-194

Military need and $7.0m committee recommendation predating 11 September 2001.

Read report ↗
Corporate filing · 2005

FY2005 Form 10-K

DoD appropriations reported by Biopure and description of the 2005 FDA clinical hold.

Read filing ↗
Corporate filing · 2008

21 November 2008 Form 8-K

Revised RESUS, planned Op RESUS and proposed nitric-oxide-donor study, with clinical-hold status.

Read filing ↗

How to read this history

These records document research needs, funding decisions, contractual collaboration, preclinical work and proposed protocols for a specific historical product. They do not establish current FDA marketing approval, clinical efficacy, routine military deployment or the performance of a future BHOC formulation. Historical “blood substitute” wording is retained only where it names the original source.