Required Application Instructions

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information

A. Overview

This FOA is part of a suite of complementary programs to encourage the translation of research discoveries into new treatments for neurological disorders and stroke (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/areas/translational_research/index.htm) that fall under the NINDS mission. The NINDS Cooperative Research to Enable and Advance Translational Enterprises for Devices (CREATE Devices, http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/areas/translational_research/CREATE-Devices.htm) supports milestone-driven projects for the development, testing, and demonstration of therapeutic devices to treat neurological disorders that fall under the NINDS mission.

This funding opportunity will utilize a UH2/UH3 cooperative agreement mechanism to support pre-clinical testing to enable an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) submission and a subsequent small clinical study (e.g. Early Feasibility Study). For Non-Significant Risk (NSR) clinical studies that do not require an IDE, IRB approval is considered sufficient. This funding opportunity supports pre-clinical and clinical studies to inform a final device design that would have to go through most, if not all, of the preclinical testing on the path to clinical trials and market approval. This program also supports development of a device to test scientific hypotheses that are not feasible or practical to conduct in animal models, but are critical to enable next-generation devices. Activities that can be supported in this program include implementation of clinical prototype devices, design verification and validation activities, demonstration of preclinical safety and efficacy, pursuit of U.S. regulatory approval for clinical study, and a small clinical study. As applicants must have comprehensive supporting data, innovation will in part be judged on presenting a credible path towards U.S. regulatory submission at the end of the UH2 project period.

The CREATE Devices program consists of three FOAs focused on different device development tracks and applicants should apply to the appropriate track for their technology. Applicants should apply to only one track per project. Projects to enable clinical studies where the immediate next step upon completion of the study is a subsequent full Feasibility Study and a Pivotal trial to support a PMA or HDE are not within scope of this FOA. Such projects - where changes to the system design informed by the Early Feasibility Study will be minor and not require additional animal testing - should instead apply to the 'Translational and Early Feasibility Studies on the Path to Pre-Market Approval (PMA) or Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) FOA (PAR-14-298). Similarly, projects to directly enable a 510(k) submission are also not within scope and should apply to the Translational and Clinical Studies on the Path to 510(k) FOA (PAR-14-295).

All projects will have two phases, UH2 and UH3. The initial UH2 phase will support preclinical development toward filing of an IDE or obtaining IRB approval for an NSR study. All projects will start at the UH2 phase but the length of UH2 will depend on the maturity of the project at entry. Only those UH2 projects that have met specific criteria (see below) will be eligible for transition to the second UH3 phase after NIH administrative review. The UH3 phase will support a small clinical study.

The UH2/UH3 cooperative agreement mechanism is milestone-driven and involves NINDS program staff's participation in developing the project plan, monitoring research progress, and appropriate go/no-go decision-making. NINDS staff will also provide assistance to academic investigators in familiarizing them with the therapeutic device development process and the criteria needed to advance therapeutic leads to the clinic. The expectations of the program are in line with those of industry in regards to advancing therapeutic devices through the developmental pipeline. As such, an inherent high rate of attrition is expected within this program.

Applicants are strongly advised to read through the CREATE program Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and examples at the website (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/areas/translational_research/CREATE-FAQ.htm).

B. Scope

Projects must focus on a single disorder that falls within the mission of NINDS.

Devices within the scope of this program are expected to require most, if not all, of the in vitro and preclinical animal testing necessary to enable an IDE submission after completion of the UH3.

Entry Criteria

For entry to the program, projects should have:

• Comprehensive Supporting Data: Ideally, preliminary proof-of-concept data would be obtained using an in vivo model representative of the intended patient population.
• A compelling case to for a successful IDE submission by the end of the UH2 or IRB approval for a Non-Significant Risk (NSR) study at the end of the UH2.
• Overall device development plan, including when contact with the appropriate regulatory bodies is planned, clinical considerations, and a needs assessment.
• Identified one or more clinically meaningful device outcome measures based on input from both clinicians and patients
• Non-binding FDA Pre-Submission (formerly pre-IDE) feedback clearly denoting that the proposed pre-clinical testing plan is sufficient to support a successful FDA submission for an IDE by the end of the UH2 phase. For Non-Significant Risk (NSR) studies, preliminary communications (e.g. letter or other documentation) with the IRB indicating what pre-clinical testing will be necessary to support the NSR clinical study is sufficient.

UH2 Scope

Examples of studies that can be proposed during the UH2 phase include, but are not limited to:

• Non-GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) animal studies to develop surgical techniques relevant to the device, define relevant therapeutic parameters, and refine device design in preparation for subsequent GLP testing for regulatory approval
• In vitro and animal testing to meet FDA Recognized ISO/ASTM Standards
• Activities to become GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) compliant
• Activities to bring the development process under Design and Quality Systems Control
• Device, software, and firmware design verification and validation activities
• Regulatory affairs
• GLP compliant large animal model safety and/or testing of an implanted device
• IDE submission

UH3 Scope

The UH3 will support a clinical study to inform a final device design, or test scientific hypotheses that are not feasible or practical to conduct in animal models, but are critical to enable next-generation devices. It should be noted that clinical studies are only supported for projects where the preclinical activities are conducted under this funding mechanism.

Examples of Activities Inappropriate for this FOA include:

• Basic research and studies of disease mechanisms
• Animal model development: All in vivo models must have been established and characterized in the applicants or collaborators laboratory.
• Development of diagnostics, or diagnostic devices.
• Rehabilitation strategies.
• Imaging technologies.
• Definitive clinical trials of therapeutic devices, such as a full Feasibility study and/or Pivotal Trial
• Applications without pre-clinical testing or activities Applicants proposing clinical trials or biomarker studies that fall outside of the scope of this FOA may wish to consider applying to the NINDS NeuroNEXT clinical trials program (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/proceedings/20101217-NEXT.htm), the NINDS Exploratory Clinical Trials program (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-13-281.html), or to the NIH StrokeNet program for stroke indications (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/clinical_research/NINDS_stroke_trials_network.htm.
• Pre-clinical studies and related clinical studies to enable 510(k) or 510(k) De Novo submission
• Pre-clinical studies to enable IDE submission, where the immediate next steps upon completion of an Early Feasibility Study will be a full Feasibility Study and a Pivotal Trial in support of a PMA (Pre-Market Approval) or HDE (Humanitarian Device Exemption), i.e. changes to the system design informed by the Early Feasibility Study will be minor and not require additional animal testing.
• Efforts to develop neurotechnology for fundamental study of the nervous system
• Fundamental basic/applied research projects that employ existing market approved devices for their labeled uses are outside the scope of the present FOA but may be within scope of the Bioengineering Research Grants and Partnerships program announcements (see http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/bioengineering/).
• Projects focused on neural prosthetic technologies for augmentation of healthy individuals.

Because device development is an inherently high-risk process, it is anticipated that there will be significant attrition as projects move through the device development process. Applications must propose one or more milestones associated with each Specific Aim. Milestones are goals that are quantifiable for measuring success that can be used for go/no-go decision-making for the project, and should have quantitative criteria associated with them (see Section IV.2 for details).

Prior to funding an application, NINDS program staff will contact the applicant to discuss the proposed milestones and any changes suggested by the NINDS review panel or NINDS program staff. A final set of NINDS approved milestones will be specified in the Notice of Award.

Progress towards achievement of the final set of milestones will be evaluated by NINDS program staff. NINDS program staff may consult as necessary with independent consultants with relevant expertise. If justified, future milestones may be revised based on data and information obtained during the previous project period. If, based on the progress report, a funded project does not meet the milestones, funding for the project may be discontinued. In addition to milestones, the decision regarding continued funding will also be based on the overall robustness of the entire data package that adequately allows an interpretation of the results (regardless if they have been captured in the milestones), overall progress, NINDS portfolio balance and program priorities, competitive landscape, and availability of funds.

NINDS encourages increasing the robustness and reproducibility of observed results. In some cases, conducting additional critical experiments will be important for NINDS to have confidence in making a funding decision. Therefore, NINDS program staff may add experiments that need to be conducted prior to or during the award as an additional milestone(s). In most cases, these studies will be supported by additional funds from NINDS.

UH2/UH3 transition

An administrative review will be conducted by NINDS program staff, with potential input by NINDS independent consultants to decide on which of the UH2 projects will be transitioned into the UH3 phase based on the following:

• Successful achievement of the defined milestones for the UH2 period of the project
• Likelihood of success in clinical testing
• Competitive landscape
• Program balance
• Availability of funds
• Submission of the IDE for the clinical study with documentation of final or conditional approval of the IDE from the FDA to start the human study or Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for a Non-Significant Risk (NSR) study
• IRB Approval
• Submission of the final clinical protocol and supporting documents to NINDS for administrative review, and notification of approval by NINDS
• Agreement on updated timeline, milestones and budget for the clinical study

D. Quality and Compliance Requirements

The use of the Design Control and Quality Systems processes (http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm070627.htm) to the degree specified by the FDA is required. Intermediate steps in the Design Control process (e.g. design reviews, design verification, design validation, and design transfer activities) where appropriate, and IDE submission should be represented in the annual milestones. Applicants should consider Guidelines and Policies for Monitoring Clinical Research in the formation of a plan for data and safety monitoring: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/clinical_research/policies/dsm.htm.

Since the ultimate goal of the CREATE program is to bring new therapeutic devices to the market, the program strongly encourages the awardees and/or their collaborators to obtain and retain any IP developed around the device during the project period (see instructions on attachment or letters to address IP issues in Section IV). Recipients of awards are encouraged to identify and foster relationships with potential licensing and commercialization partners early in the device development process. The PD/PI is expected to work closely with technology transfer officials at his or her institution to ensure that royalty agreements, patent filings, and all other necessary intellectual property arrangements are completed in a timely manner and that commercialization plans are developed and updated over the course of the project. For rare or ultra- rare diseases where commercialization may be challenging, applicants are encouraged to discuss alternative strategies with NINDS Scientific/Research staff to get further guidance.

As an UH2/UH3 cooperative agreement, implementation will involve the participation of NINDS program staff in the planning and execution of the projects. Applicants are strongly encouraged to consult with NINDS Scientific/Research staff when planning an application. Early contact provides an opportunity for NINDS Scientific/Research staff to provide guidance on program scope, goals, and developing appropriate milestones. Applicants should contact NINDS Scientific/Research staff at least 12 weeks before a receipt date.

NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.

Higher Education Institutions

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

• Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
• Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)

For-Profit Organizations

• Small Businesses
• For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)

Governments

• State Governments
• County Governments
• City or Township Governments
• Special District Governments
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)
• Eligible Agencies of the Federal Government
• U.S. Territory or Possession

Other

• Independent School Districts
• Public Housing Authorities/Indian Housing Authorities
• Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
• Faith-based or Community-based Organizations
• Regional Organizations

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.

Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are not allowed.

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.

• Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) - All registrations require that applicants be issued a DUNS number. After obtaining a DUNS number, applicants can begin both SAM and eRA Commons registrations. The same DUNS number must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly CCR) Applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually. The renewal process may require as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a CAGE Code.
• NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
• eRA Commons - Applicants must have an active DUNS number and SAM registration in order to complete the eRA Commons registration. Organizations can register with the eRA Commons as they are working through their SAM or Grants.gov registration. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
• Grants.gov Applicants must have an active DUNS number and SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.

For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see NOT-OD-11-101).

In addition, the NIH will not accept a resubmission (A1) application that is submitted later than 37 months after submission of the new (A0) application that it follows. The NIH will accept submission:

• To an RFA of an application that was submitted previously as an investigator-initiated application but not paid;
• Of an investigator-initiated application that was originally submitted to an RFA but not paid; or
• Of an application with a changed grant activity code.

Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, including Supplemental Grant Application Instructions except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed, with the following exceptions or additional requirements:

• For this specific FOA, the Research Strategy section is limited to 30 pages.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed with the following additional instructions:

Other Attachments: Applications should include an Intellectual property (IP) strategy that is no more than 1 page. Applicants are encouraged to prepare this section of the application in consultation with their institution's technology transfer officials, if applicable.

Applicants should describe the IP landscape surrounding their therapeutic device. Applicants should describe any known constraints that could impede the development of their therapeutic device (e.g., certain restrictions under transfer or sharing agreements, applicants' previous or present IP filings and publications, similar technologies that are under patent and/or on the market, etc.) and how these issues could be addressed. If the applicant proposes using a device or technology whose IP is not owned by the applicant's institution, either an investigational therapeutic, FDA-approved therapeutic, or other licensed product, the applicant should address, to the best extent of their knowledge, any questions of freedom to operate. Applicants should include a letter (see Letters of Support) from the entity who owns the IP indicating whether they will provide the device or technology, if there is any limits on the studies that can be performed with that device or technology, and agreement about public disclosure of results (including negative results), and whether there is an agreement already in place.

If patents pertinent to the therapeutic device being developed under this application have been filed, the applicant should indicate the details of filing dates, what types of patents are filed, and application status, and associated USPTO links, if applicable.

Applicants should discuss future IP filing plans. For a multiple-PD/PI, multiple-institution application, applicants should describe the infrastructure of each institution for bringing the technologies to practical application and for coordinating these efforts (e.g., licensing, managing IP) among the institutions. Applicants should clarify how IP will be shared or otherwise managed if there are multiple PDs/PIs and institutions involved, consistent with achieving the goals of the program.

Protection of Human Subjects:

Data and Safety Monitoring Plan: Applicants must include a Data and Safety Monitoring (DSM) Plan that is commensurate with the risk level of the proposed clinical trial (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html). For exploratory clinical trials it generally will be acceptable for the data and safety monitoring to be conducted by an investigator-appointed Study Monitoring Committee (SMC), an Independent Medical Monitor (IMM), or, for single-site trials involving low risk, the Program Director/Principal Investigator and his/her IRB. However, NINDS may decide to establish an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) depending on the score and risk of the trial. Applicants should refer to NIH’s policy on data and safety monitoring (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-038.html) as well as the NINDS Guidelines for Data and Safety Monitoring (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/clinical_research/policies/data_safety_monitoring.htm).

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

Budgeting for consultants with expertise in the Design Control process and/or regulatory submission is permissible.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Specific Aims: The Specific Aims section should include separate Aims delineated for each of the UH2 and UH3 phases. A scientific hypothesis is not required.

Research Strategy: The Research Strategy section should include the following subsections:

A. Significance: Clinical Impact and Feasibility, and Overall Device Development Plan

B. Supporting Data for Entry

C. Detailed Plans for Research Strategy (Including Milestones and Timelines)

D. Team Management

A. Significance

Clinical Impact and Feasibility: Please note that each application should focus on only one neurological disorder or disease within the NINDS mission, even if the device proposed for development could be used for more than one disorder. The target patient population and intended use should guide the design of the device and of the pre-clinical studies.

• Describe the current state of knowledge of the etiology, clinical characteristics, and current and projected prevalence of the proposed disease indication.
• Briefly discuss available treatments, their limitations, and how the proposed project would provide a benefit over existing therapies, regardless of therapeutic class (i.e. agents and devices).
• Identify one or more clinically meaningful device outcome measures based on input from both clinicians and patients.
• Discuss how the proposed project relates to therapy development efforts underway in academia and industry, including both agents and devices.
• Explain the rationale for the minimally acceptable and ideal results. Briefly comment on the feasibility of conducting clinical trials toward these goals (e.g., availability of clinical trial networks).

Overall Device Development Plan: Applicants must include an overall plan for device development. This plan should include:

• A clearly stated device development timeline that includes practical, achievable goals beyond the proposed clinical trial.
• Evidence of contact with appropriate U.S. regulatory bodies (e.g. FDA in the form of Pre-submission meetings and IDE submission).
• Clinical considerations including, but not limited to, the tools and process for device insertion and method for evaluating the functional integrity of the device. This plan will often involve collaboration between the investigators, clinical researchers, and may include the participation of private-sector companies and/or voluntary agencies.
• Needs assessment to establish performance requirements and identify significant issues faced by stakeholders (patients, clinicians, caregivers, customers), which is a key step in the design control process and will be evaluated for adequacy.

A needs assessment should provide strong, systematic evidence for the most efficient and effective route to addressing an unmet need. Critically evaluate primary or secondary data that has been used to identify deficiencies in current capabilities and the origins of the problem or critical barrier. Describe the audience who will benefit from the proposed work and how their needs have been identified. Distinguish "wants" from "needs" and outline the involvement of those who will benefit in the development of a solution. Describe how finite resources can best be deployed to develop and disseminate a feasible and applicable solution. Identify any human factors incorporated into the proposed research that optimize human interaction, productivity, and understanding while using the technology.

The device development plans anticipated in this FOA are expected to have significant unknowns, as the output of the clinical study is intended to either be a final device design that will require most, if not all of the pre-clinical testing, or obtain scientific knowledge that is not feasible or practical to conduct in animal models, but are critical to enable next-generation devices. Market size and pricing should only be considered in terms of 'red flags' that would completely preclude eventual CMS reimbursement and/or a sustainable market. Investigators should clearly articulate what the next step will be in device development assuming a successful outcome of the clinical study.

B. Supporting Data for Entry

The Supporting Data for Entry section will contain, but are not limited to, comprehensive data and information that validate the feasibility of conducting studies to address the specific aims. When presenting results, sufficient information must be available about study design, execution, analysis, and interpretation. PD(s)/PI(s) should explain the choice of models or assays, primary, secondary and exploratory endpoints and how they are clinically relevant. PD(s)/PI(s) should consider including blinding, randomization, power analysis for sample size, and independent replication in their application if applicable. Examples of the critical elements of a well-designed study are summarized on the NINDS website http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/transparency_in_reporting_guidance.pdf.

Due to the unique and varied nature of device applications, NINDS recognizes that some concepts outlined in the rigor guidelines such as independent validation and/or fully blinded/controlled studies may be prohibitively expensive and technically problematic to apply in full to device studies. In these cases, applicants are encouraged to use their discretion when applying the individual rigor criteria, and may instead follow the general spirit of these guidelines to submit high quality pre-clinical research.

C. Detailed Plans for Research Strategy (Including Milestones and Timelines)

In this section applicants should elaborate on their research plans. Describe milestones to be used for measuring success in achieving each of the research plan’s objectives. One or more milestone should be used for each objective. For each milestone provide details on methods, assumptions, experimental designs, and data analysis plans (if the results are quantitatively measured). Specify the quantitative criteria for measuring success and the rationale for the quantitative criteria. Quantitative criteria should be robust and be consistent with the state-of-the-art in the field. Most of the time the quantitative criteria for success in the milestones will also be used for making go/no-go decisions and this should be specified. Specify the timeline for each milestone. There should be at least one milestone proposed for completion at the end of each year. Applicants are encouraged to read examples of milestones (found on the CREATE Devices website; http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/areas/translational_research/CREATE-Devices.htm).

Milestones should directly relate to what will be required for FDA submission or IRB approval. The UH2 should focus on those studies needed to inform the FDA pre-submission communications or for IRB approval of an NSR study. Large animal safety studies are often required by the FDA to support an IDE. Applicants should include a large animal GLP safety study conducted on the full-final device system using the final manufacturing process intended to support the IDE. If a large animal safety study is not required by the FDA, or a test of the full final system using final manufacturing processes is not required, applicants should include communication from the FDA clearly stating this is the case.

Study conceptualization and planning must be at a stage sufficient to allow for an assessment of the likelihood of trial success. Description of the clinical study for the UH3 phase must include:

• A description of the study design and the rationale for this choice.
  • For studies that are intended to inform a final device design, a plan to inform final device design decisions must be included, with quantifiable, justifiable metrics used to make key decisions.
  • For studies that are intended to elucidate fundamental scientific premises that are crucial for determining the basic feasibility of next-generation technologies, studies must be designed to test the relevant significant hypotheses in terms of appropriate quantifiable metrics.
• A description of the target population, and why it is an appropriate group to address the hypotheses.
• A list of participant eligibility criteria.
• Participant recruitment and retention plans, including a discussion of the availability of participants for the proposed study and the ability of enrollment sites to recruit and retain the proposed number of participants, including women and minority participants. Data supporting recruitment and retention estimates must be provided. Evidence should be provided that relevant stakeholders (e.g., potential participants, referring and treating physicians, patient groups) have sufficient equipoise, consider the question to be important and the study acceptable. This evidence may be supported by letters from stakeholders (e.g., professional organizations or patient groups).
• A description of all assessments including clinical, laboratory, physiological, behavioral, patient-centered, or other outcomes addressing the primary and secondary research questions. Use of patient reported outcomes, including those available through PROMIS and NeuroQoL as well as other data collection approaches (e.g., telephone, mobile devices, or web-based systems) should be considered.
• Discussion of the potential biases in the study and how they will be addressed.
• Statistical Methods: Discussion of sample size and power calculations; study outcome measures; plans for interim and final analyses; methods of bias control; and methods for handling missing data.
• Data Management and Quality Control: Details of efficient data management and methods for monitoring quality; methods for monitoring the quality and consistency of intervention administration; and methods for ensuring participant confidentiality. Applicants are expected to incorporate data elements from the NINDS Common Data Elements (CDE) Project in their data collection forms (see http://www.nindscommondataelements.org/).
• Discussion of the challenges expected in implementing the trial and how these might be overcome.
• Descriptions of the organization of the study and how the trial will be managed; the role of any internal and external committees (e.g., executive committee, endpoint adjudication committee), and the responsibilities and oversight of any central laboratories/reading centers or resource centers.
• A timeline and milestones for completion of key stages of the trial, especially participant accrual.

D. Team Management Plan:

NINDS strongly encourages applicants to form multidisciplinary teams that consist of preclinical and clinical scientists, disease experts, regulatory experts, statisticians, experts in manufacture under Quality Systems/Design controls, and other relevant academic/industry experts. This multidisciplinary team should be able to define the overall device development plan to ensure gaps that need to be filled can clearly be defined and addressed during this funding period, to design the details of the plans and experiments, and to execute the research strategy. Describe how the team will work together (e.g., data generation, reporting of data and integrated review across teams with various disciplines, decision-making, participate meetings with NINDS, communication etc.) over the course of the project (and include letters of support). Indicate the willingness of the PD(s)/PI(s) and key personnel to operate under the cooperative agreement terms and conditions outlined in section VI.2. of the FOA. Describe the availability of a clinical consultant with expertise in the target disorder to determine the goals of the device development program and to consult on the design of the clinical study and subsequent clinical trials.

Letters of Support (not counted towards page limit): Applicants should include a letter of support from consultants, contractors, and collaborators.

• If applying from an academic institution, include a letter of support from the technology transfer official who will be managing intellectual property associated with this project.
• If research will be performed at more than one institution, include a letter of support from each institution clarifying how intellectual property will be shared or otherwise managed across the institutions.
• If collaborating with a private entity, state if they are agreeing to provide device (or technology), if there is any limits on the studies that can be performed with that device (or technology), limitations on sharing of data, and whether licensing agreements are in place.

Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following modification:

Investigators should include a brief one-paragraph description of how the final research data will be shared or why data-sharing is not possible. If patent protection is being sought, investigators should explain how data will be shared after patent protection is secured to allow for further research and commercial development to continue unimpeded, consistent with achieving the goals of this program.

Appendix: Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing Planned Enrollment Reports as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing Cumulative Inclusion Enrollment Report as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.

Important reminders:
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.

Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact NIH program staff at least 12 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Applicants are required to follow our Post Submission Application Materials policy.

Important Update: See NOT-OD-16-006 and NOT-OD-16-011 for updated review language for applications for due dates on or after January 25, 2016.

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

For this particular announcement, note the following:

The market size for the proposed therapeutic device will not be considered in assessing the significance of a project. NINDS is supportive of research for both rare and high incidence disorders that fall under the mission of NINDS.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Significance

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Specific to this announcement:

Clinical Impact and Feasibility:

If the project is successful, how will it affect clinical practice with consideration to existing treatments and therapeutics development efforts (both devices and agents) underway in academia and industry?

Is the target patient population and intended use guiding the design of the device and the pre-clinical studies, i.e. have they identified one or more clinically meaningful device outcome measures based on input from both clinicians and patients?

Will the proposed study remove key knowledge barriers/defining unknown risks critical for developing a full business case for the therapeutic device?

Overall Device Development Plan:

Is the overall plan for device development reasonable, including the plan after conclusion of the proposed trial?

Is the needs assessment adequate and complete? Does the needs assessment incorporate input from all relevant stakeholders (patients, clinicians, caregivers)? Is there clear metric driven design criteria developed with input from stakeholders?

Investigator(s)

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Specific to this announcement:

Has an interdisciplinary team been assembled, and have experts in pre-clinical development and clinical development been included in the conception, design, and proposed implementation of the project?

Evaluate the adequacy of the level of expertise and experience of the investigative team for both preclinical and clinical components of the project. Are there any concerns about the investigative group s ability to move the device forward into a trial in humans?

Innovation

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Specific to this announcement:

How significant an advantage does the proposed device offer over all existing approaches as well as those in development for the same indication regardless of therapeutic classes?

If the proposed therapeutic device is trying to improve over early generations that may or may not have been marketed, are the potential advantages truly significant?

Approach

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Specific to this announcement:

Regarding the Section Supporting Data for Entry:

• Does the FDA Pre-Submission (formerly pre-IDE) feedback indicate that the proposed pre-clinical testing plan is sufficient to support a successful FDA submission for an IDE by the end of the UH2 phase? Or for Non-Significant Risk (NSR) studies, do the preliminary communications with the IRB indicate that the proposed pre-clinical testing plan is sufficient to support the NSR clinical study?
• What is the robustness of the unpublished and published data used in support of the application?
• Was the data obtained using an in vivo animal model representative of the intended patient population? If not, did the applicant provide adequate justification for the model used?
• Do results from preliminary studies support the feasibility of conducting the proposed specific aims?

Regarding the Section on Detailed Plans for Research Strategy (Including Milestones and Timelines):

• Will the implementation of the overarching plan lead to the development and testing of the proposed therapeutic device?
• Are the proposed experiments designed using rigorous methodological approaches?
• Is the large animal safety study performed utilizing GLP proposed and adequate or is there clear communication from the FDA denoting that a large animal GLP safety study will not be necessary to support an IDE?
• Will the project reach an IDE or IRB approval for a non-significant risk (NSR) study at end of the UH2 phase?

Clinical Study:

• For studies in which a scientific hypothesis is being tested that is critically enabling to a potential therapeutic device, will the study design yield a scientifically impactful result if the null hypothesis is validated?
• Is the study design complete and adequately described and justified in terms of the goals and any challenges expected? Does the proposed clinical testing include clear quantitative metrics that will be used to inform design decisions for the final device?
• Does the study fit with the overall device development plan? Does the application clearly articulate what the next step in device development will be assuming a successful outcome of the clinical study? Is the clinical study appropriately designed to inform this next step?
• Is the target population appropriate for the clinical study of the proposed device? Are the inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size, and power calculations clearly justified and explained in the application?
• Is there adequate consultation with patients and other stakeholders in study design?
• Are the assessments and outcome measures described adequate for the study proposed?
• Are the timelines for completion of key stages of the trial (e.g. participant accrual) realistic and inclusive of necessary steps?

Environment

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

Milestones:

Are milestones robust and associated with clear, quantitative criteria for success that allows go/no-go decisions? If milestones are not to be used for go/no-go decisions, are they justifiable?

Are the timelines proposed for achieving the milestones realistic and inclusive of necessary steps, as well as efficient without adding unnecessary steps?

Are there additional key experiments that need to have milestones?

Plans for Patient Recruitment/Retention:

Does the application document the following?

Availability of the requisite eligible subject pool in proposed clinical center(s);

The status of evidence showing whether or not clinically important sex/gender and race/ethnicity differences in the intervention effect are to be expected (see Inclusion of Women and Minorities in Clinical Research below);

Are the sites and are the plans presented appropriate for the inclusion of minorities and women?

Plans for recruitment outreach and, as appropriate, follow-up procedures to ensure collection of data at stated intervals; and

Retention plans and practices for anyone who is participating in the trial?

Protections for Human Subjects

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of children to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.

Vertebrate Animals

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.

Biohazards

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

Resubmissions

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Renewals

Not Applicable

Revisions

For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy

Are potential issues regarding the IP landscape for the device being developed and the freedom to operate addressed? Do the IP Strategy attachment and related letters of support address potentially concerns?
Are there any known constraints that could impede the development of the therapeutic device?
Are IP filing plans described?
If multiple institutions are involved, is IP sharing addressed?

Applications from Foreign Organizations

Not Applicable

Select Agent Research

Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

Resource Sharing Plans

Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).

Budget and Period of Support

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by NINDS, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:

• May undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
• Will receive a written critique.

Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.

After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee’s business official.

Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.

Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award

The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is applicable when State and local Governments are eligible to apply), and other HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.

The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the UH2/UH3 cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.

The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for:

• The PD(s)/PI(s) will have primary responsibility for defining objectives and approaches, and for planning, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, drawing conclusions on their studies, publishing and sharing the results.
• Awardees are responsible for developing and proposing rigorous milestones that will be achieved during the project period.
• Awardees will retain custody of and have all rights to the data and technology developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current DHHS, PHS, and NIH policies.
• Awardees are responsible for pursuing patent protection.
• Awardees are responsible for providing progress reports with completeness that include experimental design with rigor, including assumptions for the design of the experiments, the results of the investigations, interpretations of the results, and for concluding whether milestones have been met or not. In cases when NINDS program staff request raw data, awardees agree to provide the data.
• Awardees agree to participate at least once a year in progress meetings (teleconferences) that are organized by NINDS staff.
• Regarding meetings and interactions with regulatory agencies, awardees agree to communicate meeting dates and agenda to the NINDS program staff and invite their participation.
• Awardees agree to communicate study reports from CROs, meeting minutes (and associated data packages if applicable), letters and other forms of communications with FDA, Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), and other authorities, and to provide IND# and registration numbers in clinical trial.gov, if applicable.
• Awardees are responsible for providing regulatory and clinical documents that are required for administrative review.
• Awardees must verify that the clinical trial is performed in accord with Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and in accord with NINDS Guidelines for Data and Safety Monitoring in Clinical Trials: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/clinical_research/policies/data_safety_monitoring.htm, and must provide data and regular updates to NINDs.

NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:

• Each project will have the support of one or more Project Scientists from NINDS program staff who are assigned an administrative role for the neurological disorder being studied and have expertise in the implementation of the NINDS CREATE Program in Translational Research.
• The NINDS Project Scientists will have substantial scientific/programmatic involvement during the conduct of this activity, through technical assistance, advice, and coordination above and beyond normal program stewardship for grants.
• NINDS Project Scientist(s) provides input on the milestones and makes decisions regarding their finalization.
• NINDS Project Scientist(s) will be responsible for assessing the progress of the project towards the specified milestones, and for recommending if further funds should be released to the project.
• NINDS Project Scientist(s), in consultation with the PIs, may add critical experiments that need to be conducted prior to or during the award as an additional milestone(s). In most cases, these studies will be supported by additional funds from NINDS.
• NINDS Program Scientist(s) participates in meetings together with PIs with regulatory agencies related to the funded project.
• An important part of the NINDS CREATE program is the coordination of research efforts across different funding mechanisms and research capabilities, and the coordination among efforts aimed at different neurological disorders. NINDS Project Scientists will have the primary responsibility for this overall coordination.
• Additionally, an agency program official or IC program director will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice. The assigned program director may also serve as an NIH Project Scientist.
• NINDS leadership will make decisions on project continuation based on program staff recommendations, programmatic prioritizations and budget considerations. NINDS program staff may consult as necessary with independent consultants with relevant expertise. If justified, future year milestones may be revised based on data and information obtained during the previous year. If, based on the progress report, a funded project does not meet the milestones, funding for the project may be discontinued. In addition to milestones, the decision regarding continued funding will also be based on the overall robustness of the entire data package that adequately allows an interpretation of the results (regardless if they have been captured in the milestones), overall progress, NINDS portfolio balance and program priorities, competitive landscape, and availability of funds.

Areas of Joint Responsibility include:

Clarifying, negotiating and finalizing the milestones and timelines.

Dispute Resolution:

Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened. It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16. Final decisions made by NINDS regarding a discontinuation are not appealable.

When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the annual Non-Competing Progress Report (PHS 2590 or RPPR) and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons registration, submitting and tracking an application, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, post submission issues)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Finding Help Online: https://grants.nih.gov/support/index.html
Email: [email protected]

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission, downloading forms and application packages)
Contact CenterTelephone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]

GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone: 301-945-7573
Email: [email protected]

Nick Langhals, PhD
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Telephone: 301-496-1447
Email: [email protected]

Chief, Scientific Review Branch
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Telephone: 301-496-9223
Email: [email protected]

Tijuanna E. DeCoster, PhD
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Telephone: 301-496-9231
Email: [email protected]

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.