National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney
Funding Opportunity Title
Optimizing Recovery and Preservation of Endogenous Insulin Secretion in Individuals with Prediabetes or Recent Onset of Type 2 Diabetes (U01)
U01 Research Project – Cooperative Agreements
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number
Catalog of Federal Domestics Assistance (CFDA) Number(s)
This FOA, issued by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), solicits applications for clinical studies to investigate strategies that promote the recovery and maintenance of endogenous insulin secretion among individuals who have prediabetes or are early in the course of type 2 diabetes. Specifically, the aim of this initiative is 1) To assess whether short, intensive interventions can substantially improve the pattern and magnitude of the endogenous insulin response, the extent to which recovery is possible and to identify the factors associated with recovery and retention of endogenous insulin secretion, and 2) To determine the duration of the effect and whether this will facilitate achieving better glucose control. In addition, studies may seek to identify biomarkers that will simplify assessment of beta cell function and improve prediction of whether a given individual will respond positively to the intervention. Although each investigator will propose and conduct a unique protocol, collaboration will be required among awardees to establish common definitions, measures and procedures to promote comparisons of data across protocols.
November 24, 2010
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date)
February 24, 2011
Letter of Intent Due Date
February 24, 2011
Application Due Date(s)
March 24, 2011, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.
AIDS Application Due Date(s)
Scientific Merit Review
Advisory Council Review
Earliest Start Date(s)
September 30, 2011
March 25, 2011
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the PHS398 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. While some links are provided, 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 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
This FOA will support investigator-designed, small clinical research studies to investigate strategies that promote the recovery and maintenance of endogenous insulin secretion among individuals who have prediabetes or are early in the course of type 2 diabetes. It will employ a Cooperative Agreement (U01) mechanism to facilitate investigator collaboration in collection of information on a core subset of variables to enable comparisons between the results of investigator-initiated study designs and provide additional information about the factors underlying responses to different intervention strategies.
The natural history of type 2 diabetes (T2D) includes insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia during prediabetes followed by a progressive loss of insulin response to a change in glucose level after sustained hyperglycemia develops. The rate of deterioration in insulin response varies widely among individuals but appears to be at least partly related to the duration and severity of hyperglycemia. The mechanisms underlying these changes are not well understood but appear to involve both a loss of beta cell mass and a desensitization of beta cells to changes in glucose levels, producing both a permanent and a reversible loss of insulin secretion. Early in T2D, a brisk acute and substantial insulin response to non-glucose stimuli may persist, even with severe loss of the response to glucose, indicating that the remaining beta cells are capable of producing additional insulin but have lost varying degrees of their responsiveness to changes in glucose levels.
Studies have demonstrated that remissions (improvements in insulin secretion and glucose levels) can be induced in T2D patients by a variety of treatment strategies including diet, exercise, oral anti-diabetes medications, insulin and combined intervention strategies. Such improvements are generally transient but of variable magnitude and duration. With all successful treatment approaches, it appears that a common factor among those that achieve a sustained improvement in insulin response to increasing glucose levels is getting the fasting glucose level near normal and keeping it there for a minimal duration of days or weeks. The optimal glucose level and the optimal duration of “tight” control as well as the optimal intervention strategies to induce these recoveries have not been adequately studied. In addition, it is not known whether there are differences in the magnitude or duration of recoveries in response to the different drugs or other interventions selected for initial therapy. Limited studies of time to failure of glucose control after initial treatment of diabetes have shown that treatment with insulin secretogogues produces better short-term responses but also fails earlier than initial treatment with drugs that lower insulin resistance. The underlying pathophysiology leading to these secondary failures is not understood Thus, the effects of “stimulating” vs. “resting” existing beta cells using different treatment strategies on the magnitude and duration of endogenous insulin responses needs additional study. Finally, the lack of standardized definitions and criteria to evaluate these changes has made comparisons of results from earlier studies difficult or impossible.
New anti-diabetic drugs, improved treatment strategies, improved technology for glucose monitoring, the recognition that the best opportunities for intervention probably occur at the prediabetes or early hyperglycemic phase of the disease and that the capability to recover insulin response may be lost as the duration of hyperglycemia increases, make it possible, important and timely to study the physiology underlying the preservation, initial failure and/or recovery of beta cell function (and, if possible, mass) in patients with prediabetes and early T2D. These advances make it possible to determine whether the progressive loss of insulin response usually seen with increasing duration of diabetes is an inevitable consequence of the disease or can be altered by new drugs or new treatment strategies.
The aims of this initiative are to 1) Assess whether short, intensive interventions can substantially improve the magnitude of the glucose stimulated insulin response relative to conventional treatments, the extent to which recovery is possible and the factors associated with recovery and retention of endogenous insulin secretion, and 2) Determine the duration of the effect and whether this will facilitate achieving better glucose control. In addition, supplemental studies may be proposed to identify biomarkers that will simplify assessment of beta cell function and improve prediction of whether a given patient will respond positively to the intervention. Studies to improve understanding of how to optimize recovery and extend preservation of endogenous insulin secretion in those with prediabetes or with type 2 diabetes will provide insight into the pathogenesis of the disease and information that may lead to improved strategies to prevent progression from prediabetes or to treat patients with recent onset of type 2 diabetes. While the selection of specific interventions is up to each investigator, all applications must address the following questions: 1) What is the optimal level of fasting glucose to produce recovery of endogenous insulin response to glucose? and 2) What is the optimal time needed to produce recoveries of endogenous insulin secretion that will be sustained?
Given current knowledge, understanding the factors that contribute to preservation or recovery of endogenous insulin secretion will require several separate but coordinated studies. Acquiring additional information on sustainability of responses will require follow-up of at least 2 years to assess the durability of responses. Such studies cannot be conducted in a single group of volunteers. Although each investigator will propose and conduct his/her own protocol, it is expected that awardees will collaborate to establish certain common protocol components (e.g., definitions, approaches to determine target levels for glucose control and duration of initial control) and common measurements, in order to develop a core data set that will enable limited comparisons across different protocols. Investigators will be expected to work together on these joint analyses and subsequent publications from the core data. Since most studies of this phenomenon have been of short duration or lack accompanying mechanistic investigations, studies should be designed to include a minimum follow-up of two years to enable assessment of the intermediate-term durability of the results of the interventions.
This initiative will improve understanding of beta cell failure and recovery in prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and help to identify the most promising therapies for potential use in a larger, longer duration trial. Answers from these intermediate term studies are critical to assess the feasibility of future clinical trials to test the ability to achieve longer duration of “remissions” than those examined in prior studies.
Examples of possible research topics that can be addressed include, but are not limited to, those that are listed below. Investigators are encouraged to design studies that they believe are needed to improve understanding of beta cell preservation and/or recovery.
Investigators must indicate in the application their willingness to collaborate with other investigators funded through this FOA. Although each investigator will propose and study his/her own intervention, the group of funded investigators are expected to meet shortly after awards are made, in order to establish a minimal set of common definitions and measures to be conducted in all the studies and to identify ways to collaborate on addressing core questions
Applicants will be required to attend Steering Committee meetings and subcommittee meetings, as appropriate, in which study plans, findings, and issues of common interests and concerns will be shared and discussed. Each applicant must include in his/her budget funds for attending these meetings. Applicants should budget for the attendance of the Principal Investigator and one additional staff member at each Steering Committee meeting. The Steering Committee will convene three times during the first funding year and annually for each funding year thereafter. Steering Committee meetings will be for two days and will be held in the Washington, D.C. metro area. Investigators will also be expected to participate in study conference calls at a frequency determined by the Steering Committee.
Cooperative Agreement: A support mechanism used when there will be substantial Federal scientific or programmatic involvement. Substantial involvement means that, after award, scientific or program staff will assist, guide, coordinate, or participate in project activities.
Application Types Allowed
The OER Glossary and the PHS398 Application Guide provide details on these application types.
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards
NIDDK intends to commit $4 million in FY2011 to fund 3-5 awards.
Total funds allocated over five years $20 million..
Applications for year 1 budgets should be less than $500,000 direct costs and should reflect actual needs of the proposed project..
Award Project Period
Scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum period is five years.
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:
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For profit Organizations
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) are eligible to apply. Foreign (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations as described in the PHS398 Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following registrations.
All Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD/PIs) must also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA Commons or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA Commons account of the applicant organization.
All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at least four (4) weeks prior to the application due date.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) 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 PHS398 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.
NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial peer review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed.
Applicants are required to prepare applications according to the current PHS 398 application forms in accordance with the PHS 398 Application Guide.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the PHS398 Application Guide, 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.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
Descriptive title of proposed research
Name, address, and telephone number of the PD(s)/PI(s)
Names of other key personnel
Number and title of this funding opportunity
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Francisco Calvo, Ph.D.
Chief, Review Branch
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for courier service)
Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research
grant application forms and instructions for preparing a research grant
application. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application,
including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
At the time of submission, two additional paper copies of
the application and all copies of the appendix files must be sent to:
Francisco Calvo, Ph.D.
Division of Extramural Activities
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Two Democracy Plaza, Room 742
6707 Democracy Blvd.
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452
All instructions in the PHS398 Application Guide must be followed.
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 PHS398 Application Guide.
Do not use the appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix (please note all format requirements) as described in the PHS398 Application Guide
Investigators must indicate in the application their willingness to collaborate with other investigators funded through this FOA, and agree to the “Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award” in Section VI.2.A (“Award Administration Information”). Although each investigator will propose and study his/her own intervention, the group of funded investigators are expected to meet shortly after awards are made, in order to establish a minimal set of common definitions and measures to be conducted in all the studies. Data from two or more sites may be pooled to address a limited set of trans-study questions. Investigators also will be expected to collaborate on analyses and publications of pooled study data. These plans will be developed during initial Steering Committee meetings.
Applicants will be required to attend Steering Committee meetings and subcommittee meetings, as appropriate, in which study plans, findings, and issues of common interests and concerns will be shared and discussed.
.Foreign (non-US) components of U.S. organizations must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign organizations described throughout the PHS398 Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates.
Information on the process of receipt and determining if
your application is considered “on-time” is described in detail in the PHS398
Applicants may track the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration.
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
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be p received on or before the due dates in Part I. Overview Information. If an application is received after that date, it will not be reviewed.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by NIDDK, NIH. Applications that are incomplete and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed. Application review will be conducted by a Special Emphasis Panel convened by NIDDK.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115.
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
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority 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.
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?
Are the PD/PIs, 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? Does the PI provide evidence of willingness to collaborate with other awardees as part of the Cooperative Agreement?
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?
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 clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
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/priority score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
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 Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
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.
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.
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/priority score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
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 the NIDDK (assignments will be shown in the eRA Commons), in accordance with NIH peer
review policy and procedures, using the stated review
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will:
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center and will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA . Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council (NDDKAC) . The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
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
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 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 the DUNS, CCR Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants 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.
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 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.
Failure of an awardee to meet the performance requirements, including these special terms and
conditions of award, or significant changes in the level of
performance, may result in the conduct of special site visits including if
necessary, external (to the study) reviewers, a reduction of budget,
withholding of support, suspension and/or termination of the award.
The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for:
1. Developing the research design and study protocol,
including definition of objectives and approaches, sample size and power
calculations, and establishing procedures for participant recruitment and
follow-up, data collection, quality control, interim data and safety
monitoring, final data analysis and interpretation, and publication of results.
2. Establishing a Steering Committee to implement,
coordinate and manage the project(s). Awardee(s) will name investigators to
serve as members on a Steering Committee and other subcommittees, as
appropriate, meeting periodically. Awardees will be required to accept and
implement the common protocol(s) and procedures approved by the Steering
3. Implementing collection of data specified by the study
protocol, by the Steering Committee. For a multi-center study, each
awardee/site is required to ensure that data will be submitted expeditiously to
the Data Coordinating Center. Additionally, individual investigators/sites must
demonstrate the ability to implement the strategy specifically designed for
their individual study population.
4. Establishing procedures for data quality and
completeness. Awardees are responsible for ensuring accurate and timely assessment
of the progress of each study, including development of procedures to ensure
that data collection and management are: (1) adequate for quality control and
analysis; (2) for clinical trials, as simple as appropriate in order to
facilitate cooperation/referral of study participants by physicians to avoid
unnecessary expense; and (3) sufficiently staffed across the participating
institutions. For research involving multiple awards, a plan for analysis of
pooled data will be developed by the Steering Committee.
5. Submitting interim progress reports, when requested, to
the NIDDK Program Official including as a minimum, summary data on protocol
performance. For coordinated multiple awards or a multi-site single award, the
NIDDK Program Official may require additional information from individual
awardees/sites. Such reports are in addition to the required annual
noncompeting continuation progress report.
6. Establishing procedures, where applicable, for all
participating institutions in coordinated awards to comply with FDA regulations
for studies involving investigational agents or devices and to comply with the
requirements of 45 CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects, and the
NIH policy requirements for the inclusion of women, minorities and children.
7. Reporting of the study findings. The awardee(s) will
retain custody of and have primary rights to the data developed under these
awards, subject to the Government rights of access consistent with current HHS,
PHS and NIH policies. The awardee must also be adherent to Study Publication
and Presentation Policy. The NIDDK will have access to and may periodically
review all data generated under an award. NIDDK staff may co-author
publications of findings with awardees consistent with NIH and study policies.
8. Support or other involvement of industry or any other
third party in the study -- e.g., participation by the third party; involvement
of study resources or citing the name of the study or NIDDK support; or special
access to study results, primary data/summary information, or resources -- may
be advantageous and appropriate. However, except for licensing of patents or
copyrights, support or involvement of any third party is permitted only after
concurrence by NIDDK.
9. Study investigators are encouraged to publish and to
release publicly and disseminate results and other products of the study, in
accordance with study protocols and steering committee policies on
10. Maintaining confidentiality of information: The
awardee(s) will maintain the confidentiality of the information developed by
the investigators (i.e., protocols, data analysis, conclusions, etc.) as well
as proprietary information of a company collaborating with the study.
11. The NIDDK has established Central Biosample, Genetic,
and Data Repositories for the archival and storage of data and biosamples
collected in large, multi-site studies funded by NIDDK. The PI or his/her
designee will coordinate with the NIDDK Data Repository to prepare the
collected data for eventual archiving and distribution. In addition, if
applicable, the PI or his/her designee will work with the NIDDK Biosample
Repository to coordinate procedures for coding, shipping, processing, receipt,
and storage of study samples that are to be maintained in the Repository. All
samples and data transferred to the Repositories will be under the
custodianship of the NIDDK, although the study’s Steering Committee will have
proprietary control of and exclusive access to the samples and data for an agreed-upon
period of time. Subsequently samples and data will be available to the wider
scientific community in accordance with the NIH policy on Data Sharing (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/ and, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm#goals and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_faqs.htm)
12. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA or US Public Law 110-85) was passed on September 27, 2007. The law requires mandatory registration and results reporting for certain clinical trials of drugs, biologics, and devices. If applicable, the PI or his/her designee will perform the mandatory study registration and reporting of study results to ClinicalTrials.gov. For more information about this law and requirements for sponsors and/or investigators, visit the PRS and U.S. Public Law 110-85 Information Page at http://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/fdaaa.html
NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
1. Serve as the contact point for all facets of the scientific interaction with the awardee (s). As required for the coordination of activities and to expedite progress, NIDDK may designate additional NIDDK staff to provide advice to the awardee on specific scientific and/or analytic issues. Such staff may include another Project Scientist or Analyst, who will provide direct technical assistance to the awardees to optimize the conduct and/or analysis of the study; or who may assist in the coordination of activities across multiple sites.
2. For multi-center studies, participation in the Steering Committee that oversees study conduct. The NIDDK Project Scientist or designee will be a full participant and voting member of the Steering Committee and, if applicable, subcommittees.
3. Serving as a resource to study investigators with respect
to other ongoing NIDDK activities that may be relevant to the study to
facilitate compatibility with the NIDDK missions and avoid unnecessary
duplication of effort.
4. Substantial involvement assisting in the design and
coordination of research activities for awardees as elaborated below:
a. Assisting by providing advice in the management and
technical performance of the investigations, coordinating required regulatory
clearances for investigational agents used in the study, which are held by
NIDDK. The NIDDK may reserve the right to cross file or independently file an
Investigational New Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption
form with the FDA.
b. The NDDK Project Scientist or designee may coordinate
activities among awardees by assisting in the design, development, and
coordination of a common research or clinical protocol and statistical
evaluations of data; in the preparation of questionnaires and other data
recording forms; and in the publication of results.
c. Reviewing procedures for assessing data quality and study
d. The NIDDK Project Scientist or designee may be co-authors on study publications. In general, to warrant co-authorship, NIDDK staff must have contributed to the following areas: (a) design of the concepts or experiments being tested; (b) performance of significant portions of the activity; (c) participate in analysis and interpretation of study results and (d) preparation and authorship of pertinent manuscripts.
In addition, a separate NIDDK Program Official identified in
the Notice of Grant Award will be responsible for the normal stewardship and
monitoring of the award including review and approval of all progress reports
and all budgetary decisions. Additional responsibilities include.
1. Interacting with the principal investigator(s) on
a regular basis to monitor study progress. Monitoring may include: regular
communications with the principal investigator and staff, periodic site visits,
observation of field data collection and management techniques, quality
control, fiscal review, and other relevant matters; as well as attendance at
Steering Committee, data safety and monitoring board, and related meetings. The
NIDDK retains the option to arrange the periodic review of progress by
researchers not involved with the study.
2. Reviewing and approving protocols prior to
implementation to insure they are within the scope of peer review, for safety
considerations, as required by Federal regulations.
3. The NIDDK Program Official will monitor protocol
progress, and may request that a protocol study be closed to accrual for
reasons including: (a) accrual rate insufficient to complete study in a timely
fashion; (b) accrual goals met early; (c) poor protocol performance; (d)
patient safety and regulatory concerns; (e) study results that are already
conclusive; and (f) emergence of new information that diminishes the scientific
importance of the study question. The NIDDK will not permit further
expenditures of NIDDK funds for a study after requesting closure except as
specifically approved by the NIDDK.
4. Making recommendations for continued funding
based on: a) overall study progress, including sufficient patient and/or data
accrual; b) cooperation in carrying out the research (e.g., attendance at
Steering Committee meetings, implementation of group decisions, compliance with
the terms of award and reporting requirements); and/or c) maintenance of a high
quality of research, which will allow pooling of data and comparisons across
multiple cooperative agreement awards for common data elements.
5. Appointment of a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) as appropriate; the NIDDK Program Official or their designee will serve as the Executive Secretary and/or NIDDK program representative on the DSMB.
Areas of Joint Responsibility include:
In addition to the interactions defined above, NIDDK Project
Scientist and Awardees shall share responsibility for the following activities:
1. Steering Committee.
A Steering Committee organized by the study investigator(s)
will be the main governing body of the study.
The Steering Committee has primary responsibility to design research activities, establish priorities, develop common protocols and manuals, questionnaires and other data recording forms, establish and maintain quality control among awardees, review progress, monitor patient accrual, coordinate and standardize data management, and cooperate on the publication of results. Major scientific decisions regarding the core data will be determined by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will document progress in written reports to the NIDDK Program Official, and will provide periodic supplementary reports upon request.
The Steering Committee will be composed of all Principal
Investigator(s), (including those of data coordinating /statistical centers, if
any) and co-investigators as deemed necessary, and the NIDDK Project Scientist.
The final structure of the Steering Committee and voting procedures will be
established at the first meeting. The NIDDK Project Scientist will have voting
membership on the Steering Committee, and as appropriate, its subcommittees.
The frequency of Steering Committee meetings will be dictated by a vote of the
members of the Steering Committee.
A Chairperson of the Steering Committee, other than the NIDDK Project Scientist, will be selected by the NIDDK. The Chairperson provides leadership to the Committee by conducting the Steering Committee meetings, representing the study group to the External Oversight Committee established by the NIDDK (see item D2 below) and by interacting closely with the awardees during protocol development and implementation.
2. External Study Oversight.
An independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board will be established by the NIDDK for Phase III clinical trials or other high risk studies as appropriate. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board will review interim results periodically and provide guidance to the NIDDK.
Any disagreement that may arise on scientific/programmatic matters (within the scope of the award), between award recipients and the NIDDK may be brought to dispute resolution. A dispute resolution panel will be composed of three members --one selected by the awardee (or the Steering Committee, with the NIDDK member not voting), a second member selected by NIDDK, and the third member elected by the two prior selected members. These special dispute resolution procedures in no way affect the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulations at 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D, and HHS regulations at 45 CR Part 16.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required 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.
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
eRA Commons Help Desk(Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, tracking application status, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Peter Savage, M.D.
Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolismi
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Two Democracy Plaza , Room 788A
Bethesda, MD 20892)
Francisco O. Calvo, Ph.D.
Chief, Review Branch
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for courier service)
Grants Management Branch, NIDDK
Democracy Plaza II, Room 721
6707 Democracy Boulevard, MSC 5450
Bethesda, MD 20892 (express mail zip 20817)
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.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®