National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
U01 Research Project – Cooperative Agreements
Only one application per institution is allowed, as defined in Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility.
This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is a limited competition that invites U01 competing continuation applications for the continuation of the Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium (T1DAPC), a clinical consortium composed of one Data Coordinating Center (DCC) and up to ten Clinical Centers (CC) to continue a prospective longitudinal observational study of the incidence of diabetes that occurs during or after an acute pancreatitis (AP) episode, with an emphasis on type 1 diabetes (T1D) [the Diabetes Related to Acute Pancreatitis and its Mechanisms (DREAM) study] (NCT05197920). The study has been designed to gain insight into the incidence, clinical evolution, etiology, type, and pathophysiology of T1D and other forms of diabetes that occur during, or after one or more episodes of AP. The DREAM study is expected to be near its target enrollment of patients who have experienced AP during the current award segment, and so this NOFO will support applications largely intended for completion of recruitment and longitudinal observation of the assembled cohort, including monitoring for the incidence of T1D and other forms of diabetes, and the identification of immune, genetic, environmental, behavioral and demographic risk factors and biomarkers. This competition is limited to Clinical Centers that are currently participating in the consortium and funded by grants awarded through RFA-DK-19-022.
A competing continuation application for the DCC will be submitted in response to a separate NOFO, RFA-DK-25-018: Single Source for the Continuation of the Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium - Data Coordinating Center (T1DAPC-DCC) (U01 Clinical Trial Optional).
October 21, 2024
Application Due Dates | Review and Award Cycles | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
New | Renewal / Resubmission / Revision (as allowed) | AIDS - New/Renewal/Resubmission/Revision, as allowed | Scientific Merit Review | Advisory Council Review | Earliest Start Date |
Not Applicable | November 19, 2024 | Not Applicable | March 2025 | May 2025 | July 2025 |
All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.
Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.
Not Applicable
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts).
Conformance to all requirements (both in the How to Apply - Application Guide and the NOFO) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the How to Apply - Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.
Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.
This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is a limited competition that invites U01 competing continuation applications from Clinical Centers for the continuation of the Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium (T1DAPC), to continue a prospective longitudinal observational study of the incidence of diabetes that occurs during or after an acute pancreatitis (AP) episode, with an emphasis on type 1 diabetes (T1D) [the Diabetes Related to Acute Pancreatitis and its Mechanisms (DREAM) study] (NCT05197920). Only Clinical Centers that are currently participating in the consortium and funded by grants awarded through RFA-DK-19-022, are allowed to apply.Background
The spectrum of pancreatic diseases, including acute, recurrent, and chronic pancreatitis and the diabetes associated with these pancreatic diseases, represent some of the most challenging medical disorders of our time. Based on input from patient advocacy groups, diabetes, and gastroenterological professional societies and from the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council, in fiscal year 2022 the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) established the Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium (T1DAPC), a multidisciplinary research program composed of pancreatologists, endocrinologists, immunologists and radiologists to undertake a prospective longitudinal observational clinical study to investigate the incidence, etiology and pathophysiology of diabetes following acute pancreatitis (AP) with a particular emphasis on the autoimmune processes that result in T1D (the Diabetes Related to Acute Pancreatitis and its Mechanisms (DREAM) Study).
New onset diabetes that occurs within several years following AP can be diagnosed as type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D) or a form tied to exocrine pancreatic dysfunction and pancreas destruction, type 3c diabetes (T3cD). AP is an inflammatory disease of the exocrine pancreas that accounts for more than 300,000 hospitalizations, with health care costs exceeding $2 billion annually in the United States. AP may be due to gallstones, duct obstruction, trauma, a genetic predisposition to inappropriate activation of intra-pancreatic proteases, or the toxic effects of alcohol, drugs, infectious agents, or metabolites.
Pancreatogenic diabetes is likely the most common complication after AP, with a cumulative incidence reported to be between 23% and 40%. The temporal relationship between endocrine dysfunction and AP is highly variable and poorly described. For example, while the development of dysregulated glucose metabolism is common in patients with AP, it may have a reversible component such that hyperglycemia experienced during or shortly after AP may sometimes be resolved over time.
While prior studies have provided key observations regarding diabetes secondary to AP, conclusions have been limited by the sources of the data (clinical diagnosis or diagnostic coding for diabetes case ascertainment via chart reviews or administrative databases) and heterogeneity in study design. Definitive studies on the incidence rate and risk factors for diabetes secondary to AP require prospective, longitudinal follow-up with serial assessments of glycemic status and evaluation of potential patient- and disease-related factors. The DREAM Study undertaken by the T1DAPC was designed to directly investigate the incidence, etiology and pathophysiology of diabetes following AP with a particular emphasis on the autoimmune processes that result in T1D. This includes monitoring parameters such as the temporal relationship between AP and diabetes, relationship to pancreatitis severity, the roles of pancreatitis etiology, immunologic, genetic and genomic risk factors, environmental and biological factors, and potential discovery of biomarkers for the development of T1D and other forms of diabetes.
The T1DAPC investigators started recruiting patients in early 2022 and are poised to reach their enrollment target during the currently funded grant segment or early in the second cycle, and therefore the continuation of the T1DAPC will be largely focused on retention and longitudinal observation in the DREAM study, and on the collection of several associated biospecimens. Thereby, DREAM will provide substantial insight into the pathogenesis of diabetes that occurs after AP.
Research Objectives
The overriding objective of this research program is the continued assembly and longitudinal observation of the DREAM cohort. The DREAM study expects to enroll 1000 adult participants (age 18-75) at 0-90 days following an episode of AP. Those who did not have diabetes prior to AP (N=800) are monitored for diabetes status at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months, and annually thereafter for the duration of the study using the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and for autoantibodies and pancreatic function. Blood and stool are collected at all visits. Subsets of participants also undergo a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT), a frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIGTT), or an abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exam to monitor pancreas size, shape, architecture, fat content and function. In addition, MMTT and MRI will be conducted in participants who are diagnosed with new onset diabetes following AP during the course of the study. Diabetes will be characterized using biomarkers of T1D (anti-islet and anti-insulin antibodies), T2D (insulin sensitivity) and T3cD (basal and post-test meal levels of pancreatic polypeptide) to determine the prevalence of T1D and other forms of diabetes which occur after or as a consequence of AP.
Several ancillary studies designed by consortium members are currently underway, and it is expected that more will be added during the second funded segment. Applicants may describe potential ancillary studies as part of their application to demonstrate engagement, the significance of the study and future directions, but the current NOFO doesnt include funding for ancillary studies, and all such studies must obtain both approval from the T1DAPC Steering Committee (SC) and additional independent funding (if needed). Applicants may also propose additional analyses of the data being collected, but any such analysis or proposed manuscripts must obtain approval from the T1DAPC SC and follow all consortium guidelines. Examples of possible ancillary projects and manuscripts include but are not limited to:
Organization and Governance of the T1DAPC
The T1DAPC consists of NIDDK staff, up to ten Clinical Centers (CC), and a Data Coordinating Center (DCC), and is governed by an Executive Committee, and a SC and its subcommittees. It is overseen by an established Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). T1DAPC governance is set out in the Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions, section VI.2, and all applicants must agree to abide by them, and to cooperate with other consortium members.
Clinical Centers. Each CC is comprised of a multidisciplinary team of investigators (pancreatologists, endocrinology/diabetology, immunology, radiology), study coordinators and other staff needed for conducting assessments, assembling and transmitting data, and collecting, processing and shipping biospecimens. CCs are responsible for conducting the study and disseminating findings.
DCC. The DCC is charged with overseeing the study, maintaining all study documents, interacting with the DSMB and single Institutional Review Board (sIRB), collecting data from CCs and ensuring its completeness and validity, managing subawards to the CCs and central laboratories and study repository, providing data for consortium publications, and transmitting all data, documents and biosamples to the NIDDK repository at the end of the study. Its role is described in RFA-DK-25-018.
Steering Committee. The SC is the main governing body of the T1DAPC and is composed of the PDs/PIs of each CC in the Network, the PDs/PIs of the DCC, the NIDDK Project Scientist(s) and the NIDDK Program Official. Each CC, the DCC, and the NIDDK Project Scientist(s) has one vote. The SC has the primary responsibility for the general organization of the consortium. The SC is responsible for the design, conduct and monitoring of studies and reporting study results. Topics for investigational and treatment ancillary protocols, and manuscripts are proposed and prioritized by the SC. Subcommittees of the SC will operate as necessary, such as diabetes, pancreatitis, immunology, publications, ancillary, protocol, pathology, and radiology.
Executive Committee. An Executive Committee will be composed of SC Co-Chairs, the PD/PI of the DCC, the NIDDK Project Scientist(s), and NIDDK Program Official. The Chair of the Executive Committee will be appointed by the NIDDK. The Executive Committee will be convened to prepare the agenda for the SC meetings and to effect management decisions needed between SC meetings, as required for the function of the Consortium. Other NIDDK and DCC personnel, as deemed necessary by the Project Scientists and Program Official, may also be included in this committee.
DSMB. An independent DSMB has been established by the NIDDK to review protocols and monitor subject safety and performance of the DREAM study. As a part of its responsibilities, the DSMB submits recommendations to the NIDDK regarding the continuation of the study. The DSMB is responsible for final approval of the Data and Safety Monitoring Plan developed by the DCC. All protocols or changes to protocols must be approved by the SC, the DSMB, and the NIDDK as well as an sIRB that maintains reliance agreements at all participating Center institutions.
Other Special Performance Requirements
The T1DAPC will be a collaborative effort that requires frequent interactions of awardees among themselves and with the NIDDK Program Directors. Performance requirements are described in section VI.2. Applicants are expected to:
See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.
Investigators proposing NIH-defined clinical trials may refer to the Research Methods Resources website for information about developing statistical methods and study designs.
Cooperative Agreement: A financial assistance mechanism used when there will be substantial Federal scientific or programmatic involvement. Substantial involvement means that, after award, NIH scientific or program staff will assist, guide, coordinate, or participate in project activities. See Section VI.2 for additional information about the substantial involvement for this NOFO.
The OER Glossary and the How to Apply - Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this NOFO.
Optional: Accepting applications that either propose or do not propose clinical trial(s).
In FY2025 NIDDK intends to commit $5.0 million to fund one Data Coordinating Center (RFA DK-25-018) and up to ten Clinical Center awards (this RFA).
Application budgets are limited to $350,000 per year in direct costs. Application budgets should reflect the actual needs of the proposed contributions to the consortiums ongoing work. Include in the budget limit above, funds to support coordinator effort for patient enrollment and retention based on expected patient enrollment.
The maximum project period is five years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this NOFO.
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
Local Governments
Federal Governments
Other
Only current recipients funded under RFA-DK-19-022 are eligible to apply to this funding opportunity.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) 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 allowed.
Applicant Organizations
Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the How to Apply - 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. Failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission, please reference NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications for additional information
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 their organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for NIH support. See, Reminder: Notice of NIH's Encouragement of Applications Supporting Individuals from Underrepresented Ethnic and Racial Groups as well as Individuals with Disabilities, NOT-OD-22-019.
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 How to Apply - Application Guide.
Only currently NIDDK-supported awardees from RFA-DK-19-022 are eligible to apply for this funding opportunity.
This NOFO does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 1.2 Definition of Terms.
Number of Applications
Only one application per institution (normally identified by having a unique UEI or NIH IPF number) is allowed.
The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application. This means that the NIH will not accept:
The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this NOFO. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide except where instructed in this notice of funding opportunity to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the How to Apply - Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Letter of Intent
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:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
John Connaughton, Ph.D.
Chief, Scientific Review Branch
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-7797
Email: NIDDKLetterofIntent@mail.nih.gov
All page limitations described in the How to Apply – Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
The following section supplements the instructions found in the How to Apply – Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this NOFO.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
Facilities and Other Resources: There should be evidence of strong institutional support for the CC, including adequate space in which to conduct clinical and research activities and office space for staff. Institutional resources for patient care and follow-up including personnel, space, and special laboratory facilities should be described in the CC application.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All proposed key personnel must demonstrate substantial scientific expertise (i.e., pancreatology/gastroenterology, diabetology, radiology, immunology, biostatistics) that is consistent with the objectives of the T1DAPC, and should have experience with large-scale collaborative clinical studies. An organizational structure for the CC should be set forth in the application, delineating specific personnel (e.g., pathologists, radiologists, etc.) available to carry out the approved protocols. Each CC application may consider the addition of other scientific personnel who must be fully justified. The final decision on the acceptance of additional scientific personnel will be at the discretion of the NIDDK based on consortium objectives and the availability of support.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
Investigators must submit a complete, justified, individual budget for each year of support requested. All costs requested and all changes in budgets after the first year should be clearly identified and justified. Separate itemized budgets must be prepared for each subcontracted site if multiple sites are proposed. (See Letters of Support in the PHS 398 Research Plan below).
Application budgets are limited to $350,000 per year in direct costs. Included in this budget limit are funds for investigator effort and support for coordinators to conduct patient enrollment, engagement, and retention (direct cost only). Capitated costs for study measures and other patient-related activities will be provided via subaward from the DCC. Application budgets should reflect the actual needs of the proposed contributions to the consortiums ongoing work.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Research Strategy:
Consortium Goals and Collaboration
The CC PD/PI(s) should provide study goals and describe their willingness to collaborate with other members of the Consortium, the DCC, NIDDK, the T1DAPC Biobank, the DSMB and the NIDDK Central Repository, and to abide by SC governance. CC applicants (including sub-awardee sites) should describe how they will be able to submit data to the DCC and biospecimens to the T1DAPC Biobank and to central laboratories and biological cores if required as approved by the SC. CCs should show how they have, and will continue to work in collaboration with the DCC to follow established procedures for uniform data collection, handling, and transmittal of data, as well as data audits and other data quality control procedures, as established by the study protocol.
Progress
In addition to any progress accomplished during the first funded segment of the T1DAPC and DREAM study that the applicant wishes to report, they should provide details regarding their role in establishing the protocol and associated study documents, participation in the various elements and committees of the consortium including design of substudies and writing of manuscripts, and initiation of the study itself. Applicants should report progress in recruitment and retention of participants, where diversity of the cohort is a particular emphasis, and should reflect the makeup of the US population as a whole. They should report on completion of study visits including and data and biospecimen collection, and biospecimen preparation, storage and shipping. They should report the recruitment of participants into the optional study elements (MMTT, FSIGTT, MRI) and ancillary studies. They should also include a history of protocol deviations/violations and other issues encountered during the study. Applicants should describe successful approaches, barriers to success, and how they were dealt with.
Experimental Plan
Applicants should provide information regarding future plans for involvement with operational committees of the Consortium (e.g. Recruitment, Publications, etc.) including the establishment of any needed uniform procedures and policies.
Applicants should report the demographics of the local patient populations in their catchment area and approaches for participant recruitment, with an emphasis on working toward a T1DAPC cohort that resembles the diversity of the US population. However, they should also fully describe approaches for patient engagement and retention including anticipated barriers to retention with solutions, as keeping participants in the study and fully engaged for the observational period of the DREAM study will be the focus of the second funded segment of the T1DAPC. They should also report strategies for minimizing missed study visits and completing data and biospecimens collection.
Applicants should describe additional germane activities that the CC is engaged in, such as ancillary studies, data analyses and manuscript preparation, or involvement with other competing studies. Applicants may describe potential ancillary studies as part of their application to demonstrate engagement, the significance of the study and future directions, but the current NOFO doesnt include funding for ancillary studies, and all such studies must obtain both approval from the T1DAPC Steering Committee (SC) and additional independent funding (if needed). Applicants may also propose additional analyses of the data being collected, but any such analysis or proposed manuscripts must obtain approval from the T1DAPC SC and follow all consortium guidelines.
Letters of Support: If parts of the costs of the application are to be borne by sources other than NIH, these contributions must be presented in detail along with supporting letters signed by individuals who have the authority to make fiduciary commitments on behalf of the institution. These outsource costs do not constitute cost sharing as defined in the current NIH Grants Policy Statement and should not be presented either as part of the requested budget or as Estimated Project Funding.
Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the How to Apply - Application Guide.
Other Plan(s):
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Appendix: Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the How to Apply - Application Guide.
When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the How to Apply - Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:
If you answered Yes to the question Are Human Subjects Involved? on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.
Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
Delayed Onset Study
Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start). All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
See Part 2. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov
Part I. contains information about Key Dates and times. 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. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.
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, NIHs 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 and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications.
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 How to Apply – 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 Section 7.9.1 Selected Items of Cost.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the How to Apply - 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 How to Apply – Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.
Important reminders:
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form. 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 NOFO for information on registration requirements.
The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier used in the organizations profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the How to Apply - Application Guide.
See more tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
Use of Common Data Elements in NIH-funded Research
Many NIH ICs encourage the use of common data elements (CDEs) in basic, clinical, and applied research, patient registries, and other human subject research to facilitate broader and more effective use of data and advance research across studies. CDEs are data elements that have been identified and defined for use in multiple data sets across different studies. Use of CDEs can facilitate data sharing and standardization to improve data quality and enable data integration from multiple studies and sources, including electronic health records. NIH ICs have identified CDEs for many clinical domains (e.g., neurological disease), types of studies (e.g. genome-wide association studies (GWAS)), types of outcomes (e.g., patient-reported outcomes), and patient registries (e.g., the Global Rare Diseases Patient Registry and Data Repository). NIH has established a Common Data Element (CDE) Resource Portal" (http://cde.nih.gov/) to assist investigators in identifying NIH-supported CDEs when developing protocols, case report forms, and other instruments for data collection. The Portal provides guidance about and access to NIH-supported CDE initiatives and other tools and resources for the appropriate use of CDEs and data standards in NIH-funded research. Investigators are encouraged to consult the Portal and describe in their applications any use they will make of NIH-supported CDEs in their projects.
Recipients or subrecipients must submit any information related to violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. See Mandatory Disclosures, 2 CFR 200.113 and NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 4.1.35.
Send written disclosures to the NIH Chief Grants Management Officer listed on the Notice of Award for the IC that funded the award and to the HHS Office of Inspector Grant Self Disclosure Program at grantdisclosures@oig.hhs.gov.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials:
A proposed Clinical Trial application may include study design, methods, and intervention that are not by themselves innovative but address important questions or unmet needs. Additionally, the results of the clinical trial may indicate that further clinical development of the intervention is unwarranted or lead to new avenues of scientific investigation.
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.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? 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?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Are the scientific rationale and need for a clinical trial to test the proposed hypothesis or intervention well supported by preliminary data, clinical and/or preclinical studies, or information in the literature or knowledge of biological mechanisms? For trials focusing on clinical or public health endpoints, is this clinical trial necessary for testing the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention that could lead to a change in clinical practice, community behaviors or health care policy? For trials focusing on mechanistic, behavioral, physiological, biochemical, or other biomedical endpoints, is this trial needed to advance scientific understanding?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those 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?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
With regard to the proposed leadership for the project, do the PD/PI(s) and key personnel have the expertise, experience, and ability to organize, manage and implement the proposed clinical trial and meet milestones and timelines? Do they have appropriate expertise in study coordination, data management and statistics? For a multicenter trial, is the organizational structure appropriate and does the application identify a core of potential center investigators and staffing for a coordinating center?
Specific to this NOFO:
If proposed are the AS concept, design and implementation, clearly stated and grounded on the PD(s)/PI(s) training and expertise and track record on implementing clinical studies (whether trial or observational)?
Have the PDs/PIs and key personnel demonstrated the capability to provide substantial scientific expertise that is consistent with and aligns with the objectives of the Consortium?
Do the additional scientific personnel provide unique expertise that is suited to the scientific mission of the T1DAPC? Have the additional scientific personnel demonstrated an ongoing record of scientific accomplishments that are aligned with the T1DAPC scientific objectives?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
With regard to the proposed leadership for the project, do the PD/PI(s) and key personnel have the expertise, experience, and ability to organize, manage and implement the proposed clinical trial and meet milestones and timelines? Do they have appropriate expertise in study coordination, data management and statistics? For a multicenter trial, is the organizational structure appropriate and does the application identify a core of potential center investigators and staffing for a coordinating center?
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?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Does the design/research plan include innovative elements, as appropriate, that enhance its sensitivity, potential for information or potential to advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice?
Specific to this NOFO:
Does the application propose new ways to enhance recruitment and retention of patients in all stages of the studied diseases?
Is the proposed ancillary study novel to this field of research? Does it reinforce and expand the research objectives of the T1DAPC?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials.
Does the design/research plan include innovative elements, as appropriate, that enhance its sensitivity, potential for information or potential to advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? 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? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
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 individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable
Study Design
Is the study design justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that will be clear, informative and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the study based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Given the methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the trial appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the study populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), proposed intervention arms/dose, and duration of the trial, appropriate and well justified?
Are potential ethical issues adequately addressed? Is the process for obtaining informed consent or assent appropriate? Is the eligible population available? Are the plans for recruitment outreach, enrollment, retention, handling dropouts, missed visits, and losses to follow-up appropriate to ensure robust data collection? Are the planned recruitment timelines feasible and is the plan to monitor accrual adequate? Has the need for randomization (or not), masking (if appropriate), controls, and inclusion/exclusion criteria been addressed? Are differences addressed, if applicable, in the intervention effect due to sex/gender and race/ethnicity?
Are the plans to standardize, assure quality of, and monitor adherence to, the trial protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate? Is there a plan to obtain required study agent(s)? Does the application propose to use existing available resources, as applicable?
Data Management and Statistical Analysis
Are planned analyses and statistical approach appropriate for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions? Are the procedures for data management and quality control of data adequate at clinical site(s) or at center laboratories, as applicable? Have the methods for standardization of procedures for data management to assess the effect of the intervention and quality control been addressed? Is there a plan to complete data analysis within the proposed period of the award?
Specific to this NOFO:
Have the PDs/PIs shown how they will work in collaboration with the DCC to implement procedures for uniform data collection, handling and transmittal of data, as well as data audits and other data quality control procedures, as established by the study protocol?
Have the PDs/PIs described their ability to recruit patients, assemble a diverse cohort, procure specimens prospectively, collect epidemiological and clinical data using previously developed Common Data Elements, to contribute to the longitudinal clinical studies planned by the T1DAPC as described in Section IV. Instructions for Application Submission.PHS 398 Research Plan of this NOFO?
Has the applicant described in sufficient detail the number of potential patients eligible for a longitudinal clinical study of T1D in Acute Pancreatitis?
Has the applicant described the barriers that have been encountered or are expected, and proposed solutions to fulfill the recruitment targets, to assemble a diverse cohort, and to retain participants?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials.
Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable?
Study Design
Is the study design justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that will be clear, informative and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the study based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Given the methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the trial appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the study populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), proposed intervention arms/dose, and duration of the trial, appropriate and well justified?
Are potential ethical issues adequately addressed? Is the process for obtaining informed consent or assent appropriate? Is the eligible population available? Are the plans for recruitment outreach, enrollment, retention, handling dropouts, missed visits, and losses to follow-up appropriate to ensure robust data collection? Are the planned recruitment timelines feasible and is the plan to monitor accrual adequate? Has the need for randomization (or not), masking (if appropriate), controls, and inclusion/exclusion criteria been addressed? Are differences addressed, if applicable, in the intervention effect due to sex/gender and race/ethnicity?
Are the plans to standardize, assure quality of, and monitor adherence to, the trial protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate? Is there a plan to obtain required study agent(s)? Does the application propose to use existing available resources, as applicable?
Data Management and Statistical Analysis
Are planned analyses and statistical approach appropriate for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions? Are the procedures for data management and quality control of data adequate at clinical site(s) or at center laboratories, as applicable? Have the methods for standardization of procedures for data management to assess the effect of the intervention and quality control been addressed? Is there a plan to complete data analysis within the proposed period of the award?
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 individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), 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?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
If proposed, are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed?
Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial at the proposed site(s) or centers? Are the plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate?
If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial?
If multi-sites/centers, is there evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to: (1) enroll the proposed numbers; (2) adhere to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and, (4) operate within the proposed organizational structure?
Specific to this NOFO:
Does the PD/PI provide evidence of strong institutional support for the CC, including adequate space in which to conduct clinical and research activities and office space for staff. Institutional resources for patient care and follow-up including personnel, space, and special laboratory facilities to contribute to proposed T1DAPC longitudinal study or to any of the AS they are proposing?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials.
If proposed, are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment, and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed?
Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial at the proposed site(s) or centers? Are the plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate?
If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial?
If multi-sites/centers, is there evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to: (1) enroll the proposed numbers; (2) adhere to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and (4) operate within the proposed organizational structure?
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.
Specific to applications involving clinical trials
Is the study timeline described in detail, taking into account start-up activities, the anticipated rate of enrollment, and planned follow-up assessment? Is the projected timeline feasible and well justified? Does the project incorporate efficiencies and utilize existing resources (e.g., CTSAs, practice-based research networks, electronic medical records, administrative database, or patient registries) to increase the efficiency of participant enrollment and data collection, as appropriate?
Are potential challenges and corresponding solutions discussed (e.g., strategies that can be implemented in the event of enrollment shortfalls)?
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the 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 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.
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 individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) 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.
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following three points: (1) a complete description of all proposed procedures including the species, strains, ages, sex, and total numbers of animals to be used; (2) justifications that the species is appropriate for the proposed research and why the research goals cannot be accomplished using an alternative non-animal model; and (3) interventions including analgesia, anesthesia, sedation, palliative care, and humane endpoints that will be used to limit any unavoidable discomfort, distress, pain and injury in the conduct of scientifically valuable research. Methods of euthanasia and justification for selected methods, if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, is also required but is found in a separate section of the application. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals Section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animals 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.
Not applicable.
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
Not applicable.
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.
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.
NOTE TO OER: Replace the text above with the text below for Applications from Foreign Organizations:
Not Applicable
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).
Reviewers will comment on whether the Resource Sharing Plan(s) (e.g., Sharing Model Organisms) or the rationale for not sharing the resources, is reasonable.
For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.
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 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), 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 will receive a written critique.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this NOFO.
Applications will be assigned to appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this NOFO. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council (NDDKDAC).
. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
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 Section 2.5.1. Just-in-Time Procedures. This request is not a Notice of Award nor should it be construed to be an indicator of possible funding.
Prior to making an award, NIH reviews an applicants federal award history in SAM.gov to ensure sound business practices. An applicant can review and comment on any information in the Responsibility/Qualification records available in SAM.gov. NIH will consider any comments by the applicant in the Responsibility/Qualification records in SAM.gov to ascertain the applicants integrity, business ethics, and performance record of managing Federal awards per 2 CFR Part 200.206 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
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. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.4.4 Disposition of Applications.
A Notice of Award (NoA) is the official authorizing document notifying the applicant that an award has been made and that funds may be requested from the designated HHS payment system or office. The NoA is signed by the Grants Management Officer and emailed to the recipients business official.
In accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.
Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions. Any pre-award costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the applicant's own risk. For more information on the Notice of Award, please refer to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 5. The Notice of Award and NIH Grants & Funding website, see Award Process.
Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the NIH and are subject to the IC-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA.
ClinicalTrials.gov: If an award provides for one or more clinical trials. By law (Title VIII, Section 801 of Public Law 110-85), the "responsible party" must register and submit results information for certain applicable clinical trials on the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System Information Website (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov). NIH expects registration and results reporting of all trials whether required under the law or not. For more information, see https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/index.htm
Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.
Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials) to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of the data. Further information concerning these requirements is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/data_safety.htm and in the application instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).
Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption Requirements: Consistent with federal regulations, clinical research projects involving the use of investigational therapeutics, vaccines, or other medical interventions (including licensed products and devices for a purpose other than that for which they were licensed) in humans under a research protocol must be performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE).
The following Federal wide and HHS-specific policy requirements apply to awards funded through NIH:
All federal statutes and regulations relevant to federal financial assistance, including those highlighted in NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 4 Public Policy Requirements, Objectives and Other Appropriation Mandates.
Recipients are responsible for ensuring that their activities comply with all applicable federal regulations. NIH may terminate awards under certain circumstances. See 2 CFR Part 200.340 Termination and NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 8.5.2 Remedies for Noncompliance or Enforcement Actions: Suspension, Termination, and Withholding of Support.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AWARDS
RESEARCH PROJECT APPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL TRIALS, CLINICAL STUDIES, PREVENTION AND CONTROL INTERVENTIONS, AND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES
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 (HHS) grant administration regulations at 2 CFR Part 200, 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 recipients 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 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 recipients for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the recipients and NIH as defined below.
The Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(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). Recipient(s) will name investigators to serve as members on a Steering Committee and other subcommittees, as appropriate, meeting periodically. Recipients will be required to accept and implement the common protocol(s) and procedures approved by the Steering Committee.
3. Designating Protocol Chairs. The Program Directors/Principal Investigators (for studies involving multiple protocols) shall designate a single Protocol Chairperson (if the Program Director/Principal Investigator does not assume this role) for each protocol to be carried out by the study group. The Protocol Chairperson shall function as the scientific coordinator for the protocol and shall assume responsibility for obtaining approval to implement the protocol from the Steering Committee and for developing and monitoring the protocol. Significant modifications to approved protocols must be approved by the Steering Committee.
4. Implementing collection of data specified by the study protocol. For a multi-center study, each recipient/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.
5. Establishing procedures for data quality, completeness, and security. Recipients 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 sites, a plan for analysis of pooled data will be developed by the Steering Committee.
6. Submitting interim progress reports, when requested or agreed upon by both parties, 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 clinical sites. Such reports are in addition to the required annual noncompeting continuation progress report.
7. Reporting of the study findings. Recipients will retain custody of and have primary rights to the data and software developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current DHHS, PHS, and NIH policies. The recipient 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 recipients consistent with NIH policies and network/consortium policies.
8. Any third-party collaboration (including but not limited to interactions with organizations from industry, academia, and nonprofit institutions) should be governed by a research collaboration agreement (e.g., Clinical Trial Agreement, Research Collaborative Agreement, etc.) or any third-party contract mechanism(s) with terms that ensure the collaboration is conducted in accordance with the Cooperative Agreement, applicable NIH/NIDDK policies and procedures, and network/consortium policies, and with written approval from NIDDK Program staff. Any relevant proposed third-party agreements related to the network/consortium studies between grantee and third-party will be provided to the NIDDK Program staff and NIDDK Technology Advancement Office for review, comment, and approval to assure compliance with NIH/NIDDK policies and network/consortium policies. Further, at the request of the NIDDK Program staff, any other network/consortium-relevant third-party agreements must be shared with NIDDK. Failure to comply with this term may prompt action in accordance with NIH Grants Policy Statement, Section 8.5 titled: Special Award Conditions and Remedies for Noncompliance (Special Award Conditions and Enforcement Actions), and Section 8.5.2, titled: Remedies for Noncompliance or Enforcement Actions: Suspension, Termination, and Withholding Support, noncompliance with the terms and conditions of award will be considered by the funding IC for future funding and support decisions and may result in termination of the award.
9. Any involvement of a third-party (including but not limited to industry, academia, and nonprofit institutions) in the study and network/consortium activities that includes access to any network/consortium generated resources (i.e., data and bio-samples), or study results that are not publicly available, or using the name of the network/consortium or study or the name of the NIH or NIDDK, is permitted only after written permission by the NIDDK Program staff who will consult with others at NIH and NIDDK Technology Advancement Office.
10. Maintaining confidentiality of information: The recipient(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 an individual company or other entity collaborating with the study or network/consortium. Any exception requires written approval from NIDDK Program staff.
11. Data Management and Sharing Plan: In accordance with the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing (NIH NOT-OD-21-013), the NIDDK approved plan will become a term and condition of award, be routinely monitored during the award period, and compliance may factor into future funding decisions. By the end of the funding or proprietary period, a recipient or study group may not continue to exclusively use or share study generated resources until those resources are available to the public via a NIDDK approved repository per the NIDDK approved plan. The NIDDK has established a Central Repository to support the receipt, storage, and distribution of data, bio-samples, and other resources generated in clinical studies funded by the NIH/NIDDK. When the NIDDK Central Repository is to be utilized, prior to enrolling participants, the PI or his/her designee will coordinate with the NIDDK Program and Central Repository staff to prepare for eventual archiving and distribution of the study generated resources that are to be maintained in the Central Repository. These resources will be available to the wider scientific community in accordance with the NIH Data Management and Sharing policy (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/ and, https://grants.nih.gov/policy/sharing.htm, and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_faqs.htm), per the NIDDK approved data management and sharing plan. 12. Study investigators are required to publish and to release publicly and disseminate results and other products of the study, in accordance with study protocols, Steering Committee policies on publications, and the NIDDK approved Data Management and Sharing Plan.
13. Study investigators are required to comply with NIH Policy on the Dissemination of NIH Funded Clinical Trial Information as stated at https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/understanding/nih-policy.htm. Per policy, the recipient is responsible for meeting the expectations of this policy. Refer to additional information at https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/index.htm.
NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
An NIDDK Project Scientist/Project Coordinator with substantial involvement will:
1. Serve as the contact point for all facets of the scientific interaction with the recipient (s). As required for the coordination of activities and to expedite progress, NIDDK may designate additional NIDDK staff to provide advice to the recipient on specific scientific and/or analytic issues. Such staff may include another Project Scientist or Project Coordinator, who will provide direct technical assistance to the recipients 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, participate in the Steering Committee that oversees study conduct. The NIDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator will be a full participant and voting member of the Steering Committee and, if applicable, subcommittees.
3. Serve 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. Have substantial involvement assisting in the design and coordination of research activities for recipients 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 NIDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator may coordinate activities among recipients 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 performance monitoring.
d. The NIDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator 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) participation in analysis and interpretation of study results and (d) preparation and authorship of pertinent manuscripts.
The NIDDK Program Official will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and identified in the Notice of Award. The Program Official will:
1. Interact with the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) on a regular basis to monitor study progress. Monitoring may include: regular communications with the Program Director/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 and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB), and related meetings. The NIDDK retains, as an option, periodic review of progress by researchers not involved with the study.
2. Review and approve 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; (f) low likelihood of showing a benefit of the intervention (futility); and (g) 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. Make 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. Appoint an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) as appropriate for Phase III clinical trials or other high-risk studies, or an Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB) for observational/epidemiologic studies; these Boards will review study progress, safety data, and interim results, as appropriate, and provide guidance to the NIDDK. The NIDDK Program Official or their Project Scientist or Project Coordinator will serve as the Executive Secretary and/or NIDDK program representative on the DSMB/OSMB.
Areas of Joint Responsibility include:
In addition to the interactions defined above, NIDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator and Recipients shall share responsibility for the following activities:
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 recipients, 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 Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s), (including those of data coordinating /statistical centers, if any) and co-investigators as deemed necessary, and the NIDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator. The final structure of the Steering Committee and voting procedures will be established at the first meeting. The NIDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator 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. The NIDDK Program Official may serve as a non-voting member on the Steering Committee.
A Chairperson of the Steering Committee will be selected and voted on by the Steering Committee members. The Chairperson provides leadership to the Committee by conducting the Steering Committee meetings and by interacting closely with the recipients during protocol development and implementation. The NIDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator may not serve as Chairperson. The NIDDK Program Official will review the Committees selection for potential bias, conflicts of interest, or lack of required expertise. If the Program Official has concerns regarding selection of the Chairperson which are not satisfactorily resolved, the Program Official may withhold concurrence if approved by the Director, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDDK based on written justification. In cases where Program Official concurrence is withheld, the Steering Committee will be required to make another selection.
External Consultants:
An independent panel of External Consultants may be established by the Steering Committee. The External Consultants may periodically review interim progress of the project(s) and provide reports to the Steering Committee. Members of the panel of External Consultants may be asked, on an ad hoc basis, to participate in the peer review of applications for new research initiatives that utilize special opportunity pool funds. The NIDDK Program Official will review the Committees selections for potential bias, conflicts of interest, or lack of required expertise. If the NIDDK Program Official has concerns regarding selection of one or more External Consultants which are not satisfactorily resolved, the NIDDK Program Official may withhold concurrence if approved by the Director of NIDDK Division of Extramural Activities based on written justification. In cases where NIDDK Program Official concurrence is withheld, the Steering Committee will be required to make another selection.
Dispute Resolution:
Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between recipients and NIH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened: 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 individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual recipient. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the recipient's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and HHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16.
Consistent with the 2023 NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.
When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 8.4.1 Reporting. To learn more about post-award monitoring and reporting, see the NIH Grants & Funding website, see Post-Award Monitoring and Reporting.
A final RPPR, 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 Section 8.6 Closeout. NIH NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 2 CFR Part 200.301.
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, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)
Finding Help Online: https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-480-7075
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: support@grants.gov
Aynur Unalp-Arida, M.D., Ph.D.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-8879
Email: aynur.unalp-arida@nih.gov
Paul A. Rushing, Ph.D.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Telephone: 301-594-8895
Email: rushingp@mail.nih.gov
Eunica Haynes
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-827-4018
Email: haynese@mail.nih.gov
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 2 CFR Part 200.
This NOFO is supported under the authority of P.L. 116-59, Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019; Section 1102. Diabetes Programs.