Department of Health and Human Services

Part 1. Overview Information

Participating Organization(s)

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Components of Participating Organizations

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)

Funding Opportunity Title
NIDDK High Risk Multi-Center Clinical Study Implementation Planning Cooperative Agreements (U34 Clinical Trial Optional)
Activity Code

U34 Planning Cooperative Agreement

Announcement Type
Reissue of PAR-21-101
Related Notices

    See Notices of Special Interest associated with this funding opportunity

  • August 31, 2022 - Implementation Changes for Genomic Data Sharing Plans Included with Applications Due on or after January 25, 2023. See Notice NOT-OD-22-198.
  • August 5, 2022 - Implementation Details for the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy. See Notice NOT-OD-22-189.
  • December 23, 2020 - NIDDK Investigator-Initiated Multi-Center Clinical Studies – Revised Guidance. See Notice NOT-DK-20-051.
Funding Opportunity Number (FON)
PAR-24-094
Companion Funding Opportunity
PAR-24-102 , U01 Research Project (Cooperative Agreements)
PAR-24-103 , U01 Research Project (Cooperative Agreements)
Assistance Listing Number(s)
93.847
Funding Opportunity Purpose

NIDDK supports investigator-initiated, high-risk multi-center (more than one center) clinical studies through a two-part process that may include an implementation planning cooperative agreement (U34). The U34 is designed to: 1) Permit early peer review of the rationale for the proposed clinical study; 2) Permit assessment of the design and protocol of the proposed study; 3) Provide support for the development of documents needed for the conduct of the study, including a manual of operations; and 4) Support the development of other essential elements required for the conduct of the clinical study. The proposed clinical study should be hypothesis-driven and focus on a disease in the mission of NIDDK. Consultation with NIDDK scientific staff is strongly encouraged prior to the submission of the U34 application.

This NOFO requires a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), which will be assessed as part of the scientific and technical peer review evaluation.  Applications that fail to include a PEDP will be considered incomplete and will be withdrawn.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to read the FOA instructions carefully and view the available PEDP guidance material.

Key Dates

Posted Date
January 04, 2024
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date)
September 09, 2024
Letter of Intent Due Date(s)
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
October 09, 2024 October 09, 2024 Not Applicable March 2025 May 2025 July 2025
June 10, 2025 June 10, 2025 Not Applicable November 2025 January 2026 April 2026
February 11, 2026 February 11, 2026 Not Applicable July 2026 October 2026 December 2026
October 08, 2026 October 08, 2026 Not Applicable March 2027 May 2027 July 2027
June 10, 2027 June 10, 2027 Not Applicable November 2027 January 2028 April 2028

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.

Expiration Date
June 11, 2027
Due Dates for E.O. 12372

Not Applicable

Required Application Instructions

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 Application Guide and the NOFO) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.

Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

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.

  1. Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
  2. Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.

  3. Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.


  4. Table of Contents

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section I. Notice of Funding Opportunity Description

NIDDK supports investigator-initiated, high-risk multi-center (more than one center) clinical studies through a two-part process that may include an implementation planning cooperative agreement (U34). The U34 is designed to: 1) Permit early peer review of the rationale for the proposed clinical study; 2) Permit assessment of the design and protocol of the proposed study; 3) Provide support for the development of documents needed for the conduct of the study, including a manual of operations; and 4) Support the development of other essential elements required for the conduct of the clinical study. The proposed clinical study should be hypothesis-driven and focus on a disease in the mission of NIDDK. Consultation with NIDDK scientific staff is strongly encouraged prior to the submission of the U34 application.

Definition of Risk

As explained in NOT-DK-20-051, the risk level of a study may be related to interventional and/or operational risk. The examples below provide general guidelines for risk assessment and are not exhaustive. Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to contact NIDDK staff to discuss their proposed study and determine the most appropriate mechanism for submitting their application.

Examples of high-risk interventions include:

  • An intervention that has an unknown safety profile or has substantial side effects (including all studies requiring an IND/IDE application). This would include studies of a drug in a new population, or study of a licensed product for an unapproved indication;
  • A complex or invasive intervention, including diagnostic procedures;
  • A study involving complex assessment of multiple outcomes, including the ascertainment of outcomes using invasive research procedures;
  • Pragmatic trials proposing significant changes to standard of care practices, or significant coordination with multiple care providers and healthcare data systems;
  • A multi-center study involving more than minimal risk in vulnerable study populations (as defined in 45 CFR 46).

Studies that do not meet the above criteria will generally be considered to involve low-risk interventions. Low-risk multi-center studies usually include the administration/use of a licensed product for an approved indication, or the provision of a routine intervention that could be used in the setting in which it is being studied (e.g., a lifestyle intervention to promote weight loss).

Examples of multi-center studies with high operational risk include:

  • An inexperienced investigator, defined by lack of experience in conducting clinical trials, coordinating research across multiple centers, or recruiting the population to be studied;
  • A complex study design that involves standardization of research measures and outcomes collection and research data capture over multiple centers;
  • A study that involves the establishment of agreements with third parties that intend to utilize research study data to support regulatory filings with the FDA.

Multi-center studies that do not meet the above criteria will generally be considered to have low operational risk.

A multi-center study is classified as “high risk” if it utilizes either a high-risk intervention or has high operational risk, or both.

Background

Extensive administrative planning (e.g., manual of operations development) is required before participant recruitment can occur in a multi-center clinical study. Investigators considering submission of an investigator-initiated research grant application for a high-risk multi-center clinical study will generally not have the resources to complete this rigorous planning and documentation process without support from NIDDK. NIDDK believes that a two-part cooperative agreement process that separates administrative implementation from participant recruitment and study conduct will remedy these issues. Therefore, NIDDK will support investigator-initiated, high-risk multi-center clinical studies being conducted at more than one center through a two-part process:1) An implementation planning phase, followed by 2) A multi-center cooperative agreement (U01) to conduct the study. This NOFO TEMP24336, NIDDK Multi-Center Clinical Study Implementation Planning Cooperative Agreements (U34), addresses a U34 application to support the planning phase; companion NOFOs (for clinical trials TEMP24338 and for observational studies TEMP24339) address the second part of the application process. NOT-DK-20-051 Discusses the process and explains high risk versus low risk studies.

The U34 is a cooperative agreement award mechanism, with the NIH staff being substantially involved as a partner with the Principal Investigator/Program Director. The U34 is designed to provide early peer review of the rationale and design of the proposed clinical study and to support all administrative study group activities that are required in order to begin recruitment of participants. These activities include, but are not limited to: establishing the research team, developing the tools for data management and oversight of the research, defining the recruitment strategies, finalizing the protocol and investigators brochure, writing the Manual of Operations, establishing a data and safety monitoring plan, and initiating the IRB approval process. The U34 is not designed for the collection of preliminary data, for the conduct of pilot studies to support the rationale for a clinical study, or for the design of the study. The U34 application will include the proposed study design and the protocol.

Many of the diseases or conditions within the mission of NIDDK disproportionately affect individuals from minoritized and underserved communities. NIDDK encourages research focusing on such populations, including individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups, rural populations, sexual and gender minority groups and other socioeconomically disadvantaged and medically underserved communities. NIDDK places a high priority on clinical studies to understand and eliminate health disparities and promote health equity.

NIDDK is committed to conducting clinical studies that have been developed in partnership with patients, community members, families, healthcare providers, organizations, and other relevant partners who are affected by or have a direct interest in the research (Pathways to Health for All: Health Disparities & Health Equity Research Recommendations & Opportunities - NIDDK (nih.gov)). Active and meaningful engagement should involve these individuals and/or organizations in the development, design, and execution of the study, as well as in dissemination of findings. Meaningful engagement must entail more than focus groups, surveys or other activities where people are only involved as participants or respondents. Rather, engagement approaches must involve bidirectional and sustained communication and interactions that result in informed decision-making about high-priority research needs and issues that are important to affected individuals, community members, and/or organizations, especially populations who disproportionately experience NIDDK mission diseases. Engagement activities that bring to bear the expertise and lived experience of affected individuals and diverse communities may yield interventional, recruitment and retention approaches that are more likely to be acceptable and effective, and less likely to cause harm. Engagement that involves trust building and repairing when needed, and use of culturally appropriate research approaches (i.e., identifying the health problem, design, and materials) is an important method to enhance and assess research outcomes including recruitment and retention goals, specific health outcomes, and sustainability of efficacious interventions. Ideally, affected individuals, groups, and organizations are not only “engaged,” but integrated equitably into the research team which includes appropriate orientation and on boarding support to the team, and compensation. Since the complete study design and protocol must be included in the U34 application, it is expected that investigators will have substantially engaged appropriate partners prior to the U34 submission. However, the U34 period may be used to continue engagement activities and make refinements to the study protocol, as appropriate.

This NOFO will only support research within the mission of NIDDK. Research applications in areas that are primarily within the missions of other NIH Institutes and Centers are not appropriate for this NOFO and will not be supported. NIDDK has many diseases within its mission, but all research related to relevant diseases may not be appropriate for NIDDK. Applicants to this NOFO are strongly encouraged to contact NIDDK staff as soon as possible in the development of the application, so that NIDDK staff can help the applicant understand whether the proposed clinical study is within the goals and mission of the Institute and is appropriate for this NOFO. You should contact the Program Director responsible for your area of research. If you are not certain whom to contact, you should reach out to the Program Director representing the appropriate scientific division, listed in Section VII (Agency Contacts), and you will be directed to the correct Program Director.

For the purpose of this NOFO, a clinical research center may encompass one or more physical locations where the clinical study is being conducted -- i.e., where study participants are recruited, and/or are intervened upon and/or have outcomes assessed under a single protocol – as long as all locations are under the overall direction of a single investigator. A data coordinating center is not considered a clinical research center.

Scope

The activities required in the U34 will depend on the type of study (e.g., epidemiologic study, drug/device/biologics trial, behavior intervention). Because the purpose of the U34 is primarily for the conduct of administrative tasks needed to prepare for participant recruitment, activities involving human subjects will generally not be conducted during the U34 phase; however, brief activities involving interactions with individuals similar to those expected to participate in the full study during the U01 award may be allowed in order to aid in development of study procedures or operations (e.g., assessing usability of a form, device calibration, workflow optimization). As noted above, the U34 period may also include engagement activities. Activities supported by the U34 include, but are not limited to:

  • Finalize the study protocol.
  • Develop consent form(s) and, if applicable, assent form(s).
  • Develop an investigators brochure or equivalent.
  • Develop a manual of operations including details, validation, and quality control for any non-standard clinical or laboratory/mechanistic testing which will be performed.
  • Develop the data monitoring and management plan.
  • Develop a plan for the acquisition and administration of study agent(s) or device(s).
  • Obtain required Office of Human Research Protections assurances if not already in place.
  • Develop a complete set of suitable documents for submission to the appropriate regulatory authorities.
  • Develop a safety oversight plan. During the U34 award, NIDDK will appoint a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for clinical trials or an Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB) for epidemiological studies.
  • Finalize a detailed budget for conduct and completion of the clinical study, including funding for preparation of a final study report.
  • Identify clinical study site(s) and service cores.
  • Develop training materials and training/certification plans for study staff.
  • Initiate the IRB approval process.
  • Satisfy all regulatory elements of the Food and Drug Administration if an IND/IDE is needed for implementation of the research plan.
  • Negotiate agreements with industry, as needed, to provide drugs, devices, or other resources.
  • Hold discussions regarding archiving of data, samples and other project-generated resources in the NIDDK Central Repository or other NIDDK-approved repository. The NIDDK has established Central Biosample, Genetic, and Data Repositories for the archiving and storage of data and biosamples collected in large, multi-site studies funded by NIDDK. The investigator(s) should be prepared to transfer data and samples to the Repository. 

This NOFO is not designed for the collection of preliminary data to support the rationale for or the design of the proposed clinical study. The application must include the proposed study design and a full protocol.

Consultation with NIDDK program staff as soon as possible and at least 12 weeks prior to the application due date is strongly encouraged. If requested, NIDDK staff will consider whether the proposed clinical study meets the goals and mission of the Institute, whether it addresses one or more high priority research areas and meets programmatic needs including balance across research areas, whether it is appropriate to conduct as an investigator-initiated clinical study, and whether appropriate funds might be available for the subsequent, full clinical study (U01). NIDDK Scientific/Research staff will not evaluate the technical and scientific merit of the proposed study; technical and scientific merit will be determined during peer review using the review criteria indicated in this NOFO. During the consultation phase, if the proposed study does not meet NIDDK's programmatic needs or is not appropriate as an investigator-initiated clinical study, applicants will be strongly encouraged to consider other Funding Opportunities. If NIDDK ascertains that substantial additional preliminary data or planning may be necessary, the applicant will be encouraged to consider applying for funding under the appropriate NOFO.

The overall goal of the U34 funding period is to complete all administrative tasks required before recruitment of participants can begin. In the event of an award, the NIDDK and the PD/PI will agree on a list of milestones to be completed during the U34 project period. Successful completion of the U34 will generally result in an application to conduct the clinical study. It is expected that receipt of a U34 will lead to the timely submission of a U01 application for support of the full-scale study, incorporating the elements developed under the planning cooperative agreement. During the U34 award, NIDDK may appoint an external monitoring board to review the study design and make recommendations to NIDDK concerning the proposed study, including the study design. Discussions about whether the study should be conducted will include consideration of the following factors: attainment of pre-specified milestones, the external board recommendations, scientific landscape, study costs, opportunity cost, and availability of funds. Award of a U34 does not guarantee acceptance or funding of a U01 application.

Further information regarding the U34/U01 process supported by these companion NOFOs, including a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) can be found at: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/human-subjects-research.

Applications Not Responsive to the NOFO

Research applications in areas that are primarily within the missions of other NIH Institutes and Centers are not responsive to this NOFO. Further information about the NIDDK mission, including areas not covered by NIDDK, is available here.

Low-risk clinical study applications (see NOT-DK-20-051) are not responsive to this NOFO. Low-risk clinical trial applications may be submitted to PA-20-183 or PA-20-184. Applications for low-risk observational studies may be submitted to the PA-20-185.

Applications involving animal or in vitro studies are not responsive to this NOFO.

Recruitment of participants exclusively from foreign sites is not allowed under this NOFO. Foreign components may provide scientific input (e.g., special data analyses or laboratory assays).

Non-responsive applications will not be reviewed and will be withdrawn from consideration.

Applicants are reminded of the NIH policy on the use of a single Institutional Review Board for multi-site research (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-076.html), as well as the NIH policy on the registration and reporting of the results of clinical trials (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-149.html).

Applicants are also encouraged to review NIDDK policies for clinical research and cooperative agreements here: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/human-subjects-research/policies-clinical-researchers.

Design, Analysis, and Sample Size for Studies to Evaluate Group-Based Interventions: Investigators who wish to evaluate the effect of an intervention on a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome may propose a study in which (1) groups or clusters are assigned to study arms and individual observations are analyzed to evaluate the effect of the intervention, or (2) participants are assigned individually to study arms but receive at least some of their intervention in a real or virtual group or through a shared facilitator. Such studies may propose a parallel group- or cluster-randomized trial, an individually randomized group-treatment trial, a stepped-wedge design, or a quasi-experimental version of one of these designs. In these studies, special methods may be warranted for analysis and sample size estimation. Applicants should show that their methods are appropriate given their plans for assignment of participants and delivery of interventions. Additional information is available at https://researchmethodsresources.nih.gov/.

Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP)

This NOFO requires a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) as described in NOT-MH-21-310, submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment (see Section IV). Applicants are strongly encouraged to read the NOFO instructions carefully and view the available PEDP guidance material at https://braininitiative.nih.gov/about/plan-enhancing-diverse-perspectives-pedp. The PEDP will be assessed as part of the scientific and technical peer review evaluation, as well as considered among programmatic matters with respect to funding decisions.

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.

Section II. Award Information

Funding Instrument

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.

Application Types Allowed
New
Resubmission

The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this NOFO.

Clinical Trial?

Optional: Accepting applications that either propose or do not propose clinical trial(s).

Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

Award Budget

Budgets for direct costs of up to $225,000 per year are allowed. The funds requested are expected to vary based on the number of clinical centers involved in the study and the complexity of the study.

Award Project Period

The maximum project period is 2 years.

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

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

Eligible Organizations

Higher Education Institutions

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

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

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

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

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

For-Profit Organizations

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

Local Governments

  • State Governments
  • County Governments
  • City or Township Governments
  • Special District Governments
  • Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)
  • Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)

Federal Governments

  • Eligible Agencies of the Federal Government
  • U.S. Territory or Possession

Other

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

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. 

Required Registrations

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. 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

  • System for Award Management (SAM) – Applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually. The renewal process may require as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a CAGE Code.
    • NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code – Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
    • Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) - A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. The same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
  • eRA Commons - Once the unique organization identifier is established, organizations can register with eRA Commons in tandem with completing their Grants.gov registrations; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
  • Grants.gov – Applicants must have an active SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

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

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

Eligible Individuals (Program Director/Principal Investigator)

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 SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

2. Cost Sharing

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.

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

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

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application. This means that the NIH will not accept:

  • A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
  • A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
  • An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see NIH Grants Policy Statement 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications).

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Requesting an Application Package

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.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

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 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:

  • Descriptive title of proposed activity
  • Name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
  • Names of other key personnel
  • Participating institution(s)
  • Number and title of this funding opportunity

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

Page Limitations

All page limitations described in the How to Apply – Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

Instructions for Application Submission

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.

SF424(R&R) Cover

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

SF424(R&R) Project/Performance Site Locations

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

SF424(R&R) Other Project Information

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

Milestone Plan: The filename "Milestone Plan.pdf" must be used for this attachment.

Applicants are required to provide detailed interim performance measures and timelines for completing key objectives and administrative functions for the proposed clinical trial(s), as applicable. Milestones should be easily measurable and realistic. Below is a list of potentially useful milestones; please tailor this list to each of your clinical trial aims and provide approximate dates or project year and quarters (e.g., Yr01/Q1, Yr01/Q2, Yr01/Q3, etc.) when each will be conducted/completed:

  • Completion of all required regulatory approvals (e.g., IND/IDE from the FDA or agencies in other countries).
  • Finalize contracts/third party agreements.
  • Finalize clinical protocol(s).
  • Finalize consent forms.
  • Finalize recruitment materials, surveys and data collection tools.
  • DSMB approval.
  • IRB approval.
  • Finalize data entry forms/system.
  • Finalize training manuals and manuals of operations.
  • Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and other relevant technical training of study staff.
  • Training of staff on study protocol and procedures.
  • Registration of clinical trial in ClinicalTrials.gov.
  • Anticipated dates of:
    • Enrollment of the first participant
    • Enrollment of 25% of the target sample size
    • Enrollment of 50% of the target sample size
    • Enrollment of 75% of the target sample size
    • Enrollment of 100% of the target sample size
  • Posting of consent forms on ClinicalTrials.gov.
  • Completion of intervention (i.e., date of last intervention visit).
  • Completion of data collection (i.e., date of last study visit).
  • Completion of primary endpoint and secondary endpoint data analyses.
  • Completion of primary outcome paper.
  • Closeout plans/communication of results to participants.
  • Reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov.

These milestones will be negotiated at the time of the award, as appropriate. Future year support is contingent on satisfactory achievement of performance milestones. If milestones are not achieved fully, NIDDK may request development of a remedial plan and more frequent monitoring of progress, or take other remedial actions.

The Milestone plan is a separate document from the Study Timeline.

Applications that lack the Milestone Plan are considered incomplete and will not be peer reviewed. 

Organization Plan: The filename "Organization Plan.pdf" should be used.

The application must describe how the study will be organized and managed, both for the planning period and for the full study. This should include information on the leadership of the study, the proposed clinical sites and the ability of the PD/PI to bring together the necessary study network. Describe the process for identification and selection of additional collaborators that will be added during the U34 period, if applicable. The PD/PI should discuss in detail whether he/she, as well as other key members of the team, have experience in the conduct and administration of complex studies, including delineation of the success of those studies in terms of recruitment, retention and publications.

Provide a description of the study organization and administration, including, but not limited to: a description of committee structures needed to manage the complexity of the study, including plans to assure fidelity to the protocol and integrity of the data; the role of any internal or external advisory committees; the oversight, responsibilities, and coordination of any sites or cores proposed. If an advisory committee is planned, applicants should not contact or name potential advisory committee members.

A succession plan should be included to address a circumstance in which the PI/PD or one of the MPI are no longer available.

Applications that lack the Organization Plan are considered incomplete and will not be peer reviewed.

Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP)

In an "Other Attachment" entitled "Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives," all applicants must include a summary of strategies to advance the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project through expanded inclusivity. The PEDP should provide a holistic and integrated view of how enhancing diverse perspectives is viewed and supported throughout the application and can incorporate elements with relevance to any review criteria (significance, investigator(s), innovation, approach, and environment) as appropriate. Where possible, applicant(s) should align their description with these required elements within the research strategy section. The PEDP will vary depending on the scientific aims, expertise required, the environment and performance site(s), as well as how the project aims are structured. The PEDP may be no more than 1-page in length and should include a timeline and milestones for relevant components that will be considered as part of the review. Examples of items that advance inclusivity in research and may be part of the PEDP can include, but are not limited to:

  • Discussion of engagement with different types of institutions and organizations (e.g., research-intensive, undergraduate-focused, minority-serving, community-based).
  • Description of any planned partnerships that may enhance geographic and regional diversity.
  • Plan to enhance recruiting of women and individuals from groups historically  under-represented in the biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research workforce.
  • Proposed monitoring activities to identify and measure PEDP progress benchmarks.
  • Plan to utilize the project infrastructure (i.e., research and structure) to support career-enhancing research opportunities for diverse junior, early- and mid-career researchers.
  • Description of any training and/or mentoring opportunities available to encourage participation of students, postdoctoral researchers, and co-investigators from diverse backgrounds.
  • Plan to develop transdisciplinary collaboration(s) that require unique expertise and/or solicit diverse perspectives to address research question(s).
  • Publication plan that enumerates planned manuscripts and proposed lead authorship.
  • Outreach and planned engagement activities to enhance recruitment of individuals from diverse groups as research participants including those from under-represented backgrounds.

For further information on the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), please see https://braininitiative.nih.gov/about/plan-enhancing-diverse-perspectives-pedp

SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile

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

R&R or Modular Budget

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

Applicants may include allowable costs associated with PEDP implementation (as outlined in the Grants Policy Statement section 7: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/html5/section_7/7.1_general.htm).

R&R Subaward Budget

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

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement

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

PHS 398 Research Plan

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

Specific Aims: This section must delineate the aims for both the U34 planning period and for the full study. The primary and major secondary endpoints for the proposed full study should be specified.

Research Strategy: This section must address both the planning period and the full study.

  • The investigator must describe how the planning period will be used and what activities will be conducted.
  • The applicant must clearly articulate the significance of the proposed study including why the clinical study is needed and what evidence gap the study will address, including a discussion of how the results will impact clinical care or public health.
  • Preliminary data addressing the need for and supporting the feasibility of the study must be discussed. The discussion of supporting data that provide the basis for the study's design must address the adequacy and quality of previous studies.
  • The application must include a detailed description for the study design, addressing the scientific rationale for the design chosen, the population to be studied and the outcomes being assessed.
  • Sufficient details of the study design must be provided to permit assessment of the scientific importance of the study, the validity of the design and the feasibility of the study. Critical elements include overall design, primary objective, inclusion and exclusion criteria, proposed study population, and sample size. The primary endpoint and key secondary outcomes should be delineated. The proposed timeline for recruitment, follow-up and study close-out should be documented.
  • The statistical methods, including the assumptions made for power calculations for the full study, must be described. The sample size and statistical power calculations must contain enough detail so that a reviewer can readily duplicate the analysis. The power analysis should include a discussion of the anticipated level of adherence to the intervention and rates of follow-up (i.e., drop out/lost to follow up) during key outcome collection contacts.
  • There must be a description of all completed, ongoing and planned engagement efforts. 

Letters of Support: A letter of support must be provided from all clinical centers, reading centers, central laboratories of other central cores or required study components. If co-funding or in-kind support is planned from non-NIH sources, letter(s) outlining details of the commitment (e.g., type, amount and source of support), signed by a business official on organization letterhead, must be included in the Letters of Support section. Letters of support should also be provided from individuals or organizations that have been or will be involved in engagement efforts.

Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

 

Other Plan(s): Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Management and Sharing Plan will be attached in the Other Plan(s) attachment in FORMS-H application forms packages.

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

All applicants planning research (funded or conducted in whole or in part by NIH) that results in the generation of scientific data are required to comply with the instructions for the Data Management and Sharing Plan. All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, must address a Data Management and Sharing Plan.

The NIDDK has established Central  Repositories for the archiving and storage of data and biosamples collected in large, multi-site studies funded by NIDDK. The investigator(s) should be prepared to transfer all data, samples and other project-generated resources to the NIDDK Central Repository or other NIDDK-approved repository, if a U01 is awarded.

Appendix: Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

The Protocol for the full study must be submitted as part of the Appendix.

Applications that lack the Study Protocol are considered incomplete and will not be peer reviewed.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

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 SF424 (R&R) 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 SF424 (R&R) 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 SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

PHS Assignment Request Form

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

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

See Part 1. 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

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I. Overview Information 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, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date 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.

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

6. Funding Restrictions

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.

7. Other Submission Requirements and Information

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

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

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit 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 organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

Applications must include annual milestones. Applications that fail to include annual milestones will be considered incomplete and will be withdrawn. 

Applications must include a PEDP submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment. Applications that fail to include a PEDP will be considered incomplete and will be withdrawn before review.

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

Post Submission Materials

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy

Section V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

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.

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.

Overall Impact

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).

Scored Review Criteria

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, as well as observational studies

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?

Specific to this NOFO:

To what extent do the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives further the significance of the project? 

 

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, as well as observational studies

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:

To what extent will the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives strengthen and enhance the expertise required for the project? 

 

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, as well as observational studies

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:

To what extent will the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives meaningfully contribute to innovation? 

 

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, as well as observational studies

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:

For the planning period: Are the activities proposed for the planning period adequate? Will the activities proposed be sufficient to allow for timely and successful study implementation? Will the proposed planning activities address all major barriers to the future clinical study or trial? Is there an appropriate and feasible timeline for all planning activities and are clear milestones presented?

How meaningful is the plan to engage all appropriate relevant partners, community members or organizations who are likely to be affected by or involved in the proposed trial? How likely is it that the plans proposed will sustain meaningful engagement throughout the research process and advance inclusivity in alignment with research goals (e.g., bidirectional discussion needed to inform trial activities, dissemination of research findings, and action)? 

Are the timeline and milestones associated with the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives well-developed and feasible? 

 

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, as well as observational studies

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:

To what extent will features of the environment described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (e.g., collaborative arrangements, geographic diversity, institutional support) contribute to the success of the project?

Additional Review Criteria

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

Milestones

Specific to this NOFO: Are the proposed milestones appropriate for the study? Will they allow meaningful tracking of study performance and are they feasible for the work proposed?
 

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 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.

 

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

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

Additional Review Considerations

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.

 

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.

2. Review and Selection Process

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by 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.

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

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

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

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

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.

Section VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices

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.

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

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

Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. 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 NOFO will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.  This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.

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).

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

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: Generaland Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities, including of note, but not limited to:

If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, 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.

If a recipient receives an award, the recipient must follow all applicable nondiscrimination laws. The recipient agrees to this when registering in SAM.gov. The recipient must also submit an Assurance of Compliance (HHS-690). To learn more, see the HHS Office for Civil Rights website.

HHS recognizes that NIH research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this NOFO.

In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 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.

Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award

The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) grant administration regulations at 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 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 recipients for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the recipients and the 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 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 identified in the Notice of Award will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and the following::

  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 Committee’s 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 Committee’s 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 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 recipient (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 recipient's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulations at 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D, and DHHS regulations at 45 CFR Part 16. 

3. Data Management and Sharing

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.

4. Reporting

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.

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.Recipients will provide updates at least annually on implementation of the PEDP.

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. 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.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 as amended (FFATA), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later.  All recipients 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 the threshold.  See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 2 CFR Part 200, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period.  The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS).  This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313).  As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available.  Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 2 CFR Part 200 – Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

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

Application Submission Contacts

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: 301-637-3015

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: support@grants.gov

Scientific/Research Contact(s)

Tracy Rankin, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Division of Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Diseases
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-4748
Email: rankint@mail.nih.gov

Barbara Linder, M.D., Ph.D.
Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-0021
Email: linderb@mail.nih.gov

Aynur Unalp-Arida, M.D., Ph.D.
Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Telephone: 301-594-8879
Email: aynur.unalp-arida@nih.gov

Peer Review Contact(s)

Examine your eRA Commons account for review assignment and contact information (information appears two weeks after the submission due date).

Financial/Grants Management Contact(s)

Todd Le
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-7794
Email: let@extra.niddk.nih.gov

Section VIII. Other Information

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.

Authority and Regulations

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.

NIH Office of Extramural Research Logo
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - Home Page
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
USA.gov - Government Made Easy
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®


Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.