and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
Participating Organization(s) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) |
|
Funding Opportunity Title |
NIAMS Clinical Trial Outcomes Instrument Development Grant Program (U01) |
Activity Code |
U01 Research Project Cooperative Agreements |
Announcement Type |
New |
Related Notices |
|
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number |
RFA-AR-13-004 |
Companion Funding Opportunity |
None |
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) |
93.846 |
Funding Opportunity Purpose |
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), issued by the NIAMS, National Institutes of Health, solicits applications for research awards designed to develop and evaluate new and existing clinical trial outcomes measures to better assess the benefits (efficacy and effectiveness) and adverse impacts of therapies employed to treat diseases and injuries of interest to the NIAMS. This FOA seeks to facilitate the development and subsequent evaluation of both new and existing clinically relevant and patient-important outcome measures and instruments and analyses that could be further tested with existing or novel clinical trials designed to gain widespread acceptance and application in the diagnosis, monitoring, treatment or cure of diseases and injuries of interest to the NIAMS. Outcomes should be as generalizable as possible with the aim to impact patient care. |
Posted Date |
July 5, 2012 |
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date) |
October 9, 2012 |
Letter of Intent Due Date |
October 9, 2012 |
Application Due Date(s) |
November 9, 2012, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. |
AIDS Application Due Date(s) |
Not Applicable |
Scientific Merit Review |
March, 2013 |
Advisory Council Review |
May 2013 |
Earliest Start Date(s) |
July 1, 2013 |
Expiration Date |
November 10, 2012 |
Due Dates for E.O. 12372 |
Not Applicable |
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission
Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
The ability to conduct well-designed clinical studies to assess efficacy and long-term effectiveness of new therapies depends on the identification of clinically relevant endpoints. Ideally, instruments should be developed that are sensitive, specific and accurately reflect the cause, course or stage of disease. They also should be able to assess the impact that the disease and its treatment has on relevant biomarkers, as well as the patients symptoms, functioning and quality of life. With the exception of certain diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis, outcome measures and benchmarks for comparison of clinical results are sorely lacking in most areas of clinical research of interest to NIAMS. For some diseases, a number of outcome instruments/measures exist, but they are not used consistently. Some measure disease activity, some measure organ damage, and some are composite or index instruments that capture part, but not all, of the components/responses of the disease. For example, lupus clinical trials are often conducted using similar therapeutics but different outcome instruments/measures. This makes the comparison of results and the potential efficacy, toxicity, and complications of new therapeutic approaches very difficult and limits acceptance by clinical researchers and clinicians caring for patients with these diseases. In addition, it hampers efforts by organizations, such as the FDA, to develop guidance documents for industry with benchmarks for approval of new agents. The same applies to many other diseases, illnesses and injuries of interest to the NIAMS.
In spite of the diversity of potential therapeutic approaches, clinical trials in diseases and injuries of interest to the NIAMS are difficult because many of the diseases are rare; the clinical manifestations are heterogeneous, requiring long-term follow-up. Even for diseases and injuries for which potential therapeutic approaches exist, clinical trials can be difficult if the condition is rare, has heterogeneous clinical manifestations, or requires long-term follow up. Additionally, the lack of standardized and validated approaches for assessing disease activity or damage and capturing outcomes of importance to patients complicate the planning and execution of clinical trial in specific diseases. There is an overall lack of specific outcome measures or validated surrogate markers for studies of treatments in clinical trials or systematic longitudinal assessments in real-world clinical settings. All chronic diseases such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthropathies, psoriasis, osteoporosis, or osteoarthritis, require long-term follow up. There is often little or no consensus about the best outcome instruments/ measures for trials aimed at structural change (e.g., prevention of erosion, delayed joint space narrowing, etc.), single organ damage prevention (e.g., lung fibrosis in scleroderma), surgical treatments, or patient-reported outcomes (PROs). These factors contribute to clinical trial designs that frequently require large numbers of patients, are very costly, and only answer a limited number of questions. In addition to established therapies, new agents and approaches are being developed in laboratories and tested in experimental animals for repair/replacement and preventive interventions of diseases and injuries of interest to the NIAMS. Trials for these agents/technologies are also difficult because the benefits and risks may be distant to the therapeutic intervention.
New technologies are being applied rapidly to the development of biomarkers and PROs of disease for identification of patient subsets, evaluation of disease outcomes, evaluation of patient response to therapies and the identification of predictors of disease outcomes. However, it is unclear how these potentially valuable biomarkers (i.e., array data) and PROs can be incorporated into disease outcome instruments/measures that can also capture in a meaningful way the results of most importance to patients. Thus, there is a great need to refine existing assessments to incorporate biomarkers and PROs with other outcome instruments/measures and to test these novel combinations in large, well-defined (i.e. genotypic and phenotypic) cohorts. New techniques in the areas of clinimetrics, statistical analysis, computer simulation, etc., may help improve the design of relevant outcome variables that include combination of biomarkers and PROs to be initially tested in smaller, more cost-effective trials before validation in larger trials.
This FOA encourages projects that propose to design, evaluate, validate, and test new and/or improved outcome instruments/measures for clinical trials in diseases, illnesses and injuries of interest to the NIAMS (see http://www.niams.nih.gov/About_Us/Mission_and_Purpose/default.asp). The experimental design of a project may include, for example, consensus development approaches, meetings of experts, collection of data, beta testing of new instruments, mathematical and computer modeling, or validation studies. The proposal should include plans to disseminate information and have input from relevant scientific communities and professional organizations on the scientific merit and applicability of new and improved outcome instruments/measures. Approaches that take advantage of bioinformatics to speed up data collection, analysis, dissemination and updates are encouraged.
Suggested topics may include, but are not limited to:
Funding Instrument |
Cooperative Agreement |
Application Types Allowed |
New |
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards |
NIAMS intends to commit $1,000,000 in FY 2013. |
Award Budget |
An applicant may request a budget for direct costs up to $150,000 per year. |
Award Project Period |
The maximum period is 3 years. |
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Governments
Other
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are
not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations
as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply
for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet
Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following
registrations.
All Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s))
must also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA
Commons or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA
Commons account of the applicant organization.
All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant
organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at
least 4-6 weeks prior to the application due date.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources
necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal
Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to
develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial
and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always
encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PD(s)/PI(s), visit the Multiple
Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) Policy and submission details in
the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF 424 (R&R)
Application Guide.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial peer review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application.
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Gayle E. Lester, Ph.D.
Program Director
Osteoarthritis & Diagnostic Imaging Program
Division of Musculoskeletal Diseases/NIAMS/NIH/DHHS
6701 Democracy Blvd; Suite 800
Bethesda, MD 20892-4872
Telephone: 301-594-3511
Email: [email protected]
The forms package associated with this FOA includes all applicable components, mandatory and optional. Please note that some components marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this FOA. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate optional components.
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Resource Sharing Plan
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Appendix
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit in advance of the deadline to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
Organizations must submit applications via 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.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
Important
reminders:
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the
Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF
424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and
to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the
successful submission of an electronic application to NIH.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the
application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA
Commons and for the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Additional
information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more
tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by NIAMS, NIH. Applications that are incomplete and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Significance
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Investigator(s)
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD(s)/PI(s), do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Innovation
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Approach
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success
presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the
strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of
human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members
of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms
of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Environment
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact/priority score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data
and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or
more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46,
the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human
subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For
additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to
the Human
Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Vertebrate Animals
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Biohazards
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Resubmissions
Not Applicable
Renewals
Not Applicable
Revisions
Not Applicable
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Not Applicable.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the NIAMS, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Review assignments will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this FOA.
Applications will be assigned to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Advisory Council . The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD(s)/PI(s) will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH
Grants Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided
to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by
the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via
email to the grantee’s business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS,
CCR Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award
Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
The following special terms of award are in addition to, and
not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is
applicable when State and local Governments are eligible to apply), and other
HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.
The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the
cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an
"acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic
involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the
activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and
stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working
jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume
direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities.
Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility
resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks
and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.
The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for:
The Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) will have the primary responsibility for:
Awardees 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.
NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
An NIH Project Scientist [or Project Coordinator, or Project Collaborator] will have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below.
Additionally, an agency Program Official or IC Program Director will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice.
Areas of Joint Responsibility include:
A Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) is responsible to oversee the development of appropriately validated outcomes instruments that are likely to be adopted by the scientific community as a method of measuring clinical outcomes. It is recommended that the Scientific Advisory Board be made up of a statistician, the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s), the NIAMS Project Scientist for the project, one or two academic experts, and one or more members from professional organizations representing the scientific community that will use the outcome instruments. The NIAMS Project Scientist will not chair the Scientific Advisory Board. The Board is advisory to NIAMS and the investigator. It is the responsibility of the Board to make recommendations related to modifications of measurement instruments; validation of analysis methods and conclusions; continuation of the project to the next phase; and plans for dissemination of results. Decisions will be made with an attempt for consensus when possible and by a majority vote of a quorum when necessary. Outside consultants/experts may be asked to participate in these discussions as nonvoting advisors.
During each year of the funding period and/or at intervals related to completion of study milestones, there will be meetings of the SAB in person or by telephone. The Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) should budget for costs associated with these meetings. The purpose of the meetings is to share strategies and assure that appropriate standards are used to validate outcome instruments; assess scientific progress; discuss strategy and potential avenues of collaboration such as with public/private partnerships; and establish strategies to accelerate the use of the validated instruments by members of the scientific community. Each full member will have one vote. The Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) and the NIAMS Project Scientist, in consultation with the agency Program Official, will determine whether policies and recommendations approved by the Steering Committee will be implemented in the current project based on feasibility and cost.
Dispute Resolution:
Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened. It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
Grants.gov
Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and
submission, downloading or navigating forms)
Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone 301-710-0267
TTY 301-451-5936
Email: [email protected]
eRA Commons Help Desk (Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, tracking application status, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
TTY: 301-451-5939
Email: [email protected]
Gayle E. Lester, Ph.D.
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
Telephone: 301-594-3511
Email: [email protected]
James Witter, M.D., Ph.D.
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
Telephone: 301-594-5055
Email: [email protected]
Charles Rafferty, Ph.D.
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
Telephone: 301-594-5019
Email: [email protected]
Mark Langer
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
Telephone: 301-451-8216
Email: [email protected]
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® |
||||||