Required Application Instructions

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

Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement

Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information

This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) invites an application from the Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) of the current Data Coordinating Center (DCC) for The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study, an ongoing epidemiological study.  This DCC has been involved in study design and data and biosample acquisition and management since the inception of the TEDDY Consortium. 

Type 1 diabetes is a serious and burdensome chronic disease that usually affects children and young adults.  The rate of type 1 diabetes incidence is rising worldwide, especially in the very young.  These findings suggest that environmental triggers are responsible for increased and accelerated rates of disease in genetically susceptible individuals.  The goal of the TEDDY study is to identify environmental triggers of type 1 diabetes - dietary, infectious, or other factors that predispose to or protect against type 1 diabetes in children at high genetic risk - and to analyze the interaction of environmental and genetic factors contributing to development of the disease.

The TEDDY study began in 2002 and has screened over 400,000 newborns and recruited and enrolled over 8,500 eligible newborns into a long-term observational study.  These include 7,700 neonates from the general population with a pre-determined type 1 diabetes risk of 3% and 919 neonates with first degree relatives who have type 1 diabetes and who have a pre-determined type 1 diabetes risk of 10%.  Through the study, the NIDDK proposes to continue to follow the participants enrolled across multiple clinical centers worldwide (both in Europe and in North America).  The participants were followed with blood sampling every three months for islet autoantibody measurements until age 4 years and will be continued at least every six months until diabetes onset or the age of 15.  After the age of four, autoantibody positive subjects continue to be followed at 3 month intervals and autoantibody negative subjects are followed at six month intervals. In addition to the analysis of autoantibodies, the primary endpoint of the study, additional data collection is performed and blood samples are taken at each visit.  The parents collect monthly stool samples in early childhood. The parents also fill out questionnaires at regular intervals in connection with study visits and record information about diet and health in the child’s TEDDY Book between visits. Measurements so far include metagenomics from the microbiome of stool, serum metabolomics, serum proteomics, etc. Thus, the TEDDY study is generating large, complex, multidimensional, and diverse datasets, with the aim to identify environmental triggers of type 1 diabetes.

The FOA intends to fund the continuation of the DCC's functions in support of TEDDY subject follow-up. This FOA will also add funds for studies of epigenetic modifications and infectious agents exposures using new technologies applied to TEDDY blood cell samples.

Continued long-term follow-up of the currently active TEDDY participants will provide important scientific information on early childhood diet, reported and measured infections, vaccinations, and psychosocial stressors. TEDDY is thus a complex project that requires extensive amounts of coordination of individuals and organizations that are nationally and internationally based.

• The DCC is responsible for executing the study protocol for follow-up of TEDDY study participants according to schedules and procedures contained in the study's Manual of Operations and in collaboration with the Clinical Centers at which participants are enrolled and with NIDDK staff.
• The DCC is responsible for receiving, managing, and analyzing data obtained from the clinical centers. This includes developing and updating standardized study forms; performing quality control on data supplied by the Clinical Centers; editing and entering data into the master database; storing, retrieving, maintaining, protecting, reviewing, processing and analyzing the data; preparing reports of the results of these assessments for presentations and publications; and transmittal to the NIDDK repository in a standardized format.
• The DCC is responsible for protecting patient confidentiality at all steps in the submission and analysis of the data and ensuring the technical integrity and security of the data management systems.
• The DCC is responsible for monitoring of adherence to the research plan by conducting site visits to monitor the quality of record keeping, source documentation and the accuracy of data entry and also for  overseeing data quality control, including but not limited to regular data queries and data monitoring and cleaning to assure data completeness and quality.
• The DCC is responsible for providing statistical support, expertise and oversight throughout the study; conducting interim and final analyses per protocol; collaborating with the clinical investigators in the preparation of presentations and primary and secondary publications; and providing additional analyses at the request of the External Evaluation committee (EEC) or the NIDDK.
• The DCC is responsible for study-wide communications, dissemination of study materials such as protocols, Manual of Operations, forms or other study documents, and development and maintenance of the web site.
• The DCC also plays a key role in the operational conduct of TEDDY, providing training and technical assistance to the Clinical Centers in performance of the follow-up assessments; assisting in protocol implementation; and working in conjunction with the Clinical Centers and NIDDK staff to oversee all aspects of Clinical Center performance, including timeliness and quality of data and biosample submission.
• The DCC will also be responsible for procurement and administration of subcontracts for laboratory services, including: central human leukocyte antigen laboratory; the autoantibody laboratories, the mRNA laboratories, infectious disease laboratories, and other laboratories as needed.  Through subcontracts the DCC will also provide capitated reimbursements to the Clinical Centers for study visits and procedures, including data and biosample acquisition, and other necessary services for conduct of the study.
• The DCC will also be responsible for providing administrative and logistical support services for the TEDDY Study Group including preparation of publications, and organizing periodic meetings for the study group and subcommittees, workshops, and conference calls. It will also be responsible for preparing reports for and organizing meetings of an External Evaluation committee convened by NIDDK. It will work collaboratively with the NIDDK and study investigators in preparation of papers for publication in the scientific literature.
• The DCC is responsible for ensuring the transfer of all biosamples and data to the NIDDK central repositories according to a timeline developed with the NIDDK. The samples are to be sent on an ongoing basis as the study is collecting them. It is responsible for supporting and promoting data sharing by preparing a limited personal health information or de-identified data set in a format appropriate for data sharing for submission to a secure NIDDK data repository after publication of the primary and other study results or 12 months after completion of data collection for the primary endpoint, whichever comes first.
• The DCC PD/PI will be a member of the Steering Committee (SC). The SC is the main governing body of the network, and works with the NIDDK to oversee the implementation of the study. The DCC will be working closely with the Clinical Centers in a collaborative and interactive manner.

In this opportunity, NIDDK intends to fund TEDDY to establish collaborative partnerships for the next stage in the analysis of blood cell collections. This opportunity is targeted to provide funds in two new areas for TEDDY, for measurements of epigenetic modifications and also of exposures to specific infectious agents, using state-of-the-art technologies. 

Understanding the molecular causes and pathogenic processes of T1D is of fundamental importance for preventing or curing this chronic disease. Complex biological processes underlie states of health and disease, and involve interactions between many genes and external influences, and are likely to be driven by DNA sequence variants as well as non-coding modifications that affect the transcriptional capacity of these genes.  These modifications occur on top of the genome and can be associated with changes in gene activity without alteration of the underlying DNA sequence.  Epigenetic marks (e.g., DNA methylation or histone tail modification) affect gene expression through direct modifications to the DNA or by changing the way it is packaged into chromatin, thus altering accessibility to trans-acting factors.  These epigenetic marks are only one facet of this form of gene regulation.  The successful establishment and maintenance of transcriptional profiles depend on the interplay between epigenetic modifications, interacting proteins, non-coding RNAs, and inter- and intra-chromosomal interactions, as well as on factors yet to be discovered.  Perturbation of any one of these regulatory elements may have profound consequences on the health of an organism.  For the purposes of studying epigenetic modifications, TEDDY has collected DNA from blood cell collections at 3-month intervals from subjects for the first 4 years of life and every 6 months for beta cell autoantibody negative subjects and 3 months for beta cell autoantibody positive subjects for the subsequent visits.  Cord blood samples are also available as dried blood spots from TEDDY participants.  TEDDY plans to characterize the occurrence and potential functions of epigenetic modifications, using both global, unbiased approaches as well as the study of smaller chromosomal regions when appropriate, in order to understand how epigenetic regulatory mechanisms contribute to beta cell autoimmunity and T1D. Data will be shared collaboratively across TEDDY and integrated with clinical, laboratory, environmental and other data to better understand the pathogenesis and etiology of T1D in children.

One of the leading hypotheses in T1D research is that known or unknown viruses or other infectious agents may trigger autoimmunity or the disease itself in genetically susceptible individuals. Other infectious exposures might be protective. For the purposes of studying infectious and other changes in blood cells, TEDDY has been collecting peripheral blood mononuclear cells if possible from older children. As a first step towards analyzing blood cells and their interaction with the environment, TEDDY plans to measure infectious agents and correlates of exposure to infectious agents in blood cell samples. Since volumes are very limited from small children, TEDDY will seek collaborators with state-of-the-art and sample-sparing technologies for detecting infectious agents or their sequelae in blood. Data will be shared collaboratively across TEDDY and integrated with clinical, laboratory, environmental and other data to better understand the pathogenesis and etiology of T1D in children.

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.

Only the current awardees for RFA-DK-14-505 are eligible to apply to this Funding Opportunity Announcement.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.

Applicant Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only the Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PDs/PIs) of the current DCC for RFA-DK-14-505 are eligible to apply to this FOA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, preferably electronically, should be sent to:

Francisco O. Calvo, Ph.D.
Chief, Review Branch
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452
(for express/courier service: Bethesda, MD 20817)
Telephone: (301) 594-8897
Fax: (301) 480-4126
Email: calvof@mail.nih.gov 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Strategy: The Research Strategy should include the following information:

1) Plans to coordinate the recruitment of epigenetics and infectious agents collaborator(s).  The competition should be sufficient to attract applications from collaborators with the capability to perform reliable measurements, and to make the data available to TEDDY investigators for collaborative analyses. 

2) Plans to continue the DCC's functions in support of TEDDY subject follow-up. These plans will include:

Supporting the execution of the study protocol for follow-up of TEDDY study participants according to schedules and procedures contained in the study's Manual of Operations.

Receiving, managing, and analyzing data obtained from the clinical centers.

Protecting patient confidentiality at all steps in the submission and analysis of the data and ensuring the technical integrity and security of the data management systems. 

Monitoring of adherence to the research plan by conducting site visits to monitor the quality of record keeping, source documentation and the accuracy of data entry and also for  overseeing data quality control, including but not limited to regular data queries and data monitoring and cleaning to assure data completeness and quality.

Providing statistical support, expertise and oversight throughout the study; conducting interim and final analyses per protocol; collaborating with the clinical investigators in the preparation of presentations and primary and secondary publications; and providing additional analyses at the request of the External Evaluation committee (EEC) or the NIDDK.

Providing study-wide communications, dissemination of study materials such as protocols, Manual of Operations, forms or other study documents, and development and maintenance of the web site.

Providing training and technical assistance to the Clinical Centers in performance of the follow-up assessments; assisting in protocol implementation; and working in conjunction with the Clinical Centers and NIDDK staff to oversee all aspects of Clinical Center performance, including timeliness and quality of data and biosample submission.

Procurement and administration of subcontracts for laboratory services, including: central human leukocyte antigen laboratory; the autoantibody laboratories, the mRNA laboratories, infectious disease laboratories, and other laboratories as needed.  Through subcontracts the DCC will also provide capitated reimbursements to the Clinical Centers for study visits and procedures, including data and biosample acquisition, and other necessary services for conduct of the study.

Providing administrative and logistical support services for the TEDDY Study Group including preparation of publications, and organizing periodic meetings for the study group and subcommittees, workshops, and conference calls. It will also be responsible for preparing reports for and organizing meetings of an External Evaluation committee convened by NIDDK. It will work collaboratively with the NIDDK and study investigators in preparation of papers for publication in the scientific literature.

Ensuring the transfer of all biosamples and data to the NIDDK central repositories according to a timeline developed with the NIDDK. The samples are to be sent on an ongoing basis as the study is collecting them. It is responsible for supporting and promoting data sharing by preparing a limited personal health information or de-identified data set in a format appropriate for data sharing for submission to a secure NIDDK data repository after publication of the primary and other study results or 12 months after completion of data collection for the primary endpoint, whichever comes first.

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, with the following modification:

• All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan.

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. Applicant should provide all study protocols in the appendix,

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

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

See Part I. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirements for obtaining a Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number and for completing and maintaining an active System for Award Management (SAM) registration. Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.

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

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

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

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

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

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

Since these awards will be issued with a 5-year budget and project period from the same fiscal year, the grantee will not have any authority for an automatic extension nor will one be permitted with NIH prior approval. Funds will not be available for expenditure beyond September 30th of the 5th fiscal year after the period of availability. Thus, extensions of the budget/project period will not be allowed.

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

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

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Guidelines for Applicants Experiencing System Issues.

Important reminders:

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

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

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions and responsiveness by the NIDDK, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

In order to expedite review, applicants are requested to notify the NIDDK Referral Office by email at calvof@mail.nih.gov when the application has been submitted. Please include the FOA number and title, PD/PI name, and title of the application.

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-13-030.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the project describe an adequate plan for the conduct of an open and competitive solicitation for collaborators who will perform (1) measurements and analysis of epigenetic marks using samples from TEDDY subjects, and/or (2) measurements of infectious agent exposure using blood cell samples from TEDDY subjects?

Does the project describe a plan to achieve the full objectives for the follow-up of TEDDY subjects?

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

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

Protections for Human Subjects

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

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

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

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

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

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

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

Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources

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 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) Genomic Wide Association Studies (GWAS) /Genomic Data Sharing Plan.

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 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:

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

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 Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council (NDDKAC). The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award

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

The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the 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:
1. Developing the research design and study protocol, including definition of objectives andapproaches, sample size and power calculations, and establishing procedures for participantrecruitment and follow-up, data collection, quality control, interim data and safety monitoring,final data analysis and interpretation, and publication of results.

2. Establishing a Steering Committee to implement, coordinate and manage the project(s).>Awardee(s) will name investigators to serve as members on a Steering Committee and othersubcommittees, as appropriate, meeting periodically. Awardees will be required to accept andimplement 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 awardee/site is required to ensure that data will be submitted expeditiously to the Data Coordinating Center. Additionally, individual investigators/sites must demonstrate the ability to implement the strategy specifically designed for their individual study population. Coop Agreement Terms & Conditions - Clinical Revised 3/25/2015

5. Establishing procedures for data quality and completeness. Awardees are responsible forensuring 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, to the NIDDK Program Official including as a minimum, summary data on protocol performance. For coordinated multiple awards or a multi-site single award, the NIDDK Program Official may require additional information from individual awardees/sites. Such reports are in addition to the required annual noncompeting continuation progress report.

7. Establishing procedures, where applicable, for all participating institutions in coordinated awards to comply with FDA regulations for studies involving investigational agents or devices and to comply with the requirements of 45 CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects, and the NIH policy requirements for the inclusion of women, minorities and children.

8. Reporting of the study findings. 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. The awardee must also be adherent to Study Publication and Presentation Policy. The NIDDK will have access to and may periodically review all data generated under an award. NIDDK staff may co-author publications of findings with awardees consistent with NIH and study policies.

9. Support or other involvement of industry or any other third party in the study -- e.g., participation by the third party; involvement of study resources or citing the name of the study or NIDDK support; or special access to study results, primary data/summary information, or resources -- may be advantageous and appropriate. However, except for licensing of patents or copyrights, support or involvement of any third party is permitted only after concurrence by NIDDK.

10. Study investigators are encouraged to publish and to release publicly and disseminate results and other products of the study, in accordance with study protocols and steering committee policies on publications.

11. Maintaining confidentiality of information: The awardee(s) will maintain the confidentiality of the information developed by the investigators (i.e., protocols, data analysis, conclusions, etc.) as well as proprietary information of a company collaborating with the study.

12. 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 PI or his/her designee will coordinate with the NIDDK Data Repository to prepare the collected data for eventual archiving and distribution. In addition, if applicable, the PI or his/her designee will work with the NIDDK Biosample Repository to coordinate procedures for Coop Agreement Terms & Conditions - Clinical Revised 3/25/2015, coding, shipping, processing, receipt, and storage of study samples that are to be maintained in the Repository. All samples and data transferred to the Repositories will be under the custodianship of the NIDDK, although the study’s Steering Committee will have proprietary control of and exclusive access to the samples and data for an agreed-upon period of time. Subsequently samples and data will be available to the wider scientific community in accordance with the NIH policy on Data Sharing (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/ and, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm#goals , and >http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data sharing/data sharing faqs.htm ), as well as the NIDDK policy for data sharing in multi-center and large single-center clinical studies http://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/process/human-subjectsresearch/Documents/PublicversionNIDDKdatasharingpolicy2013July2013.pdf.

13. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA or US Public Law 110-85) was passed on September 27, 2007. The law requires mandatory registration and results reporting for certain clinical trials of drugs, biologics, and devices. If trials conducted under this grant are applicable clinical trials subject to FDAAA, the sponsor or his/her designee will perform the mandatory study registration and reporting of study results to ClinicalTrials.gov. For more information about this law and requirements for sponsors and/or investigators, visit the PRS and U.S. Public Law 110-85 Information Page at http://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/fdaaa.html.

In addition, grantees should be aware that clinical trials not covered by FDAAA may still require registration in an approved registry in order to be published, according to the guidelines issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors(http://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trialregistration.html).

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

An NIDDK Project Scientist with substantial involvement will:
1. Serve as the contact point for all facets of the scientific interaction with the awardee (s). As required for the coordination of activities and to expedite progress, NIDDK may designate additional NIDDK staff to provide advice to the awardee on specific scientific and/or analytic issues. Such staff may include another Project Scientist or Project Coordinator, who will provide direct technical assistance to the awardees to optimize the conduct and/or analysis of the study; or who may assist in the coordination of activities across multiple sites.

2. For multi-center studies, 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.

Coop Agreement Terms & Conditions - Clinical Revised 3/25/2015

4. Have substantial involvement assisting in the design and coordination of research activities for awardees as elaborated below:

1. 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.
2. The NDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator may coordinate activities among awardees by assisting in the design, development, and coordination of a common research or clinical protocol and statistical evaluations of data; in the preparation of questionnaires and other data recording forms; and in the publication of results.
3. Reviewing procedures for assessing data quality and study performance monitoring.
4. 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:

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 safety and monitoring board, 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. Coop Agreement Terms & Conditions - Clinical Revised 3/25/2015

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 a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) as appropriate; the NIDDK Program Official or their Project Coordinator will serve as the Executive Secretary and/or NIDDK program representative on the DSMB.

Areas of Joint Responsibility include:

In addition to the interactions defined above, NIDDK Project Scientist and Awardees shall share responsibility for the following activities:

1. Steering Committee.

A Steering Committee organized by the study investigator(s) will be the main governing body of the study. The Steering Committee has primary responsibility to design research activities, establish priorities, develop common protocols and manuals, questionnaires and other data recording forms, establish and maintain quality control among awardees, review progress, monitor patient accrual, coordinate and standardize data management, and cooperate on the publication of results. Major scientific decisions regarding the core data will be determined by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will document progress in written reports to the NIDDK Program Official, and will provide periodic supplementary reports upon request. The Steering Committee will be composed of all 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. The final structure of the Steering Committee and voting procedures will be established at the first meeting. The NIDDK Project Scientist will have voting membership on the Steering Committee, and as appropriate, its subcommittees. The frequency of Steering Committee meetings will be dictated by a vote of the members of the Steering Committee. A Chairperson of the Steering Committee, other than the NIDDK Project Scientist, will be selected by the NIDDK. The Chairperson provides leadership to the Committee by conducting the Steering Committee meetings, representing the study group to the External Oversight Committee established by the NIDDK and by interacting closely with the awardees during protocol development and implementation.

2. External Study Oversight.

An independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board will be established by the NIDDK for Phase III clinical trials or other high risk studies as appropriate. An Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB) will be established for observational/epidemiologic studies. These Boards will review study progress, safety data and interim results, as appropriate, and provide guidance to the NIDDK.

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 awardee (or the Steering Committee, with the NIDDK member not voting), a second member selected by NIDDK, and the third member elected by the two prior selected members. These special dispute resolution procedures in no way affect the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulations at 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D, and HHS regulations at 45 CR Part 16.

Progress reports for multi-year funded awards are due annually on or before the anniversary of the budget/project period start date of award. The reporting period for multi-year funded award progress report is the calendar year preceding the anniversary date of the award. Information on the content of the progress report and instructions on how to submit the report using the RPPR are posted at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/myf.htm.

When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) 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.

eRA Commons Help Desk (Questions regarding eRA Commons registration, submitting and tracking an application, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, post submission issues)
Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission, downloading forms and application packages)
Contact Center
Telephone: 800-518-4726
Web ticketing system: https://grants-portal.psc.gov/ContactUs.aspx
Email: support@grants.gov

GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and process, finding NIH grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-710-0267

Arthur Castle, Ph.D.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-7719
Email:castlea@niddk.nih.gov

Katarzyna Bourcier
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Telephone: 240-627-3482
Email: katarzyna.bourcier@nih.gov

Frank O. Calvo, Ph.D.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-8897
Email: calvof@mail.nih.gov

Christine Gill
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-435-2816
Email: gillc@niddk.nih.gov

Jill A. Saletta
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Telephone:  240-669-5489
Email:  jill.saletta@nih.gov

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

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75. This FOA is supported under the authority of P.L. 114-10, "The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015; Section 213. Extension of special diabetes program for type I diabetes and for Indians. .