Reissue of RFA-DK-14-027
See Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility.
93.847, 93.393 and 93.399
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) invites U01 applications for the continuation of the consortium to study Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer (CPDPC) to conduct and complete ongoing studies on chronic pancreatitis (CP) and factors that increase the risk of pancreatic cancer in patients (children and adults) with CP, pancreatogenic (type 3c) diabetes (T3cDM) and in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes. The CPDPC is composed of several Clinical Centers (CCs) and one Coordination and Data Management Center (CDMC). This FOA will accept both clinical studies and clinical trials that contribute to the research objectives of the CPDPC.
The Consortium, since its establishment in Fall 2015, has conducted longitudinal clinical studies with comprehensive epidemiological and biological characterization of patients with CP (including those with Acute Recurrent Pancreatitis, ARP) to gain insight into the pathophysiology of chronic pancreatitis and its sequela: chronic pain, pancreatic insufficiency, T3cDM and the diabetes/pancreatic cancer association. The consortium has also undertaken studies on the development of pancreatic cancer in newly diagnosed diabetic patients.
Applications for the Consortium Coordination and Data Management Center (CDMC) are being invited via RFA-DK-19-504 "Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes and Pancreatic Cancer Coordination and Data Coordinating Center (CPDPC-CDMC) (U01 Clinical Trial Optional)".
To effectively contribute to the ongoing CPDPC clinical studies, each CC application should include researchers and clinicians with multi-disciplinary expertise to match the objectives of the CPDPC (see https://cpdpc.mdanderson.org/clinicalstudies.html). Research CCs will be expected to share results freely within Consortium and to develop trans-Consortium collaborative projects that make use of the combined expertise and technological capabilities present in all of the CCs.
September 26, 2019
November 17, 2019
December 17, 2019, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. No late applications will be accepted for this Funding Opportunity Announcement
All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. All types of non-AIDS applications allowed for this funding opportunity announcement are due on the listed date(s).
Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.
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.
There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.
Research progress in the treatment for diseases of the exocrine pancreas [chronic pancreatitis (CP), pancreatogenic diabetes mellitus, and pancreatic cancer] has been hampered by the disorders' heterogeneity, the limitations of previous small cross-sectional studies, the inability to safely obtain pancreatic tissue for discovery, and the lack of structured epidemiology tools, genetic testing, and biomarker development and validation. Mechanism-based research of these diseases has suffered from the lack of systematically collected clinical measures in longitudinal cohort studies linked with biospecimens. Given the increasing incidence and prevalence of CP and its association to the development of pancreatic cancer, its complications, high mortality rate, and associated health care cost, the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Cancer Institute established in 2015 the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes and Pancreatic Cancer (CPDPC) Consortium as multidisciplinary teams composed of members from the Clinical Centers and Coordination and Data Management Center to undertake a comprehensive clinical, epidemiological, and biological characterization of patients with CP (including adults and children with recurrent acute pancreatitis) to develop treatments and gain insight into the pathophysiology of CP and its sequela: chronic pain, pancreatic exocrine and endocrine insufficiency, T3cDM, and the diabetes/pancreatic cancer association. Another objective was to undertake studies on the development of pancreatic cancer in newly diagnosed diabetic patients (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325859). During the current funding, the CPDPC is conducting 3 longitudinal clinical studies:
A. Prospective Evaluation of Chronic Pancreatitis for Epidemiologic and Translational Studies (PROCEED) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325862).
B. Pediatric Longitudinal Cohort Study of Chronic Pancreatitis [The International Study Group of Pediatric Pancreatitis: In Search for a Cure (INSPPIRE 2)] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325861).
C. A Prospective Study to Establish a New Onset Diabetes (NOD) Cohort (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325864).
Through the continuous enrollment of well-characterized patients and associated biospecimens (blood, pancreatic and duodenal juice, urine, stool and pancreatic tissue) the CPDPC research will provide the resources and collaborative opportunities necessary for development of more effective treatments, discovery of drugs, biomarkers, and achieving many of the research objectives identified in the strategic plans of the participating NIH institutes.
In addition to above clinical longitudinal studies, i.e., PROCEED, INSPPIRE 2, NOD, the consortium developed two additional studies to better define and characterize pancreatogenic diabetes (T3cDM);
1. Evaluation of a mixed meal test for Diagnosis and characterization of Pancreatogenic Diabetes secondary to pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis (DETECT) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325863).
2. Detailed Physiologic Characterization of the Insulin Axis in Type 3c Diabetes versus Type 2 Diabetes (DEPICT 3v2).
Through completion of the clinical studies initiated since the establishment of the CPDPC, the overriding two objectives of this consortium continue to be the pursuit of clinical research (1) on Chronic Pancreatitis (including those with Acute Recurrent pancreatitis, ARP), by identifying and characterizing a large cohort of pediatric and adult patients with CP and ARP to encourage translational research that will provide the basis for understanding the natural history and developing means of diagnosis, treatment and clinical management of Chronic Pancreatitis and its sequela: chronic pain, pancreatic insufficiency and (2) on pancreatic cancer and pancreatogenic Diabetes Mellitus (T3cDM) and their pathogenic interrelationships, by identifying and following a cohort of newly diagnosed diabetic patients. In addition, the pathogenic interrelationships of pancreatogenic Diabetes Mellitus (T3cDM) in the setting of CP.
Applicants for a Clinical Center will provide information regarding their potential contributions to one or several of the longitudinal studies ongoing in the CPDPC (listed above) and can propose ancillary studies in their individual applications, for post-award consideration by the Consortium Steering Committee. Examples of objectives that are appropriate include, but are not limited to:
Organization of the Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes and Pancreatic Cancer (CPDPC) Consortium
The CPDPC Consortium will consist of the following entities: the NIH, all Clinical Centers (CCs), a Coordination and Data Management Center (CDMC), an Executive Committee, a Steering Committee and its subcommittees, a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB), and other committees as needed. The responsibilities of each entity of the Consortium are described in the Terms and Conditions of Award.
The NIDDK, in consultation with the NCI, is responsible for organizing and providing support for the CPDPC and is involved substantially with the awardees as a "partner," consistent with the Cooperative Agreement mechanism. A designated NIDDK and NCI Project Scientist will provide programmatic oversight, monitor subject recruitment and study progress, ensure disclosure of conflicts of interest and adherence to applicable NIH, NIDDK and NCI policies. The NIDDK, in consultation with the NCI, appoints the Chairperson(s) of the Steering Committee and all members of the DSMB. An additional NIDDK Program Official will be responsible for the programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice.
Through subawards and/or involvement of appropriate clinical departments within an applicant institution, Clinical Center applicants are encouraged to involve investigators interested in both Adult and Pediatric pancreatology to contribute to any consortium-wide approved study and particularly to the completion of one or several of the clinical studies currently ongoing in the CPDPC:
INSPPIRE 2 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325861), and/or
NOD Cohort (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325864).
All CC Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PDs/PIs) are strongly encouraged to fully commit their center resources and efforts to the Consortium protocols and will disclose to the Steering Committee any institutional specific clinical studies that may overlap with the clinical activities of the CPDPC Consortium. The CCs will continue to recruit subjects into any approved consortium studies and will conduct the clinical trials and longitudinal follow-up as described in the study protocols. No deviations will be allowed. All individual CCs will be required to participate in a cooperative and interactive manner with one another, with the CDMC, and with the NIH in all aspects of the Consortium (see Terms and Conditions of Award). Only investigators who wish: to continue to carry out the protocols of the CPDPC Consortium; state their willingness to disclose other center specific clinical studies that may overlap the activities of the CPDPC Consortium; are open to the concept of a single Institutional Review Board for the overall consortium; and agree to be governed by the policies and procedures of the CPDPC and its steering committee should apply to this FOA.
Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is the main governing body of the CPDPC Consortium (see Terms and Conditions of Award). The Steering Committee is composed of the PDs/PIs of each CC in the Consortium, the PDs/PIs of the CDMC, the NIDDK and NCI Project Scientists and the NIDDK Program Official. The Steering Committee Co-Chairs are appointed by NIDDK, in consultation with the NCI. The Steering Committee will have primary responsibility for the general organization of the Consortium and approval of studies, publications and ancillary studies. The Steering Committee will be responsible for the conduct and monitoring of studies and reporting study results. Topics for investigational and treatment protocols will be proposed and prioritized by the Steering Committee. Other subcommittees of the Steering Committee will be established and will operate as necessary, such as publications, ancillary, protocol, pathology and radiology. All face to face Steering Committee, DSMB, and other necessary face to face meetings requiring the presence of NIDDK and NCI personnel will be held in the Washington, DC/Baltimore metropolitan area or other suitable venue.
Executive Committee. An Executive Committee will be comprised of Steering Committee Co-Chairs (appointed by NIDDK, in consultation with the NCI), the PD/PI of the CDMC, the NIDDK and NCI Project Scientists, and NIDDK Program Official. The Chair of the Executive Committee will be appointed by the NIDDK, in consultation with the NCI. The Executive Committee will be convened to effect management decisions required between Steering Committee meetings, as required for the function of the Consortium. Other NIDDK, NCI, and CDMC personnel, as deemed necessary by the Project Scientists and Program Official, may also be included.
Data and Safety Monitoring Board. An independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) will be established by the NIDDK, in consultation with NCI to review protocols and monitor patient safety and performance of each study. As a part of its responsibilities, the DSMB will submit recommendations to the NIDDK regarding the feasibility and continuation of each study. The DSMB will be responsible for final approval of the Data and Safety Monitoring Plan developed by the CDMC. All protocols or changes to protocols will be approved by single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) through reliance agreements at all participating centers and satellite sites, the Steering Committee, the CPDPC Data and Safety Monitoring Board, and the NIDDK and NCI before initiation.
Other Special Performance Requirements
The CPDPC Consortium will continue to be a collaborative effort that requires frequent interactions of awardees among themselves and with the NIDDK/NCI Program Directors. Applicants are expected to:
The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this FOA.
The following NIH components intend to commit the following amounts in FY 2020:
NIDDK and NCI intends to commit $8.8 million to fund up to ten clinical centers awards (this RFA) and one Coordination and Data Management Center and Clinical Centers award (RFA DK-19-504) in FY 2020.
Application budgets are limited to $300,000 per year in direct costs. Application budgets should reflect the actual needs of the proposed contributions to the consortium’s ongoing work.
Funds to support patient enrollment cost for the different studies the applicants will contribute is not to be included in the budget limit above as it will be provided via the CDMC based on negotiated study-specific statements of work and the availability of funds.
The maximum project period is 5 years.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
John Connaughton, Ph.D.
Chief, Scientific Review Branch
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
with the following exceptions or additional requirements:
For this specific FOA, the Research Strategy section is limited to 30 pages.
Facilities and Other Resources: There should be evidence of strong institutional support for the CC, including adequate space in which to conduct clinical and research activities and office space for staff. Institutional resources for patient care and follow-up including personnel, space, and special laboratory facilities should be described in the CC application.
An organizational structure for the CC should be set forth in the application, delineating specific personnel (e.g., pathologists, radiologists, etc.) available to carry out the longitudinal studies currently approved by the CPDPC (see background section above and https://cpdpc.mdanderson.org/clinicalstudies.html) and any ancillary study proposed.All proposed key personnel must demonstrate the capability to provide substantial scientific expertise that is consistent with and aligns with the objectives of the Consortium. The final decision on the acceptance of the additional scientific personnel will be at the discretion of the NIDDK/NCI based upon consortium objectives and the availability of support. The PD/PI should state his/her general support of collaborative research and interaction with the NIDDK/NCI, the other CCs, and the CDMC as described in the collaborative agreement
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Investigators must submit a complete, justified, individual budget for each year of support requested. All costs requested and all changes in budgets after the first year should be clearly identified and justified. Separate itemized budgets must be prepared for each subcontract and/or for each collaborating site, if multiple sites or cores are proposed. (see Letters of Support in the PHS 398 Research Plan below).
Funds to support patient enrollment cost for the different studies the applicants will contribute, is not to be included in the $300,000 direct cost limit, as it will be provided via the CDMC based on negotiated study-specific statements of works and the availability of funds.
Research Strategy: The Clinical Center (CC) PD/PI should describe their willingness to collaborate with other members of the Consortium, the Coordination and Data Management Center (CDMC), the CPDPC Biobank, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board and the NIDDK Central repository. CC applicants (including sub awardee sites) should describe how they will be able to submit data to the Coordinating and Data Management Center and biospecimens to the NIDDK Repositories (supported by an independent contract from NIDDK) and to central laboratories and biological cores as approved by the Steering Committee. CCs should show how they will work in collaboration with the CDMC to implement procedures for uniform data collection, handling and transmittal of data, as well as data audits and other data quality control procedures, as established by the study protocol.
CCs should also provide information regarding future plans for involvement with operational committees of the Consortium (e.g. Recruitment, Publications, etc.) and the establishment of uniform procedures and policies.
Applicants should document their ability to recruit patients, procure specimens prospectively, collect epidemiological and clinical data using previously developed Common Data Elements to contribute to the completion of one or several of the longitudinal clinical studies currently undergoing in the CPDPC: PROCEED (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325862), INSPPIRE 2 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325861), and/or NOD Cohort (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30325864). For the NOD study, a multidisciplinary team with expertise in pancreatic cancer, diabetes, clinical research, early detection, and/or screening/surveillance is required. The application should include a dedicated PI/clinician and dedicated research coordinator, demonstrate the ability to recruit patients into the NOD study, provide an estimate of number of patients with NOD in their catchment area, demonstrated interaction with Primary Care Physician’s in their healthcare system and IT support for application of a generic algorithm for identification of NOD patients using the EMR (Electronic Medical Records) of the associated healthcare system (algorithm to be provided).
In addition to the standard background, significance, innovation, and approach that must be discussed in the Research Strategy, the applicants should describe in detail the number of potential patients eligible for any of the studies cited above, the CC is interested to participate in, as well as a description of barriers and proposed solutions to fulfil the recruitment targets for each study.
Letters of Support: If parts of the costs of the application are to be borne by sources other than NIH, these contributions must be presented in detail along with supporting letters signed by individuals who have the authority to make fiduciary commitments on behalf of the institution. These outsource costs do not constitute cost sharing as defined in the current NIH Grants Policy Statement and should not be presented either as part of the requested budget or as Estimated Project Funding.Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
The following modifications also apply:
If you answered “Yes” to the question “Are Human Subjects Involved?” on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.
Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.Delayed Onset Study
Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday , the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.
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.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply – Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.
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 by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
Use of Common Data Elements in NIH-funded Research
Many NIH ICs encourage the use of common data elements (CDEs) in basic, clinical, and applied research, patient registries, and other human subject research to facilitate broader and more effective use of data and advance research across studies. CDEs are data elements that have been identified and defined for use in multiple data sets across different studies. Use of CDEs can facilitate data sharing and standardization to improve data quality and enable data integration from multiple studies and sources, including electronic health records. NIH ICs have identified CDEs for many clinical domains (e.g., neurological disease), types of studies (e.g. genome-wide association studies (GWAS)), types of outcomes (e.g., patient-reported outcomes), and patient registries (e.g., the Global Rare Diseases Patient Registry and Data Repository). NIH has established a “Common Data Element (CDE) Resource Portal" (http://cde.nih.gov/) to assist investigators in identifying NIH-supported CDEs when developing protocols, case report forms, and other instruments for data collection. The Portal provides guidance about and access to NIH-supported CDE initiatives and other tools and resources for the appropriate use of CDEs and data standards in NIH-funded research. Investigators are encouraged to consult the Portal and describe in their applications any use they will make of NIH-supported CDEs in their projects.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
To be considered highly meritorious, an application does not have to contribute to all the ongoing studies CPDPC studies (PROCEED, INSPPIRE 2, NOD, DETECT, and DEPICT 3v2.
For this particular announcement, note the following:
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
A proposed Clinical Trial application may include study design, methods, and intervention that are not by themselves innovative but address important questions or unmet needs. Additionally, the results of the clinical trial may indicate that further clinical development of the intervention is unwarranted or lead to new avenues of scientific investigation.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Are the scientific rationale and need for a clinical trial to test the proposed hypothesis or intervention well supported by preliminary data, clinical and/or preclinical studies, or information in the literature or knowledge of biological mechanisms? For trials focusing on clinical or public health endpoints, is this clinical trial necessary for testing the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention that could lead to a change in clinical practice, community behaviors or health care policy? For trials focusing on mechanistic, behavioral, physiological, biochemical, or other biomedical endpoints, is this trial needed to advance scientific understanding?
Specific to this FOA:
Although Ancillary Study (AS) proposed may be considered preliminary until accepted by the consortium, does the AS proposed in the application (whether clinical trials or not) address an important problem in the field?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
With regard to the proposed leadership for the project, do the PD/PI(s) and key personnel have the expertise, experience, and ability to organize, manage and implement the proposed clinical trial and meet milestones and timelines? Do they have appropriate expertise in study coordination, data management and statistics? For a multicenter trial, is the organizational structure appropriate and does the application identify a core of potential center investigators and staffing for a coordinating center?
Specific to this FOA:
Are the Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PDs/PIs) and their institutions clearly committed to provide their center resources and efforts to the Consortium protocols?
Have the PDs/PIs declared or expressed their intention to report any potential scientific or financial conflict of interest that may overlap with the clinical activities of the CPDPC?
Are the Ancillary Study (AS) concept, design and implementation, grounded on the PD(s)/PI(s) training and expertise and track record on implementing clinical studies (whether trial or observational)?
Have the PDs/PIs and key personnel demonstrated the capability to provide substantial scientific expertise that is consistent with and aligns with the objectives of the Consortium?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Does the design/research plan include innovative elements, as appropriate, that enhance its sensitivity, potential for information or potential to advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice?
Specific to this FOA:
Does the application propose new ways to enhance recruitment and retention of patients in all stages of the studied diseases?
Are any of the Ancillary Studies proposed novel for this field of research? Does it reinforce and expand the research objectives of the CPDPC?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project ? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable
Is the study design justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that will be clear, informative and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the study based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Given the methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the trial appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the study populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), proposed intervention arms/dose, and duration of the trial, appropriate and well justified?
Are potential ethical issues adequately addressed? Is the process for obtaining informed consent or assent appropriate? Is the eligible population available? Are the plans for recruitment outreach, enrollment, retention, handling dropouts, missed visits, and losses to follow-up appropriate to ensure robust data collection? Are the planned recruitment timelines feasible and is the plan to monitor accrual adequate? Has the need for randomization (or not), masking (if appropriate), controls, and inclusion/exclusion criteria been addressed? Are differences addressed, if applicable, in the intervention effect due to sex/gender and race/ethnicity?
Are the plans to standardize, assure quality of, and monitor adherence to, the trial protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate? Is there a plan to obtain required study agent(s)? Does the application propose to use existing available resources, as applicable?
Data Management and Statistical Analysis
Are planned analyses and statistical approach appropriate for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions? Are the procedures for data management and quality control of data adequate at clinical site(s) or at center laboratories, as applicable? Have the methods for standardization of procedures for data management to assess the effect of the intervention and quality control been addressed? Is there a plan to complete data analysis within the proposed period of the award?
Specific to this FOA:
Have the PDs/PIs shown how they will work in collaboration with the CDMC to implement procedures for uniform data collection, handling and transmittal of data, as well as data audits and other data quality control procedures, as established by the study protocol?
Have the PDs/PIs described their ability to recruit patients, procure specimens prospectively, collect epidemiological and clinical data using previously developed Common Data Elements, to contribute to the completion of one or several of the longitudinal clinical studies currently undergoing in the CPDPC ?
Has the applicant described the number of potential patients eligible for any of the longitudinal clinical studies, the CC is interested to participate in?
Have the applicant described the barriers and proposed solutions to fulfill the recruitment targets for each study of the studies they will participate?
For the NOD study: 1.- How well have the PDs/PIs assembled a multidisciplinary team with expertise in pancreatic cancer, diabetes, clinical research, early detection, and/or screening/surveillance? 2.- How have they demonstrated a commitment and the ability to recruit patients into the NOD study? 3.- Have they provided an estimate of the number of patients with NOD in their catchment area, demonstrated interaction with PCP’s in healthcare system and have IT support for future integration of a generic algorithm for identification of NOD patients into EMR in healthcare system?
If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
If proposed, are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed?
Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial at the proposed site(s) or centers? Are the plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate?
If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial?
If multi-sites/centers, is there evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to: (1) enroll the proposed numbers; (2) adhere to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and, (4) operate within the proposed organizational structure?
Specific to this FOA:
Do(es) the PDs/PIs provided evidence of strong institutional support for the CC, including adequate space in which to conduct clinical and research activities and office space for staff. , Institutional resources for patient care and follow-up including personnel, space, and special laboratory facilities to contribute to the ongoing CPDPC ongoing clinical studies or to any of the AS they are proposing?
Specific to applications involving clinical trials
Is the study timeline described in detail, taking into account start-up activities, the anticipated rate of enrollment, and planned follow-up assessment? Is the projected timeline feasible and well justified? Does the project incorporate efficiencies and utilize existing resources (e.g., CTSAs, practice-based research networks, electronic medical records, administrative database, or patient registries) to increase the efficiency of participant enrollment and data collection, as appropriate?
Are potential challenges and corresponding solutions discussed (e.g., strategies that can be implemented in the event of enrollment shortfalls)?
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.
When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. 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.
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
Not Applicable .
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan; (2) clinical samples ; and (3) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).
For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by 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:
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) and the National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB).
. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available 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.
Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the NIH and are subject to the IC-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA.
ClinicalTrials.gov: If an award provides for one or more clinical trials. By law (Title VIII, Section 801 of Public Law 110-85), the "responsible party" must register and submit results information for certain “applicable clinical trials” on the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System Information Website (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov). NIH expects registration and results reporting of all trials whether required under the law or not. For more information, see https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/index.htm
Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Grantee institutions must ensure that all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the awardee must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.
Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials) to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of the data. Further information concerning these requirements is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/data_safety.htm and in the application instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).
Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption Requirements: Consistent with federal regulations, clinical research projects involving the use of investigational therapeutics, vaccines, or other medical interventions (including licensed products and devices for a purpose other than that for which they were licensed) in humans under a research protocol must be performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE).
Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person’s race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research.
In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.” This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA. HHS provides general guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/index.html. The HHS Office for Civil Rights also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.htmlhttps://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/laws-regulations-guidance/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.
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 Part 75, 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 and approaches, sample size and power calculations, and establishing procedures for participant recruitment and follow-up, data collection, quality control, interim data and safety monitoring, final data analysis and interpretation, and publication of results.
2. Establishing a Steering Committee to implement, coordinate and manage the project(s). Awardee(s) will name investigators to serve as members on a Steering Committee and other subcommittees, as appropriate, meeting periodically. Awardees will be required to accept and implement the common protocol(s) and procedures approved by the Steering 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.
5. Establishing procedures for data quality and completeness. Awardees are responsible for ensuring accurate and timely assessment of the progress of each study, including development of procedures to ensure that data collection and management are: (1) adequate for quality control and analysis; (2) for clinical trials, as simple as appropriate in order to facilitate cooperation/referral of study participants by physicians to avoid unnecessary expense; and (3) sufficiently staffed across the participating institutions. For research involving multiple sites, a plan for analysis of pooled data will be developed by the Steering Committee.
6. Submitting interim progress reports, when requested or agreed upon by both parties, to the NIDDK Program Official including as a minimum, summary data on protocol performance. For coordinated multiple awards or a multi-site single award, the NIDDK Program Official may require additional information from individual awardees/sites. Such reports are in addition to the required annual noncompeting continuation progress report.
7. 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/NCI will have access to and may periodically review all data generated under an award. NIDDK/NCI staff may co-author publications of findings with awardees consistent with NIH and study policies.
8.Any third-party (including industry, academia, and foundations) collaboration should be governed by a research collaboration agreement (e.g. Clinical Trial Agreement, Research Collaborative Agreement, etc.) or any third-party contract mechanism(s) with terms that ensure the collaboration is conducted in accordance with the Cooperative Agreement, applicable NIH/NIDDK/NCI policies and procedures, and with written approval from NIDDK Program staff. Any relevant proposed third-party agreements related to the network studies between grantee and third-party will be provided to the NIDDK and NCI Program staff and NIDDK and NCI Technology Advancement Office for review, comment, and approval to assure compliance with NIH/NIDDK/NCI policies and network policies. Further, at the request of the NIDDK and NCI Program staff, any other network-relevant third-party agreements must be shared with NIDDK and NCI. Failure to comply with this term may prompt action in accordance with NIH Grants Policy Statement, Section 8.5 titled: “Special Award Conditions and Remedies for Noncompliance (Special Award Conditions and Enforcement Actions”, and Section 8.5.2, titled: “Remedies for Noncompliance or Enforcement Actions: Suspension, Termination, and Withholding Support”, noncompliance with the terms and conditions of award will be considered by the funding IC for future funding and support decisions and may result in termination of the award.9. Any involvement of a third-party (including industry, academia, and foundations) in the study and network activities that includes access to any network study data and biosamples, or study results that are not publicly available, or using the name of the network or study or the name of the NIH or NIDDK or NCI, is permitted only after written permission by the NIDDK or NCI Program staff who will consult with others at NIH and NIDDK and NCI Technology Advancement Office
10. Study investigators are required 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 an individual company or other entity collaborating with the study. Any exception requires written approval from NIDDK/NCI Program staff.
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. Prior to enrolling participants, the PI or his/her designee will coordinate with the NIDDK Central Repository to develop a Data Sharing Plan and prepare the collected data for eventual archiving and distribution. In addition, if applicable, the PI or his/her designee will work with the NIDDK Biosample Repository to coordinate procedures for coding, shipping, processing, receipt, storage, and sharing 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 leadership 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, https://grants.nih.gov/policy/sharing.htm, 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-subjects-research/Documents/PublicversionNIDDKdatasharingpolicy2013July2013.pdf.
13. Study investigators are required to comply with NIH Policy on the Dissemination of NIH Funded Clinical Trial Information as stated at https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/understanding/nih-policy.htm. Per policy, the awardee is responsible for meeting the expectations of this policy. Refer to additional information at https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/index.htm.
NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
An NIDDK/NCI Project Scientists 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/NCI may designate additional NIDDK/NCI 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/NCI Project Scientists 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/NCI activities that may be relevant to the study to facilitate compatibility with the NIDDK/NCI missions and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
4. Have substantial involvement assisting in the design and coordination of research activities for awardees as elaborated below:
a. Assisting by providing advice in the management and technical performance of the investigations, coordinating required regulatory clearances for investigational agents used in the study, which are held by NIDDK/NCI. The NIDDK/NCI may reserve the right to cross file or independently file an Investigational New Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption form with the FDA.
b. The NIDDK/NCI Project Scientists 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.
c. Reviewing procedures for assessing data quality and study performance monitoring.
d. The NIDDK/NCI Project Scientists or Project Coordinator may be co-authors on study publications. In general, to warrant co-authorship, NIDDK/NCI 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:
Areas of Joint Responsibility include:
In addition to the interactions defined above, NIDDK/NCI Projects Scientist and Awardees shall share responsibility for the following activities:
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/NCI Project Scientists. The final structure of the Steering Committee and voting procedures will be established at the first meeting. The NIDDK and NCI Project Scientists 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/NCI Project Scientists, will be selected by the NIDDK/NCI, in consultation with the Steering Committee. 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.
Any disagreement that may arise on scientific/programmatic matters (within the scope of the award), between award recipients and the NIDDK/NCI 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/NCI member not voting), a second member selected by NIDDK/NCI, 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.
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.
In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 – Award Term and Conditions for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.
Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Jose Serrano M.D. Ph.D.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Dana K. Andersen, M.D.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Sudhir Srivastava, M.P.H., Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Jo Ann Rinaudo, Ph.D.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Peter J. Kozel, Ph.D.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.