Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
U01 Research Project – Cooperative Agreements
None
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) seeks applications from lung transplant clinical centers (CCs) to form a cooperative multi-site Lung Transplant Consortium (LTC).
The LTC will support CCs in conducting observational and complementary mechanistic clinical research studies that aim to understand the impact of site-specific lung transplant selection criteria and clinical management strategies on donor lung utilization and/or early post-transplant outcomes such as the development of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) and acute lung allograft dysfunction (ALAD) in recipients. Each CC application must consist of a multidisciplinary investigative team that includes a lung transplant surgeon and a lung transplant pulmonologist, and be comprised of primary and subsites that have a combined annual lung transplant volume of at least 100 transplants. Each CC application should propose hypothesis-driven scientific questions to assess certain donor and/or recipient clinical practices and their impact on donor lung utilization, PGD, ALAD or other relevant short-term outcomes that can be addressed through observational data and/or biospecimen collection and analysis at the sites included in their application. In addition, the CCs will be expected to enroll participants and contribute to a core set of data and biospecimens to be collected across all participating consortium sites through the implementation of a common research protocol under the auspices of a centralized Data Coordinating Center (DCC) and a Steering Committee (SC). By leveraging this shared longitudinal resource, LTC investigators will have the tools to identify and answer additional important research questions involving lung transplantation.
This FOA runs in parallel with the LTC Data Coordinating Center (see RFA-HL-22-003).
May 15, 2021
| Application Due Dates | Review and Award Cycles | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New | Renewal / Resubmission / Revision (as allowed) | AIDS | Scientific Merit Review | Advisory Council Review | Earliest Start Date |
| June 15, 2021 | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | November 2021 | January 2022 | April 2022 |
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.
Not Applicable
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from 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.
Background
Lung transplantation is a main stay of end-stage therapy for many progressive and fatal lung diseases including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cystic fibrosis (CF), and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Demand for lung transplants in the United States is at an all-time high, with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) reporting that 2,522 adult lung transplants were performed across 74 US transplant centers in 2018 – which marked a 73% increase compared to a decade prior. However, demand for lung transplantation continues to outpace supply, and as a result more than 3,000 candidates were added to the waitlist during 2018, with more than 1,400 remaining at year's end. Furthermore, studies estimate that up to 40% of unused donor lungs may have been suitable for transplantation, suggesting room for and potential benefit derived from increased donor lung utilization.
Lung transplant recipient clinical outcomes are substantially worse than for other solid organs, as median survival following adult lung transplantation stands at 6.2 years and has only marginally improved over the last decade. The reasons for lung transplant failure are many, ranging from primary graft dysfunction (PGD) in the early days post-transplant, to setbacks stemming from acute lung allograft dysfunction (ALAD) over the following weeks and months, to the development of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) that becomes clinically apparent years later. PGD is a form of ischemia-reperfusion injury and is the leading cause of death in the first 30 days post-transplant. Beyond 30 days, the majority of deaths in the first year are attributable to ALAD associated most commonly with infection, acute cellular rejection (ACR), or antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Importantly, PGD and ALAD are also the primary risk factors for the development of CLAD, which in turn leads to lung allograft failure in the majority of patients beyond the first year. However, the basic and clinical mechanisms that give rise to these post-transplant complications remain largely unknown.
The incidence of PGD and ALAD varies widely among lung transplant centers, raising the prospect that site-specific donor and recipient clinical assessment and management practices contribute to this variability. The contribution of particular clinical practices to the incidence and pathogenesis of PGD and ALAD is understudied, which makes it difficult to identify reasons for center variability in outcomes and poses a significant barrier to performing multi-site clinical research studies and interventional trials in lung transplantation.
The goal of this program is to begin to overcome these barriers by creating the Lung Transplant Consortium (LTC) to serve as a research platform for advancing our understanding of how certain site-specific lung transplant selection criteria and clinical management strategies influence donor lung utilization and/or early post-transplant outcomes such as PGD and ALAD. In addition, the LTC will build, through consensus, harmonized and standardized observational data and biospecimen collection for a core set of variables across all participating sites. Through this systematic collection of data and biospecimens under a common research protocol, the LTC will provide a basis for performing additional large, unbiased, and well-controlled observational and mechanistic studies investigating factors that influence the incidence and severity of outcomes like PGD and ALAD, and by extension CLAD, across many active lung transplant centers.
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to establish a cooperative multi-site clinical research consortium, henceforth referred to as the Lung Transplant Consortium (LTC), that supports Clinical Centers (CCs) to conduct observational and complementary mechanistic studies evaluating site-specific lung transplant selection criteria and clinical management strategies as they relate to donor lung utilization and/or post-transplant outcomes such as the development of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) and acute lung allograft dysfunction (ALAD) in recipients. Through support from a Data Coordinating Center (DCC), the LTC will also seek to standardize collection of a core set of data variables and biospecimens from lung transplant donors, candidates, and/or recipients across all participating CCs that can be used to perform additional studies that inform lung transplant donor/candidate selection criteria and/or treatment approaches to the development of complications like PGD and ALAD in recipients. Beyond improving our understanding of factors that influence the incidence of these important post-transplant complications through local studies performed at the CCs, the harmonization of a subset of clinical data and biospecimen collection by the DCC across all participating lung transplant centers will serve as a critical first step towards standardizing early clinical management and assessment practices in lung transplantation and facilitating future clinical trials to optimize donor lung utilization and improve short- and long-term outcomes for lung transplant recipients.
This FOA is intended to support the Clinical Centers (CC) that will conduct research activities within the LTC. Each CC application is expected to consist of a multidisciplinary investigative team that includes at least one lung transplant surgeon and one lung transplant pulmonologist, and to be comprised of at least 3 collaborating lung transplant centers that cumulatively averaged 100 or more lung transplants per year during the 2018-2019 calendar years. These investigator, collaborating center, and transplant volume application submission requirements are intended to necessitate partnerships between the lung transplant surgical and medical communities and facilitate comparisons between small and large transplant centers, as well as centers that may be geographically dispersed.
Each CC application should propose hypothesis-driven scientific questions assessing donor, candidate, and/or recipient clinical practices and their impact on donor utilization or short-term post-transplant outcomes such as PGD and ALAD that can be addressed through observational data collection and analysis at the sites included in the application. These studies can be complemented by planned mechanistic analyses of other scientific data (e.g. data derived from surveys, imaging, or biospecimens) to connect these practice patterns with biomarkers or other biological, histological, or behavioral changes associated with early lung transplant outcomes. Beyond describing the procedures for recipient consent and enrollment for the local CC studies, CC applications that propose research involving lung organ donors will also need to include a letter of support from their centers’ affiliated organ procurement organization(s), which play a central role in facilitating organ donor consent, data collection, and clinical management.
Participation in the LTC is also contingent upon the CC agreeing to the standardized and cooperative collection of a core set of clinical data elements and biospecimens through a common research protocol shared across all participating sites. Development of the common protocol will be facilitated by the DCC (RFA-HL-22-003) and several meetings of a Steering Committee (SC) to select the core data variables and biospecimens. Once a common protocol governing the set of core data variables and biospecimens is established, the SC will iteratively consider adding variables or biospecimens to the core dataset based on results from the hypothesis-based longitudinal studies running in parallel at the individual CCs. LTC investigators will also have the opportunity to propose additional observational or mechanistic studies that leverage the common protocol data and biospecimens by identifying important research questions involving lung transplantation that require use of this unique shared longitudinal resource to adequately answer.
Specific Areas of Research Interest
Each CC application should propose hypothesis-driven scientific questions assessing donor and/or recipient clinical practices and their impact on relevant early clinical outcomes such as donor lung utilization, PGD, or ALAD that can be addressed through observational data collection and/or biospecimen analysis at the collaborating sites included in their application. Applicants should note that data collection and use as part of the locally proposed CC research studies should not alter clinical decision-making for prospectively enrolled participants in a manner that falls outside the usual range of standard of care for patients at the individual participating sites (i.e. the proposed studies should not alter the current standard of care at the individual participating sites in a manner that represents prospective assignment of participants to an experimental intervention and thus would cause the study to qualify as an NIH-defined clinical trial - see https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/definition.htm).
Areas of research interest for these studies include but are not limited to:
Responsibilities of the LTC Clinical Centers (CC)
CC responsibilities include study design and conduct, protocol development and implementation, and data and biospecimen collection, as described in detail below. In addition, the CCs are responsible for assuring Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and adequate protections of human subjects, developing skills of any participating junior investigators in performing clinical lung transplantation research, and disseminating research findings in coordination with the DCC. All CCs are required to participate in a cooperative and interactive manner with one another and with the DCC.
Study Design, Protocol Development and Implementation
Each CC will be responsible for conducting local studies as originally proposed in their awarded CC grant application, as well as contributing to the development of and adherence to the common protocol for clinical data and biospecimen collection efforts to support consortium-wide studies at the direction of the DCC and SC. Once the common protocol has been established, each CC will be expected to enroll a minimum of 75 lung transplant recipients (or approximately 75% of the CC's cumulative lung transplant volume) per year for data and biospecimen collection into the common protocol. CC applicants are required to demonstrate the feasibility of meeting that enrollment requirement among the collaborating lung transplant centers in their application. CC applicants should plan for prospective enrollment into the common protocol from Q4 in Year 1 through Q3 of Year 5. In addition, if the local CC study involves lung transplant donors or candidates, the CC will be expected to enroll 75% of those participants into the common protocol as well. It is anticipated that the biospecimens collected under the common protocol may include, but are not limited to, blood, urine, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, lung biopsy tissues, and radiographic or other medical images. CCs will have the opportunity to design, propose, and if approved by the LTC governance apparatus as outlined below, perform additional studies that leverage the common data and biospecimens to answer important questions involving lung transplantation made possible by the existence of this unique resource.
Data/Biospecimen Collection and Reimbursement
The CCs will be responsible for collecting, storing, and analyzing the data and/or biospecimens necessary for completion of the local studies as proposed in the CC application, and for transferring data and biospecimens collected under the common protocol to the DCC for management and collation. The CC sites will be reimbursed on a per-capita basis for enrollment and biospecimen collection under the common protocol (including associated procurement, storage, and shipping costs) via subcontract by the DCC, but do not receive funding to perform the local study protocols from the DCC. Personnel and related infrastructure costs to conduct local studies at the CCs must be budgeted for in the CC application. Applicants should note that only research-related costs above those incurred as part of usual clinical care are eligible to be covered by CC award funds and/or reimbursement via protocol funds from the DCC. It is anticipated that approximately $1,309,000 total costs per year in protocol funds will be included in the DCC award and made available for reimbursement to the CCs.
Human Subjects Protection
CCs must agree to use of the single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) selected by the DCC for the local and common protocol studies, consistent with NIH policies regarding multi-site studies involving human subjects. CCs are expected to oversee the preparation of informed consent templates, recruitment brochures, and other study-related patient materials for the local studies, and ensuring that all participating sites within the CC are trained on local site-specific human subjects procedures including the informed consent process, LTC policies, applicable regulations, and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The CCs will also be responsible for ensuring that study execution is compliant with the local and common protocols, manual of procedures, LTC policies, applicable regulations and guidelines throughout the duration of the program. Additional CC responsibilities in this area include routine tracking and reporting of adverse events and unanticipated problems to NHLBI, the OSMB, and other regulatory agencies as appropriate for the local and common protocol studies. CCs are responsible for monitoring enrollment and data quality among their participating sites, and identifying and reporting to the DCC any study-related issues as early as possible. As needed, the CCs will work with the DCC to develop corrective and preventative action plans in consultation with the NHLBI.
CCs will also be responsible for assuring local study compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in accordance with 45 CFR Parts 160, 162, and 164 or corresponding regulations for any participating international Clinical Centers; Implementation and supervision of the revised Common Rule (45 Part 46), including the use of a single-IRB review for federally-funded, multi-institutional studies conducted in the United States. In addition, the CCs will be expected to register and report results of local clinical studies in ClinicalTrials.gov as required by 42 CFR Part 11.
LTC Consortium Organization and Governance
It is anticipated that the LTC will be a cooperative consortium comprised of approximately 24 lung transplant sites (funded collectively through up to 8 collaborative CC awards via this FOA), a DCC (funded through the companion RFA-HL-20-003 FOA), a Steering Committee Chair and Co-Chair, and program staff from the NHLBI and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The NHLBI will also appoint an independent Protocol Review Committee (PRC), an Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB), and an External Advisory Board (EAB) to support the program.
The LTC Data Coordinating Center (DCC) will coordinate, administer, and support all LTC clinical research, operational, administrative, and statistical activities as they relate to the common protocol. These activities may include but are not limited to supporting the development of a standardized common protocol to guide data and biospecimen collection across participating sites; developing a manual of procedures and electronic case report forms; providing sample size calculations, statistical advice, patient questionnaires, and data analysis; supporting manuscript preparation; and providing overall study coordination and quality assurance, including support for the Steering Committee (SC), the Protocol Review Committee (PRC), the Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB), and the External Advisory Board (EAB), as they relate to the common protocol. A required function of the DCC is to make common protocol data available to the LTC investigators during the project period, and to the public after study completion. Protocol funds (approximately $1,309,000 total costs per year) to support execution of consortium-wide studies (i.e., data and biospecimen collection and analysis that occurs under the common protocol) at the CCs will be a part of the DCC cooperative agreement award and will be distributed to the CCs by the DCC on a per-enrollee basis and according to Steering Committee- and NHLBI-approved common protocol budgets.
A Steering Committee (SC) will be the main governing body of the LTC. Voting members of the SC will include two representatives (one a lung transplant pulmonologist and one a lung transplant surgeon) from each CC award, two representatives from the DCC award, the SC Chair, the SC co-Chair, and one NHLBI Project Scientist. Additional Project Scientists/Program Staff from NHLBI and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) may participate on the SC as non-voting members. NHLBI will appoint the SC Chair and Co-Chair who are independent of the CC and DCC. The SC Chair and Co-Chair will be compensated for their effort and travel by subcontract from the DCC, and will be responsible for ensuring that there are well-documented policies and procedures in place to guide all aspects of LTC-associated activities and operation. In collaboration with NHLBI staff, the Chairs will facilitate LTC activities, oversee its functions, and conduct SC meetings. The SC has primary responsibility for the general organization of the LTC, approval of the common protocol and any subsequent protocol changes, the conduct and monitoring of LTC studies, and the expeditious reporting of study results. All major scientific and administrative decisions are determined by majority vote of the SC, which will meet in-person, when possible, at least once per year in Bethesda, Maryland and by teleconference on at least a monthly basis. The SC will also contain a number of subcommittees, including those to oversee the Biorepository, Common Protocol Studies, and Data Dissemination.
During the first award year, the SC in conjunction with the DCC will be responsible for developing the common protocol for use across all participating CC sites that outlines standardized procedures for the collection of a subset of core clinical data and biospecimens across all participating sites within the LTC. It is expected that the common protocol may be refined iteratively over the course of the project period as new data become available. The common protocol, and any subsequent changes to that protocol, will be voted on and must be approved by majority vote of the SC in order to be implemented. The SC will also be responsible for reviewing and approved proposed studies from LTC investigators that seek to utilize the data or biospecimens collected under the common protocol to answer critical scientific questions involving lung transplantation. SC-approved common protocol studies that have not previously been peer reviewed will be referred to an independent Protocol Review Committee (PRC) and an Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB) for review and approval.
An independent Protocol Review Committee (PRC) will be appointed by and advisory to the NHLBI. It will consist of a chairperson, clinicians and scientists with expertise in clinical pulmonology and thoracic surgery research, observational study design, outcome measures, biostatistics, ethics, and other areas of expertise as needed. The PRC will review and, if deemed appropriate, approve common protocol-related studies put forth by the Steering Committee. The PRC will evaluate proposed common protocol studies on the basis of the significance of the questions to be addressed, scientific merit, innovation of the experimental design and approach, feasibility, appropriateness in the context of the LTC program goals, and consistency with NHLBI's mission and policies.
An Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB) will be appointed by and advisory to the NHLBI. The OSMB will be responsible for providing independent advice to the NHLBI regarding study safety and related ethical considerations, the progress of each study, and the appropriateness of continuing each study performed by the LTC. The OSMB will also review and, if deemed appropriate, concur with the implementation of the common protocol and associated studies approved by the Protocol Review Committee. The OSMB will meet approximately every six months, with interim meetings as necessary.
An independent External Advisory Board (EAB) with regulatory and scientific expertise in areas including but not limited to transplant pulmonology, thoracic surgery, ethical issues in organ transplantation, and organ procurement and allocation policies will be appointed by NHLBI and advisory to the NHLBI and the Steering Committee on opportunities to improve operations, facilitate data dissemination and review by interested parties, and future scientific directions.
The NHLBI is responsible for organizing and providing overall support for the LTC. NHLBI Program Officers and the Office of Grants Management are responsible for the federal stewardship of the grant awards (management, financial, and administrative oversight). In addition to regular award oversight, NHLBI Project Scientists will be involved substantially with the awardees as a partner, consistent with the Cooperative Agreement mechanism.
Applications Not Responsive to this FOA
The following types of applications will be considered non-responsive to this FOA and will be returned without review:
See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.
Cooperative Agreement: A support mechanism used when there will be substantial Federal scientific or programmatic involvement. Substantial involvement means that, after award, NIH scientific or program staff will assist, guide, coordinate, or participate in project activities. See Section VI.2 for additional information about the substantial involvement for this FOA.
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.
Not Allowed: Only accepting applications that do not propose clinical trials.
Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?
The number and amount of awards are contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
NHLBI intends to commit total costs of up to $3,388,000 per year in fiscal years 2022-2026 to support up to 8 awards.
Application budgets are limited to $275,000 in direct costs in any year of the project period, but should reflect the actual needs of the proposed project.
The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum project period is 5 years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Local Governments
Federal Governments
Other
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.
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.
This FOA requires applications to contain at least two senior/key personnel of different clinical specialties - lung transplant pulmonology and thoracic surgery. One of those specialty areas should be represented by the contact PD/PI at the primary site, with the second specialty area represented by an investigator from the primary or a collaborating subaward site who is designated as either a multiple PD/PI or a Co-investigator. More than one senior/key personnel from each of the two specialty areas may be included. Those listed as PD(s)/PI(s) should have demonstrated experience in clinical research studies involving lung transplantation.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Number of Applications
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. 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:
Director, Office of Scientific Review
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Telephone: 301-435-0270
Email: [email protected]
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
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.
PD(s)/PI(s) should describe any prior experience working productively in collaborative clinical research programs.
The Key Personnel should include:
R&R or Modular Budget
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Application budgets should plan for the following:
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 must describe the following:
Each clinical study proposal should include:
For proposed mechanistic studies at the local sites, include:
Research Team
Without duplicating information in the biosketches, provide an overview of the overall organization of personnel in the research team of the CC and describe the ability and commitment of the investigators to function in a coordinated fashion, to work efficiently and expeditiously with, and to enhance the research goals of, the LTC.
Sound rationale should be provided as to why the research team is the most appropriate for completion of the proposed studies, and likely to generate exceptionally high impact study results if successful. Provide an overview of the CC team member roles and responsibilities at various stages of study design, conduct, and closeout.
Applicants should demonstrate that they meet the requirement of cumulatively performing 100 or more lung transplants on average during the 2018-2019 calendar years between the participating sites. In addition, applicants should demonstrate their ability to consent and enroll a minimum of 75 lung transplant recipients (or approximately 75% of the CC's cumulative lung transplant volume) per year for data and biospecimen collection into the common protocol once it is established. It is anticipated that the biospecimens collected under the common protocol may include, but are not limited to, blood, urine, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, lung biopsy tissues, and radiographic or other medical images. Applicants should plan for prospective enrollment into the common protocol from Q4 in Year 1 through Q3 of Year 5. In addition, if the proposed studies involve lung transplant donors or candidates, the applicant should demonstrate their capability to consent and enroll 75% of those participants into the common protocol as well. This may be best demonstrated by inclusion of a table that displays the participating site lung transplant volumes in the 2018-2019 calendar years, as well as a list of prior research studies involving lung transplantation with dates of performance, enrollment numbers, and/or the nature of data/biospecimens collected at the participating sites. Applicants may also wish to comment on the expected burden of chronic lung disease patients needing a lung transplant at their participating sites.
Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan
For applicants utilizing the multi-PI structure, include a description of how PDs/PIs will work collaboratively together to lead the identified multidisciplinary team in the Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan. Include a description of planned strategies for effective communications across the participating CCs and to the DCC.
Letters of Support
Letters of support are required from any Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) that service the participating CCs indicating their willingness to participate when the proposed research involves the study of lung transplant donors or donor lungs prior to transplantation.
A letter of support is required from all participating CC sites indicating institutional willingness to participate in all aspects of the LTC studies and related activities, including use of the single IRB (sIRB) selected by the DCC for review and approval of the studies proposed in the application, as well as any common protocol studies that are proposed subsequent to award.
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:
When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:
If you answered “Yes” to the question “Are Human Subjects Involved?” on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.
Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
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.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Foreign (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
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.
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 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.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy. Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Specific to this FOA:
How compelling are the proposed local studies to be completed at the participating sites in the application, and how likely are these studies to have high scientific influence in the areas of donor or recipient lung transplant selection criteria and clinical management strategies as they relate to donor lung utilization and/or post-transplant outcomes such as primary graft dysfunction and acute lung allograft dysfunction? Are the proposed approaches relevant to recruitment and retention, and operational issues addressing unique challenges to lung transplantation research? How strong is the applicant's plan for cooperation and interaction of components to achieve the goals of the LTC, and how likely is participation in the program to result in new collaborations?
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?
Specific to this FOA:
Do the senior/key personnel have the required representation among lung transplant pulmonology and thoracic surgery specialists? How likely is it that the investigators have sufficient expertise to conduct the CC as proposed, including achieve described enrollment targets for the local and common protocol studies? Do the CC PD(s)/PI(s) have complementary and integrated expertise in relevant clinical research areas; and to what extent is the CC leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate to execute program objectives? To what extent are the PD/PIs and any key investigators likely to be able to accomplish all the objectives in a highly collaborative, fair, and flexible manner??
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?
Specific to this FOA:
Are the questions and innovative scientific approaches proposed to test these hypotheses likely to succeed to provide the lung transplant research community with novel data that may enhance understanding of specific barriers to improving outcomes? Does the application include state-of-the art scientific capabilities that may develop and expand the scientific productivity of the LTC?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Specific to this FOA:
How likely is the approach to yield high-quality data and/or biospecimen collection and analysis across the participating CC sites collaborating in the application? How feasible is the suggested recruitment timeline taking into account start-up activities, the specified anticipated rate of enrollment, and completion of data and/or biospecimen analyses during the project period for the proposed CC studies?
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?
Specific to this FOA:
How sufficiently does the application describe the clinical attributes of the participating lung transplant sites, and demonstrate that adequate patient populations (e.g. chronic lung disease patients listed for lung transplantation) exist at those sites, to support successful conduct and completion of the proposed studies? How effectively does the application demonstrate suitable institutional resources to successfully carry out the locally proposed and anticipated consortium-wide common research protocols? Based on the described administrative and clinical resources, how likely is the available infrastructure at the participating CC sites to facilitate meaningful collaborations within and across CCs and the DCC and provide for secure data/biospecimen acquisition and storage? Do the required letters of support indicate a sufficient level of institutional support and commitment to participation in all activities of the LTC? ?
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 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.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan
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.
Vertebrate Animals
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.
Biohazards
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Resubmissions
Not Applicable
Renewals
Not Applicable
Revisions
Not Applicable
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
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.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan; (2) Sharing Model Organisms; and (3) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).
Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources:
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.
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.
Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
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 Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
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 recipient'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.
Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that 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.
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, Recipients, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, religion, conscience, and sex. This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/index.html.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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 recipients is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the recipients for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the recipients and the NIH as defined below.
The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for:
The Clinical Center (CC) PD(s)/PI(s) play an important role in all aspects of Lung Transplant Consortium (LTC) studies, including responsibility for the execution of local and common protocol consortium-wide studies, modifying proposals if indicated, monitoring recruitment of study participants, assuring the quality of study participant protocol adherence, assuring the accurate and timely transmission of data, analyzing and interpreting data, preparing publications, and working with the Data Coordinating Center (DCC) and NHLBI to disseminate research findings. The CCs will also be responsible for working with the DCC PDs/PIs, the Steering Committee Chair and Co-Chair, and NHLBI Project Scientists to develop standardized definitions and methods for the consortium-wide common protocol, and for proposing additional studies that leverage the common protocol data and biospecimen repositories to answer important scientific questions involving lung transplantation. Awardees must agree to the governance of studies through a Steering Committee. Investigators will be required to project patient enrollment for the local site-specific and consortium-wide common protocol during a specified time frame as specified in the FOA; continuation and level of funding will in part be based on actual recruitment and the DCC will monitor this in collaboration with the NHLBI.
Support or other involvement of any other third party in the study,--e.g. participation by the third party may be advantageous and appropriate. However, except for licensing of patents or copyrights, support or involvement of any third party will occur only following notification of and concurrence by NHLBI.
PIs are encouraged to publish and disseminate results and other products of the study in accordance with study protocols and governance. Consistent with the current NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy (NOT-OD-21-013), shared scientific data should be made accessible as soon as possible, and no later than the time of an associated publication, or the end of the award/support period, whichever comes first. The CCs, in concert with the DCC, are expected to facilitate the sharing of data and biospecimens among the LTC participants during the project period and to the broader research community upon study completion via deposition into publicly available resources including the NHLBI Biorepository (BioLINCC) and in accordance with the NHLBI Data Sharing Policy. Recipients will retain in custody of and have primary rights to the data and software developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current HHS, PHS, and NIH policies.
NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
NHLBI will appoint the Steering Committee Chair and Co-Chair, the Protocol Review Committee (PRC), the Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB), and the External Advisory Board (EAB).
NHLBI Project Scientists will assist with development of the common protocol, monitor patient recruitment and study progress, ensure disclosure of conflicts of interest, and ensure adherence to NHLBI policies. NHLBI Project Scientists will serve on the Steering Committee and other study committees, when appropriate, and will have a single vote between them. The NHLBI Project Scientists may work with awardees on issues coming before the SC and as appropriate, other committees, such as: development of the common protocol, recruitment intervention, follow-up, quality control, adherence to protocol, assessment of problems affecting the study and possible changes in protocol, interim data and safety monitoring, final data analysis and interpretation, preparation of publications and development of solutions to major problems such as insufficient participant enrollment.
In addition to the Project Scientist, an NHLBI Program Official will be responsible for the normal program stewardship of the cooperative agreement and will be named in the Notice of Award. NHLBI may elect to have a dual-role approach where a single individual may act as an NHLBI Project Scientist and the Program Official. Final decision-making authority on matters of budgetary and funding actions, grants management actions, and management of intellectual property issues is assigned to NHLBI staff other than the Project Scientist/Program Official. The responsibility for final decision making may reside with Senior Institute management, separate organizational components and/or oversight committees. In the event that a Project Scientist/Program Official participates in activities that rise to a level of involvement that results in conflicts of interest, for example, co-publication, other staff members such as direct line supervisors and/or other Senior NHLBI Program management staff who are also not a named Project Scientist will serve as agency Program Officials and will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award for a period of no less than three years from the time of co-publication.
The NHLBI reserves the right to phase-out or curtail the study (or an individual award) in the event of (a) failure to develop or implement mutually agreeable collaborative protocols; (b) substantial shortfall in participant recruitment, follow-up, data reporting, or quality control; (c) major breach of the protocols or substantive changes in the agreed-upon protocols with which NHLBI cannot concur; (d) human subject ethical issues that may dictate a premature termination.
Areas of Joint Responsibility include:
Awardee(s) agree to the governance of the study through a Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will have primary responsibility for identification of priority areas for research and the conduct of studies related to the common protocol, data analysis and the preparation of publications and dissemination products. Steering Committee voting membership shall consist of exactly two representatives (one who must be a lung transplant pulmonologist and the other who must be a lung transplant surgeon) from each Clinical Center award, two representatives from the Data Coordinating Center award, one NHLBI-appointed independent Steering Committee Chair, one NHLBI-appointed independent Steering Committee Co-Chair, and one NHLBI Project Scientist. Each of these full members of the Steering Committee will have one vote. Awardee members of the Steering Committee will be required to accept and implement policies approved by the Steering Committee.
An independent Protocol Review Committee (PRC) will provide peer review for the common protocol and proposed studies that utilize the common protocol within the LTC. The PRC may be involved in reviewing and prioritizing protocol ideas for significance. The PRC will be appointed by and be advisory to the NHLBI. It will consist of a chairperson, and Executive Secretary who is an NHLBI scientist other than the NHLBI Program Scientist or Program Official, and scientists with expertise in clinical study design, transplant pulmonology, thoracic surgery, biostatistics, ethics, and other areas of expertise as needed. Because the PRC serves as an independent group advisory to the NHLBI, study investigators will not communicate with PRC members regarding study issues, except as authorized by the PRC Executive Secretary. The PRC will evaluate common protocol studies put forth by the SC based on the significance of the questions to be addressed, scientific merit and innovation of the experimental design and approach, feasibility, appropriateness for the LTC and consistency with NHLBI missions and policies. The PRC will provide a written critique of each proposal and a final recommendation to the NHLBI. All common protocol studies performed by the LTC will be recommended by the PRC and approved by the NHLBI before initiation.
An Observational Safety Monitoring Board (OSMB) will be appointed by the Director, NHLBI to provide overall monitoring of interim data and safety issues. An NHLBI scientist, other than the NHLBI Project Scientist or Program Official, shall serve as Executive Secretary to the OSMB. Because the OSMB serves as an independent group advisory to the NHLBI, study investigators will not communicate with OSMB members regarding study issues, except as authorized by the Board’s Executive Secretary. All local CC site-specific and common protocol performed within the LTC will be recommended by the OSMB and approved by the NHLBI before initiation.
An External Advisory Board (EAB) will be appointed by the NHLBI and advisory to the NHLBI and the Steering Committee by providing feedback on LTC-associated activities. This EAB will consist of non-consortium-affiliated scientists and other experts to provide feedback to the SC and NHLBI on progress, scientific direction, and ways to enhance data dissemination to groups with an interest in lung transplantation research.
Dispute Resolution:
Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened. It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulations 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and HHS regulations 45 CFR Part 16.
A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
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.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)
Finding Help Online: 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: [email protected] (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-945-7573
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]
Matt Craig, PhD
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
Telephone: 301-827-7841
Email: [email protected]
Neil Aggarwal, MD
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
Telephone: 301-827-7820
Email: [email protected]
Director, Office of Scientific Review
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
Telephone: 301-435-0270
Email: [email protected]
Nina Hall
Office of Grants Management, NHLBI
Telephone: 301-827-2393
Email: [email protected]
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75.