Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
U01 Research Project Cooperative Agreements
The purpose of this FOA is to create a clinical consortium to recruit a cohort of early pubertal youth at risk for developing type 2 diabetes and study them through puberty. The ultimate goal of this undertaking will be to 1) develop more precise prediction of which individuals are truly at risk for developing youth-onset T2D and identify determinants of progression from prediabetes to T2D so that, ultimately, targeted prevention approaches can be developed and tested; and 2) increase understanding of the physiologic drivers of youth-onset T2D to guide development of more effective strategies to achieve glycemic control and preserve beta cell function.
February 3, 2022
| Application Due Dates | Review and Award Cycles | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New | Renewal / Resubmission / Revision (as allowed) | AIDS | Scientific Merit Review | Advisory Council Review | Earliest Start Date |
| March 03, 2022 | Not Applicable | Not Applicable | July 2022 | October 2022 | December 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.
Purpose
This FOA will create a clinical consortium to recruit and study a racially/ethnically diverse cohort of early pubertal youth at risk for developing T2D. The ultimate goal of this undertaking will be to 1) develop more precise prediction of which individuals are truly at risk for developing youth-onset T2D and identify determinants of progression from prediabetes to T2D so that, ultimately, targeted prevention approaches can be developed and tested; and 2) increase understanding of the physiologic drivers of youth-onset T2D to guide development of more effective strategies to achieve glycemic control and preserve beta cell function. All awardees selected to participate must agree to be part of a consortium that will collaboratively develop and implement a uniform protocol.
Background
The epidemic of obesity has resulted in an increase in T2D in youth, particularly during puberty and in minority populations. Studies in the U.S. and around the world have documented that overall glycemic control is poor in youth with T2D, especially in minority youth, and that, compared with adolescents with T1D of the same duration and glycemic control, there is a higher prevalence of risk factors for diabetes complications (hypertension, dyslipidemia, arterial stiffness, microalbuminuria) and evidence of early complications (retinopathy, neuropathy). The TODAY study has also demonstrated that youth with T2D have a high (50%) failure rate on metformin monotherapy, much higher than that reported in adults with new-onset T2D (e.g., ADOPT). Modeling of OGTT data from TODAY suggested that loss of beta cell function occurs at a more rapid rate than in adults with comparable diabetes duration. These data have demonstrated that T2D is a more aggressive disorder when it occurs in youth. This notion has been reinforced by the RISE consortium, where direct comparisons between youth and adults with pre-diabetes/new-onset T2D have been made. Baseline RISE data show that, at comparable BMI, youth with either pre-diabetes or new-onset T2D are significantly more insulin resistant than adults, and hyper-secrete insulin, which could be related to more rapid beta cell failure. Moreover, echoing TODAY results, RISE showed that youth appear to be refractory to treatments that work in adults (e.g., metformin) and have rapid deterioration of beta cell function and glycemic control (despite medication adherence comparable to adults).
Cumulatively, these data paint a grim picture of youth-onset T2D, with affected individuals potentially developing vascular complications in what should be the prime of their lives. This individual and public health burden creates a compelling argument to better understand 1) any unique pathophysiology that distinguishes youth-onset T2D from the typical disease in adults; 2) whether different diagnostic and/or screening criteria need to be used in youth; and 3) not only how to better treat youth-onset T2D but how to prevent the disease from occurring, since it appears that once full-blown T2D has occurred in youth, it is very difficult to treat. While we know that, as in adults, obesity/sedentary lifestyle, race/ethnicity, and family history are risk factors for T2D in youth, the majority of such at-risk children will not develop T2D during adolescence (i.e., most obese youth do not develop T2D early in life). In addition, other factors may contribute to exacerbating insulin resistance or beta cell decline, including intrauterine exposure to dysglycemia, the physiological insulin resistance of puberty, chronic stress, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). The impact of stress is potentially of interest in the population of individuals with youth-onset T2D, which seems characterized by very high rates of poverty and familial psychosocial stress.
Scope
This FOA invites applications from Clinical Centers to recruit and study youth at high risk for developing T2D. A separate FOA (RFA-DK-21-003) will solicit applications for a Biostatistics Research Center (BRC) to provide additional scientific input as well as coordinate study design and protocol development, protocol implementation, and data analysis. Given that we cannot currently precisely predict which youth will develop T2D, it is expected that the overarching goals of this FOA will be accomplished over multiple phases:
This purpose of this study is to generate data that could lead to the ability to identify youth at highest risk for developing T2D so that these individuals can be targeted for prevention. In addition, a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of youth-onset T2D could lead to more effective prevention and treatment strategies, to lessen the individual and public-health burden arising from the development of debilitating complications of diabetes in individuals who should be in their most productive economic years.
Each Clinical Center applicant to this FOA is expected to provide 1) a detailed description of a proposed study that will accomplish the scientific aims of this FOA, as well as 2) detailed information about his/her own site's recruitment capacity.
It is expected that applicants will propose 1) how to define potentially at-risk youth for recruitment, and 2) a method to longitudinally follow these youth for the development of diabetes through puberty and into late adolescence, while collecting biosamples that can be banked for analysis once a critical mass of youth with new-onset T2D is accumulated. Applicants should delineate what outcomes need to be assessed during the five-year duration of the study that will be funded from this FOA (e.g., serial OGTTs, or other measure of glycemia), and what samples should be banked for future analysis. Applicants should also consider use of appropriate technologies that could allow measurements in "free-living" individuals (versus laboratory-based studies). Applicants should propose how to carefully characterize hormonal and metabolic changes and how these intersect with changes in insulin sensitivity/secretion and development of T2D. Applicants should also propose what types of health and psychosocial phenotyping of the participant and his/her family should be conducted so that other drivers of dysglycemia (e.g., intrauterine programming) and contributors to adverse health outcomes (e.g., social determinants of health) can be determined.
It is anticipated that the proposed study will require a sample size larger than can be provided at one site. The applicant should describe the study to be conducted under a common protocol by the consortium, including the sample size required for the full study, as well as the number of participants to be recruited at the applicant's site. The proposed research study will enable reviewers to evaluate the applicant's ability to identify the critical issues to be addressed in the study and rigorously design such a study. Peer review will consider both the scientific merit of the application as well as the ability to recruit and conduct the study. The Awardees will then assemble to form a Steering Committee (see below), which will meet to develop a common protocol and manual(s) of procedures. The submitted applications will serve as a starting point for the Steering Committee's deliberations. It is expected that the Steering Committee will meet a minimum of three times at the NIH and have frequent contact by telephone during the planning phase, which is expected to take at least six months.
T2D in youth and adults disproportionately affects individuals from racial and ethnic minorities. NIDDK encourages research focusing on minority and underserved populations, including Blacks/African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, American Indians/Alaska Natives. Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, as well as socioeconomically disadvantaged and underserved rural populations. NIDDK places a high priority on clinical studies to understand and eliminate health disparities and promote health equity.
NIDDK is also committed to conducting clinical studies that have been developed with active stakeholder engagement. Active stakeholder engagement entails meaningful involvement of patients, caregivers, family members, clinicians, healthcare systems, advocacy groups, and other relevant stakeholders in the development, design and execution of the study. Stakeholder engagement approaches may reflect stakeholder involvement along the continuum of community engaged research (Wilkins et al, Medical Care 2018; 56 Suppl 10:S22-S26.), and must demonstrate bidirectional communication and interactions that result in informed decision-making about high-priority research needs and issues that are important to stakeholder/community members. Stakeholder engagement is expected to help shape the design of the study, as well as recruitment and retention approaches, especially for populations who are disproportionately affected by diseases in the NIDDK mission but may be underrepresented in research. Generally, meaningful stakeholder engagement must entail more than focus groups, surveys or other activities where stakeholders are only involved as participants or respondents. While additional stakeholder engagement will be conducted by the investigators in the consortium created by this FOA, it is also expected that, since a proposed study design must be included in the U01 application, applicants will have substantially engaged appropriate stakeholders prior to the U01 submission.
Consortium Organization
1. Clinical Centers
Clinical Centers (CC) will recruit youth at risk for developing T2D and retain them during the course of the study. The population recruited should have racial and ethnic diversity, and it is expected that the overall population recruited by the entire consortium will reflect the demographic distribution of the U.S. population of youth with T2D.
The PD/PI and key co-investigators at each CC and the Biostatistics Research Center (BRC) will be expected to collaborate in designing and implementing the uniform study protocol. Centers must not only have the requisite population from which to recruit but also have proven experience in recruiting and retaining the relevant population of study participants in research studies. The CC will collect data in accordance with established study procedures and submit all samples and data to the Biostatistics Research Center (BRC) and central laboratory and central reading centers, as appropriate and required by the protocol.
Investigators at the CC will conduct analyses in conjunction with the BRC. The study group will have exclusive access to data from the study population for a defined period, according to NIDDK and NIH data sharing policies. All study data analyzed for publication of the primary and secondary study outcome(s) are expected to be provided to the NIDDK Repository so that it can be shared as appropriate per NIDDK policy and consistent with achieving the goals of the program. The Steering Committee (see below) will establish policies under which ancillary studies may be conducted while the study is ongoing, consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
2. Biostatistics Research Center (BRC)
There will be a single BRC. The BRC biostatisticians will work with the Clinical Center investigators to develop the scientific design of the study. The BRC investigators will have primary responsibility for ensuring that the design of the study, including the primary outcome, is scientifically sound and is supported by appropriate power calculations. The BRC will also provide biostatistical and analytic expertise and conduct analysis and interpretation of the laboratory and clinical data in conjunction with investigators at the Clinical Centers. The BRC will be responsible for guiding development of the statistical analysis plan for the study as a whole and for each manuscript reporting pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes. The BRC will also be responsible for establishing all scientific collaborations for specialized outcomes.
In addition to these research functions, the BRC is responsible for the collection, management and analysis of all clinical and laboratory data, including establishment of any central laboratories or cores needed. The BRC will be responsible for ensuring participant confidentiality and safety, and quality control. The BRC will conduct training and certification of study staff, and maintain and update the protocol and manual of operations. The BRC will oversee implementation of and adherence to the study protocol. The BRC will coordinate communication among and with the CC. The BRC will also be responsible for establishing and maintaining activities related to the single IRB. In addition, the BRC will develop procedures to require study investigators and other relevant personnel associated with the study to identify and manage financial and other conflicts of interest at least annually and share this information with NIDDK staff.
The BRC will coordinate the movement of biologic samples from the CC to the central laboratory and, subsequently, to the NIDDK Central Repository, where samples will be stored for future analysis. The BRC will similarly coordinate with the CC to ensure the flow of other collected data to the appropriate central reading center or core. The BRC will also coordinate work with the NIDDK Central Repository to prepare all study data for eventual archiving and distribution.
The BRC will provide biostatistical, data management and analytic expertise. The BRC will prepare appropriately detailed reports to the Steering Committee and to the Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB), and to the NIDDK staff at regular intervals. The BRC will be responsible for the planning and logistics of meetings of the Steering Committee and its subcommittees, and will assist NIDDK with the logistics for OSMB meetings.
If additional sites are needed to recruit adequate numbers of patients, subcontracts may be added to individual study sites or the BRC. The BRC will be responsible for recruitment of additional sites.
3. Steering Committee
The primary governing body of the study will be the Steering Committee, comprised of the PDs/PIs of the BRC and each CC, and the NIDDK Project Scientist.
The Steering Committee will develop policies and procedures for the study group, and ensure that these policies are properly implemented. These may include procedures for modification of study design, use of study samples and data, approval of ancillary studies, publication and presentation of study findings, monitoring study progress, determining completeness and quality of data collection, and other performance measures. NIDDK expects the investigators to develop robust ancillary study policies to provide opportunities for outside investigators to leverage collected data and biospecimens, as well as the recruited cohort, to expand the scientific output of the group.
4. Project Scientist
The NIDDK Project Scientist will assist the Steering Committee in designing and carrying out the study. The Project Scientist will provide scientific support to awardees' activities, including protocol development, quality control, interim data monitoring, final data analysis, preparation of publications, and overall performance monitoring.
Applications not responsive to this FOA
This FOA will not support clinical trials. Application for clinical trials are not responsive to the FOA. Applications for high-risk, multi-center clinical trials may be submitted to PAR-21-102. Low-risk clinical trial applications may be submitted to PA-20-183 or PA-20-184, or other appropriate NIH FOAs.
Applications involving animal or in vitro studies are not responsive to this FOA.
Non-responsive applications will not be reviewed and will be withdrawn from consideration.
Applicants are reminded of the NIH policy on the use of a single Institutional Review Board for multi-site research (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-076.html) and the federal requirement for use of a single IRB for cooperative research under 45 CFR 46.114.
Applicants are also encouraged to review NIDDK policies for clinical research and cooperative agreements here: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/human-subjects-research/policies-clinical-researchers.
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?
NIDDK intends to commit $15 million in FY 2022 to support this consortium. It is anticipated that awards will be made to up to 15 clinical centers under this FOA and to one Biostatistics Research Center under linked companion RFA-DK-21-003.
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Application budgets need to reflect the actual needs of the proposed project and may not exceed $500,000 in annual direct costs.
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 not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are not 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 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.
Letter of Intent
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
John Connaughton, Ph.D.
Chief, Scientific Review Branch
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-7797
Email: [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.
Other Attachments:
Consortium Assurance: The filename "Consortium Assurance.pdf" must be used.
The PD/PI should provide a letter stating his/her willingness to participate in Consortium activities, including sharing the scientific portion of the application, participating in meetings at the NIH and regular conference calls and abiding by approved Consortium policies, and following the common protocol agreed to during the planning phase. In the letter, the PD/PI should also discuss past experiences participating in multi-center studies.
In addition, the PD/PI and an authorized Institutional Official must provide evidence that the Institution is willing to sign a standard reliance agreement and use the single IRB proposed by the BRC as part of its application, in accordance with NIH policy on the use of a single Institutional Review Board for multi-site research, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-076.html.
Stakeholder Engagement Plan: The Filename "Stakeholder Engagement Plan.pdf" should be used.
The application must describe stakeholder engagement activities already conducted and how these activities influenced development of the protocol or proposed study conduct, including recruitment.
Applications that lack the Stakeholder Engagement Plan are considered incomplete and will not be peer reviewed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
R&R or Modular Budget
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
The annual budget requested should match the timeline proposed for the project and the scope of the project. Applicants may assume that the cost of laboratory assays will be covered in the budget of the Biostatistics Research Center, via the chosen central laboratory. Although the sample size calculation provided in the Research Strategy should reflect the total number of participants required across all sites, each applicant should provide a budget that reflects the number of participants that can be realistically recruited at his/her own site (including any subcontracts if auxiliary recruitment sites under the direction of the applicant are proposed). The first six months will be devoted to planning and the budget will cover PI/critical co-investigator effort in protocol development and travel to Steering Committee meetings. After the planning period, the study budget should reflect the sample study proposed in the application (based on the number of participants projected to be recruited at one Clinical Center). It is anticipated that sites will need to start hiring and training staff in advance of the actual initiation of recruitment. The study should be completed before the end of year 5 to allow ample time for data clean-up and analysis. It should be understood that, in the event of an award, the budgets at the Clinical Centers will be adjusted from that proposed in the application to reflect the actual needs of the study-developed protocol. In addition, budgets may be adjusted during the outyears of the study based on recruitment success. Once the study starts, it is anticipated that there will be two study group meetings in the Washington DC area each year.
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 applicant should clearly articulate the significance of the proposed study, including why the clinical study is needed and what evidence gap the study will address, including a discussion of how the results will impact clinical care and/or public health.
The application must include a detailed description for the study design, addressing the scientific rationale for the design chosen, the population to be studied and the outcomes being assessed. The discussion should include:
Preliminary data addressing the need for and supporting the feasibility of the study must be discussed. The discussion of supporting data that provide the basis for the study's design must address the adequacy and quality of previous studies.
In addition, the application must address potential biases or challenges in the protocol and how they will be addressed.
The applicant must describe the statistical methods to be used, including the sample size and power calculations, plans for the primary and secondary analyses, and pre-specified interim analyses. This plan is critical to knowing whether applicants have selected the correct cohort size based on proper power calculations and/or are using the most appropriate methods to analyze the resulting data and make correct conclusions at the end of the study. The sample size and statistical power calculations should contain enough detail, including a discussion of assumptions made, so that a reviewer can readily duplicate the sample size projection. Among the assumptions that should be addressed are how many cases of type 2 diabetes would be needed at the end of the study to conduct clinically meaningful analyses, how many participants will need to be followed in the study to achieve this number, and how many potential participants would need to be screened for study eligibility. The sample size calculations should be based on 90% power and include a discussion of the anticipated rates of follow-up (i.e., drop out/lost to follow up) during key outcome collection contacts.
Letters of Support: Letters of support should be provided from all participating clinics and/or hospitals, as well as collaborators at other sites. In addition, letters of support should be provided from stakeholders who have been involved in the development of the study and/or will continue to be involved during the conduct of the study.
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.
Section 2 - Study Population Characteristics
2.5 Recruitment and Retention Plan
In addition to the instructions for this section contained in the HSCT form, please include a discussion of the availability of potential participants for the proposed study at the applicant’s site, the anticipated yield from recruitment and screening efforts, and the expected accrual timeline. The plan should include a discussion of the applicant’s past experience in recruiting and retaining similar populations, expected challenges to recruitment and retention, and possible contingency plans.
Section 3 - Protection and Monitoring Plans
All parts of Section 3 are required under this FOA.
3.3 Data and Safety Monitoring Plan
In addition to the description of safety monitoring, address plans to monitor study performance, including plans to assure fidelity to the protocol and integrity of the data. Information about Data and Safety Monitoring Plans in available on the NIDDK website: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/human-subjects-research/policies-clinical-researchers/data-safety-monitoring-plans.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? 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?
Study Design
Is the study design justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that will be clear, informative and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the study based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the study appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the study populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), and duration of the study, 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?
Are the plans to standardize, assure quality of, and monitor adherence to, the study protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate?
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: 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?
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.
Stakeholder Engagement
Is there an appropriate description of stakeholder engagement in the development of the proposed study that reflects meaningful interaction with all relevant stakeholders, including a discussion of how information from meetings with stakeholders was used and how bidirectional discussion and communication occurred?
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
Not Applicable.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan; (2) Sharing Model Organisms; and (3) 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 NIDDK in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.
Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this FOA.
Applications will be assigned to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council. 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.
Individual awards are based on the application submitted to and approved by the NIH and are subject to the IC-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA.
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 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 recipients is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the recipients for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the recipients and the NIH as defined below.
The Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) will have the primary responsibility for:
1. Developing the research design and study protocol, including definition of objectives and approaches, sample size and power calculations, and establishing procedures for participant recruitment and follow-up, data collection, quality control, interim data and safety monitoring, final data analysis and interpretation, and publication of results.
2. Establishing a Steering Committee to implement, coordinate and manage the project(s). Recipient(s) will name investigators to serve as members on a Steering Committee and other subcommittees, as appropriate, meeting periodically. Recipients will be required to accept and implement the common protocol(s) and procedures approved by the Steering Committee.
3. Designating Protocol Chairs. The Program Directors/Principal Investigators (for studies involving multiple protocols) shall designate a single Protocol Chairperson (if the Program Director/Principal Investigator does not assume this role) for each protocol to be carried out by the study group. The Protocol Chairperson shall function as the scientific coordinator for the protocol and shall assume responsibility for obtaining approval to implement the protocol from the Steering Committee and for developing and monitoring the protocol. Significant modifications to approved protocols must be approved by the Steering Committee.
4. Implementing collection of data specified by the study protocol. For a multi-center study, each recipient/site is required to ensure that data will be submitted expeditiously to the Data Coordinating Center. Additionally, individual investigators/sites must demonstrate the ability to implement the strategy specifically designed for their individual study population.
5. Establishing procedures for data quality, completeness, and security. Recipients are responsible for ensuring accurate and timely assessment of the progress of each study, including development of procedures to ensure that data collection and management are: (1) adequate for quality control and analysis; (2) for clinical trials, as simple as appropriate in order to facilitate cooperation/referral of study participants by physicians to avoid unnecessary expense; and (3) sufficiently staffed across the participating institutions. For research involving multiple sites, a plan for analysis of pooled data will be developed by the Steering Committee.
6. Submitting interim progress reports, when requested or agreed upon by both parties, to the NIDDK Program Official including as a minimum, summary data on protocol performance. For coordinated multiple awards or a multi-site single award, the NIDDK Program Official may require additional information from individual recipients/sites. Such reports are in addition to the required annual noncompeting continuation progress report.
7. Reporting of the study findings. Recipients will retain custody of and have primary rights to the data and software developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current DHHS, PHS, and NIH policies. The recipient must also be adherent to Study Publication and Presentation Policy. The NIDDK will have access to and may periodically review all data generated under an award. NIDDK staff may co-author publications of findings with recipients consistent with NIH and study policies.
8. Any third-party collaboration (including but not limited to interactions with organizations from industry, academia, and nonprofit institutions) should be governed by a research collaboration agreement (e.g., Clinical Trial Agreement, Research Collaborative Agreement, etc.) or any third-party contract mechanism(s) with terms that ensure the collaboration is conducted in accordance with the Cooperative Agreement, applicable NIH/NIDDK policies and procedures, and 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 Program staff and NIDDK Technology Advancement Office for review, comment, and approval to assure compliance with NIH/NIDDK policies and network policies. Further, at the request of the NIDDK Program staff, any other network-relevant third-party agreements must be shared with NIDDK. Failure to comply with this term may prompt action in accordance with NIH Grants Policy Statement, Section 8.5 titled: Special Award Conditions and Remedies for Noncompliance (Special Award Conditions and Enforcement Actions , and Section 8.5.2, titled: Remedies for Noncompliance or Enforcement Actions: Suspension, Termination, and Withholding Support , noncompliance with the terms and conditions of award will be considered by the funding IC for future funding and support decisions and may result in termination of the award.
9. Any involvement of a third-party (including but not limited to industry, academia, and nonprofit institutions) in the study and network activities that includes access to any network generated resources (i.e., 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, is permitted only after written permission by the NIDDK Program staff who will consult with others at NIH and NIDDK 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, steering committee policies on publications, and the NIDDK approved sharing plan.
11. Maintaining confidentiality of information: The recipient(s) will maintain the confidentiality of the information developed by the investigators (i.e., protocols, data analysis, conclusions, etc.) as well as proprietary information of an individual company or other entity collaborating with the study. Any exception requires written approval from NIDDK Program staff.
12. Data Management and Sharing Plan: In accordance with the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing (NIH NOT-OD-21-013), the NIDDK approved plan will become a term and condition of award, be routinely monitored during the award period, and compliance may factor into future funding decisions. By the end of the funding or proprietary period, an recipient or study group may not continue to use or share study generated resources until those resources are available to the public via an NIDDK approved repository per the NIDDK approved sharing plan. The NIDDK has established a Central Repository to support the receipt, storage, and distribution of data, biosamples, and other resources generated in clinical studies funded by the NIH/NIDDK. When the NIDDK Central Repository is to be utilized, prior to enrolling participants, the PI or his/her designee will coordinate with the NIDDK Program and Central Repository staff to prepare for eventual archiving and distribution of the study generated resources that are to be maintained in the Central Repository. All resources transferred to the Central Repository will be under the custodianship of the NIDDK. The study’s leadership will have proprietary control of and exclusive access to the resources per the NIDDK approved sharing plan. Subsequently, these resources 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 resource sharing, NIDDK Data Sharing Policy.
13. Study investigators are required to comply with NIH Policy on the Dissemination of NIH Funded Clinical Trial Information as stated at https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/understanding/nih-policy.htm. Per policy, the recipient is responsible for meeting the expectations of this policy. Refer to additional information at https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/index.htm.
NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
An NIDDK Project Scientist with substantial involvement will:
1. Serve as the contact point for all facets of the scientific interaction with the recipient (s). As required for the coordination of activities and to expedite progress, NIDDK may designate additional NIDDK staff to provide advice to the recipient on specific scientific and/or analytic issues. Such staff may include another Project Scientist or Project Coordinator, who will provide direct technical assistance to the recipients to optimize the conduct and/or analysis of the study; or who may assist in the coordination of activities across multiple sites.
2. For multi-center studies, participate in the Steering Committee that oversees study conduct. The NIDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator will be a full participant and voting member of the Steering Committee and, if applicable, subcommittees.
3. Serve as a resource to study investigators with respect to other ongoing NIDDK activities that may be relevant to the study to facilitate compatibility with the NIDDK missions and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
4. Have substantial involvement assisting in the design and coordination of research activities for recipients as elaborated below:
a. Assisting by providing advice in the management and technical performance of the investigations, coordinating required regulatory clearances for investigational agents used in the study, which are held by NIDDK. The NIDDK may reserve the right to cross file or independently file an Investigational New Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption form with the FDA.
b. The NIDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator may coordinate activities among recipients by assisting in the design, development, and coordination of a common research or clinical protocol and statistical evaluations of data; in the preparation of questionnaires and other data recording forms; and in the publication of results.
c. Reviewing procedures for assessing data quality and study performance monitoring.
d. The NIDDK Project Scientist or Project Coordinator may be co-authors on study publications. In general, to warrant co-authorship, NIDDK staff must have contributed to the following areas: (a) design of the concepts or experiments being tested; (b) performance of significant portions of the activity; (c) participation in analysis and interpretation of study results and (d) preparation and authorship of pertinent manuscripts.
The NIDDK Program Official identified in the Notice of Award will:
Areas of Joint Responsibility include:
In addition to the interactions defined above, NIDDK Project Scientist and Recipients shall share responsibility for the following activities:
Steering Committee
A Steering Committee organized by the study investigator(s) will be the main governing body of the study.
The Steering Committee has primary responsibility to design research activities, establish priorities, develop common protocols and manuals, questionnaires and other data recording forms, establish and maintain quality control among recipients, review progress, monitor patient accrual, coordinate and standardize data management, and cooperate on the publication of results. Major scientific decisions regarding the core data will be determined by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will document progress in written reports to the NIDDK Program Official, and will provide periodic supplementary reports upon request.
The Steering Committee will be composed of all Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s), (including those of data coordinating /statistical centers, if any) and co-investigators as deemed necessary, and the NIDDK Project Scientist. The final structure of the Steering Committee and voting procedures will be established at the first meeting. The NIDDK Project Scientist will have voting membership on the Steering Committee, and as appropriate, its subcommittees. The frequency of Steering Committee meetings will be dictated by a vote of the members of the Steering Committee.
A Chairperson of the Steering Committee, other than the NIDDK Project Scientist, will be selected by the NIDDK, 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 recipients during protocol development and implementation.
Dispute Resolution
Any disagreement that may arise on scientific/programmatic matters (within the scope of the award), between award recipients and the NIDDK may be brought to dispute resolution. A dispute resolution panel will be composed of three members --one selected by the recipient (or the Steering Committee, with the NIDDK member not voting), a second member selected by NIDDK, and the third member elected by the two prior selected members. These special dispute resolution procedures in no way affect the recipient's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulations at 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D, and HHS regulations at 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]
Barbara Linder, M.D., Ph.D.
Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-0021
Email: [email protected]
Paul A. Rushing, Ph.D.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-8895
Email:[email protected]
Todd Le
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: 301-594-7794
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.