Part I Overview Information


Department of Health and Human Services

Participating Organizations
National Institutes of Health (NIH) ( http://www.nih.gov)

Components of Participating Organizations
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) (http://www.niddk.nih.gov)

Title:  Limited Competition: Continuation of the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study (U01)

Announcement Type

This is a reissue of RFA-DK-01-005, which was previously released on September 21, 2000.

Request For Applications (RFA) Number: RFA-DK-07-502

Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
93.849, 93.864

Key Dates
Release Date:  October 12, 2007
Letters of Intent Receipt Date: November 14, 2007
Application Receipt Date: December 11, 2007
Peer Review Date(s): March/April 2008
Council Review Date: May 2008
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: July 1, 2008
Expiration Date: December 12, 2007

Due Dates for E.O. 12372

Not applicable.

Additional Overview Content

Executive Summary

The Division of Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Diseases of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) has a longstanding and substantial interest in research on the care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).   CKD patients are at very high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Likewise, individuals with CKD are at high risk for kidney failure or end-stage renal disease (ESRD).  Recognizing the need to learn more about the relationship between CKD and CVD and the factors associated with rapid loss of kidney function leading to kidney failure the NIDDK established the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study in 2001.  This FOA is a limited competition for continuation of the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study and related research studies, which was previously reviewed in response to RFA-DK-01-005

Table of Contents


Part I Overview Information

Part II Full Text of Announcement

Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
  1. Research Objectives

Section II. Award Information
  1. Mechanism(s) of Support
  2. Funds Available

Section III. Eligibility Information
  1. Eligible Applicants
    A. Eligible Institutions
    B. Eligible Individuals
  2.Cost Sharing or Matching
  3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria

Section IV. Application and Submission Information
  1. Address to Request Application Information
  2. Content and Form of Application Submission
  3. Submission Dates and Times
    A. Receipt and Review and Anticipated Start Dates
      1. Letter of Intent
    B. Sending an Application to the NIH
    C. Application Processing
  4. Intergovernmental Review
  5. Funding Restrictions
  6. Other Submission Requirements

Section V. Application Review Information
  1. Criteria
  2. Review and Selection Process
    A. Additional Review Criteria
    B. Additional Review Considerations
    C. Sharing Research Data
    D. Sharing Research Resources
  3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

Section VI. Award Administration Information
  1. Award Notices
  2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
    A. Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
      1. Principal Investigator Rights and Responsibilities
      2. NIH Responsibilities
      3. Collaborative Responsibilities
      4. Arbitration Process
  3. Reporting

Section VII. Agency Contact(s)
  1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
  2. Peer Review Contact(s)
  3. Financial/ Grants Management Contact(s)

Section VIII. Other Information - Required Federal Citations

Part II - Full Text of Announcement


Section I. Funding Opportunity Description


1. Research Objectives

Background
The Division of Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Diseases of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) has a longstanding and substantial interest in research on the care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).   CKD is a burdensome condition in the United States affecting between 8 and 10 million persons.  CKD patients are at very high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).  Likewise, individuals with CKD are at high risk for kidney failure or end-stage renal disease (ESRD).  The number of people with ESRD has grown substantially in the United States.  In 2004 more than 100,000 persons began therapy for ESRD and over 330,000 were currently on renal replacement therapy. The cost of dialysis alone was $16.3 billion in 2004.  Among patients with kidney failure treated with dialysis the cardiovascular mortality is many times that of the general age-matched population.  The excess risk of CVD in CKD patients is due in part to a higher prevalence of established risk factors, including older age, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and physical inactivity.  However, unique risk factors related to CKD likely also contribute to this excess of CVD.   While both epidemiologic studies and randomized clinical trials in CKD patients has provided some insight into the factors that may accelerate decline in kidney function, much remains to be learned about the patterns of loss of kidney function and risk factors that increase the decline in kidney function leading to kidney failure. Few epidemiologic studies of established cohorts of patients with CKD have been conducted.  Recognizing the need to learn more about the relationship between CKD and CVD and the factors associated with rapid loss of kidney function leading to kidney failure the NIDDK established the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study in 2001. 

The goals of the CRIC Study are: 1) to examine risk factors for progressive chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) and CVD among patients with CKD, 2) to develop predictive models for high risk subgroups, and 3) to identify etiological factors for future randomized clinical trials to reduce the burden of CKD and its associate morbidity.

To achieve these goals an infrastructure of seven clinical centers was established by the NIDDK under a cooperative agreement funding mechanism.  The responsibilities of the clinical centers were to recruit, follow-up, and assess patients with CKD.  These centers are located at the University of Pennsylvania, Tulane University, Kaiser Research Foundation (with a satellite site at the University of California, San Francisco), the University of Illinois at Chicago, Johns Hopkins University (with a satellite site at the University of Maryland), the University of Michigan (with satellite sites at St. John’s Hospital and Wayne State University), and Case Western Reserve University (with satellite sites at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Metro General Hospital, Cleveland)  To coordinate development of the study protocol and data collection and analysis a Scientific and Data Coordinating Center was established at the University of Pennsylvania.  The Scientific and Data Coordinating Center subcontracts to the following institutions to support a Biochemistry Laboratory (University of Pennsylvania), an Electron Beam Computed Tomography (EBCT) Reading Center (Harbor-UCLA Medical Center), an Electrocardiogram Reading Center (Wake Forest University), a Kidney Function Measurement (glomerular filtration rate -“GFR”) Laboratory (the Cleveland Clinic Foundation), and an Echocardiogram Reading Center (University of Pennsylvania). 

Over a period of approximately 3 ½ years the CRIC Study investigators recruited a total of about 3,600 participants.  By design, approximately one-half were African Americans and one-half have diabetes.  Approximately one-third of the subjects were enrolled in a sub-cohort study which required more detailed measurements including direct measurement of kidney function by radioactive iothalamate and measurement of coronary calcium by electron beam computed tomography.  A large number of tests are performed on the entire cohort of study participants; they also provide blood, urine and nail clippings.  A wealth of information on health status, dietary intake, use of medications, recent medical history, etc. is obtained by self-report.  Self-reported outcomes of interest in the CRIC Study are verified initially by medical record review by CRIC staff and eventually adjudicated by study physicians.  High rates of follow-up of study participants, in excess of 90%, have been achieved.  Biologic samples obtained from CRIC participants are currently being sent and archived at the NIDDK Biosample Repository.  Baseline data will be sent to the NIDDK Data Repository in the near future.

At the beginning of the CRIC Study the NIDDK established an independent body, the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), to provide oversight to this large and  complex multi-center clinical research effort.  The Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed the study protocol prior to implementation and provides ongoing oversight of its conduct.  It is anticipated that the Scientific Advisory Committee will continue to provide oversight to this study in the five year period of support provided by this Limited Competition.  The Scientific Advisory Committee is advisory to the NIDDK.

Because CKD is a chronic disease and the characterization of patterns of decline in kidney function require prolonged observation the NIDDK is committed to continuing the CRIC Study for a five year period beginning on or about July 1, 2008.  In order to maintain the integrity of the study all enrolled subjects must be continued to be followed.  Because the CRIC Study investigators are in the best position to continue follow-up of this valuable cohort of patients, having recruited them into the study and developed a close working relationship with the subjects during the past five years, this solicitation is limited only to the institutions who received a grant under RFA DK-01-005, Prospective Cohort Study of Chronic Renal Insufficiency. The goals of this Limited Competition are listed below.

See Section VIII, Other Information - Required Federal Citations, for policies related to this announcement.

Section II. Award Information


1. Mechanism of Support

This funding opportunity will use the U01 cooperative agreement award mechanism.

As an applicant, you will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.

This funding opportunity uses the just-in-time budget concepts. It also uses the non-modular budget format described in the PHS 398 application instructions (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html). A detailed categorical budget for the "Initial Budget Period" and the "Entire Proposed Period of Support" is to be submitted with the application.

The NIH U01is a cooperative agreement award mechanism. In the cooperative agreement mechanism, the Principal Investigator retains the primary responsibility and dominant role for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project, with NIH staff being substantially involved as a partner with the Principal Investigator, as described under the Section VI. 2. Administrative Requirements, "Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award". The NIDDK intends to continue the cooperative agreement for an additional five years beyond the initially awarded 6-year period of performance.

2. Funds Available

Facilities and administrative costs requested by consortium participants are not included in the direct cost limitation, see NOT-OD-05-004.

Section III. Eligibility Information


1. Eligible Applicants

1.A. Eligible Institutions

The application may involve multiple sites that may be:

This FOA is a limited competition for continuation of the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study and related research studies, which was previously reviewed in response to RFA-DK-01-005.  Any application awarded as part of that initiative is eligible to apply for continuation.  Only those applications deemed exceptional will be considered for funding. 

1.B. Eligible Individuals

Any eligible individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research is invited to work with the eligible institutions 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.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

Not applicable.

The most current Grants Policy Statement can be found at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/nihgps_Part2.htm#matching_or_cost_sharing

3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria

Not applicable.

Section IV. Application and Submission Information


1. Address to Request Application Information

The PHS 398 application instructions are available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive format. Applicants must use the currently approved version of the PHS 398. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301) 435-0714, Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov.

Telecommunications for the hearing impaired: TTY 301-451-5936.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

Applications must be prepared using the most current PHS 398 research grant application instructions and forms. Applications must have a D&B Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as the universal identifier when applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements. The D&B number can be obtained by calling (866) 705-5711 or through the web site at http://www.dnb.com/us/. The D&B number should be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398 form.

The title and number of this funding opportunity must be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be checked.

The grant application must include two major sections; accomplishments in Phase I and future plans for Phase II.

3. Submission Dates and Times

Applications must be received on or before the receipt date described below (Section IV.3.A). Submission times N/A.

3.A. Receipt, Review and Anticipated Start Dates
Letters of Intent Receipt Date:  November 14, 2007
Application Receipt Date:  December 11, 2007
Peer Review Date(s):  March/April 2008
Council Review Date:  May 2008
Earliest Anticipated Start Date:  July 1, 2008

3.A.1. Letter of Intent

Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:

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.

The letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed at the beginning of this document.

The letter of intent should be sent to:

Francisco O. Calvo, Ph.D.
Chief, Review Branch
Division of Extramural Activities    
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752, MSC 5452     
Bethesda, Maryland 20892-5452                
Telephone: (301) 594-8897
FAX: (301) 480-3505
Email: fc15y@nih.gov

3.B. Sending an Application to the NIH

Applications must be prepared using the research grant applications found in the PHS 398 instructions for preparing a research grant application. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:

Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)

Personal deliveries of applications are no longer permitted (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-040.html).

At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application and all copies of the appendix material must be sent to:

Francisco O. Calvo, Ph.D.
Chief, Review Branch
Division of Extramural Activities    
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752, MSC 5452     
Bethesda, Maryland 20892-5452                
Telephone: (301) 594-8897
FAX: (301) 480-3505
Email: fc15y@nih.gov

Using the RFA Label: The RFA label available in the PHS 398 application instructions must be affixed to the bottom of the face page of the application. Type the RFA number on the label. Failure to use this label could result in delayed processing of the application such that it may not reach the review committee in time for review. In addition, the RFA title and number must be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be marked. The RFA label is also available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/labels.pdf.

3.C. Application Processing

Applications must be received on or before the application receipt date(s) described above (Section IV.3.A.). If an application is received after that date, it will be returned to the applicant without review. Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the CSR and responsiveness by the NIDDK. Incomplete and non-responsive applications will not be reviewed.

The NIH will not accept any application in response to this funding opportunity that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. However, when a previously unfunded application, originally submitted as an investigator-initiated application, is to be submitted in response to a funding opportunity, it is to be prepared as a NEW application. That is, the application for the funding opportunity must not include an Introduction describing the changes and improvements made, and the text must not be marked to indicate the changes from the previous unfunded version of the application.

Information on the status of an application should be checked by the Principal Investigator in the eRA Commons at: https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/.

4. Intergovernmental Review
 
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

5. Funding Restrictions

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The Grants Policy Statement can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.

Pre-award costs are allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval, incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or competing continuation award if such costs: are necessary to conduct the project, and would be allowable under the grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval. If specific expenditures would otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred more than 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or competing continuation award.

The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project. See NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part6.htm.

6. Other Submission Requirements

Not applicable.

Plan for Sharing Research Data

Applicants requesting more than $500,000 in direct costs in any year of the proposed research must include a plan for sharing research data in their application. The funding organization will be responsible for monitoring the data sharing policy (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing).  Each Clinical Center is expected to provide their data to the Scientific and Data Coordinating Center for combination with data from the other Clinical Centers.  Data analysis of common data will be performed by the Scientific and Data Coordinating Center.  Timelines will be established for archiving data in the NIDDK Data Repository.

The reasonableness of the data sharing plan or the rationale for not sharing research data may be assessed by the reviewers. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed data sharing plan into the determination of scientific merit or the priority score.

Sharing Research Resources

NIH policy expects that grant recipients make unique research resources readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community after publication (NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part7.htm#_Toc54600131). Investigators responding to this funding opportunity should include a plan for sharing research resources addressing how unique research resources will be shared.  At a minimum it is expected that a portion of the biologic samples obtained from CRIC Study participants will be donated to the NIDDK BioSample Repository for future use by the broader scientific community.

The adequacy of the resources sharing plan and any related data sharing plans will be considered by Program staff of the funding organization when making recommendations about funding applications. The effectiveness of the resource sharing will be evaluated as part of the administrative review of each non-competing Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm). See Section VI.3. Reporting.

Section V. Application Review Information


1. Criteria

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.

The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

2. Review and Selection Process

Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by the NIDDK in accordance with the review criteria stated below.

As part of the initial merit review, all applications will:

The goals of NIH supported research are to advance our understanding of biological systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health. In their written critiques, reviewers will be asked to comment on each of the following criteria in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application. Note that an application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential to move a field forward.

Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? 

Approach: Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?  

Innovation: Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area? 

Investigators: Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)? 

Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support? 

Clinical Centers:  Has the applicant described in detail the population of men and women recruited at his Clinical Center in the first phase of the study (Phase I)  in terms of the major entry criteria including age, race/ethnicity, diabetes status, and level of kidney function?  Does the application include the major clinical and demographic characteristics noted previously for the overall study population recruited?  Has the applicant described the overall rate of follow-up (retention), both in terms of clinic visit, data collection, and performance of procedures, at his Clinical Center during the first phase of the CRIC Study?  Has the study-wide follow-up visit rate been noted and compared with the applicants’ clinical center results?  Have measures of quality of data been included in the application from the first phase of the cohort study?   Has the implementation of the Phase I study protocol in all currently enrolled study participants and the transition to Phase II been clearly described?  Has the applicant provided an estimate of the number of participants recruited at his Clinical Center who would be willing to participate for an additional five years (Phase II) ? Has the applicant provided detailed plans on how high rates of follow-up will be maintained over the course of five years in Phase II of the study?  Has the applicant described the process for ensuring high quality and complete data collection?  Is there clear integration of satellite site(s) into the operations of the lead Clinical Center (if applicable)?  Have the investigators participated in key activities in the first project period, including membership on subcommittees of the Steering Committee?  Is there a commitment to participate in the analysis and publication of findings from Phase I?  Has the organizational and administrative structure of the Clinical Center been clearly described?  Does the application include an explicit statement of willingness to provide data and biologic samples to the NIDDK Data and Biosample Repositories for use by the broader scientific research community?  Does the application describe the organizational structure and details of administration of a large-scale project?

Scientific and Data Coordinating Center:  Has the applicant provided a comprehensive description of the clinical and demographic characteristics of the population recruited in the first phase (Phase I) of the CRIC Study?  Has the quality of data collected, rates of in-clinic and telephone follow-up, and performance of procedures from Phase I one been adequately described?  Has the applicant proposed a plan for data quality control for the second phase of the study (Phase II)?  Has the applicant described a proposed leadership role of the Scientific and Data Coordinating Center in Phase II?  Are analysis plans well described for data collected in the first project period as well as for the next five year period?  Have specific data analysis plans been developed for participants enrolled in the sub-cohort study?  Has the organizational plan and procedures for publications (including data analysis to support manuscripts) been clearly described?  Is there a description of the efforts necessary to coordinate the study across the participating Clinical Centers?  Is there a clear and comprehensive description of how the integrity of the data will be maintained during transmission from the Clinical Centers and during storage at the Scientific and Data Coordinating Center?  Have the procedures for receipt, processing, and safe storage of biologic samples been described adequately?   Are the activities of the various subcontractors including the Kidney Function (GFR) Measurement Laboratory, the EKG Reading Center, the ECHO Reading Center, the EBCT Reading Center, and the Biochemistry Laboratory clearly described?  Has a plan for donating biologic samples and providing data to the NIDDK Biosample and Data Repositories been delineated?  Is the organizational structure and administrative details of a data coordinating center for this large-scale project been adequately described?

2.A. Additional Review Criteria:

In addition to the above criteria, the following items will continue to be considered in the determination of scientific merit and the priority score:

Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk: The involvement of human subjects and protections from research risk relating to their participation in the proposed research will be assessed (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form 398).

Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children in Research: The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research will be assessed. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form 398).

Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research: If vertebrate animals are to be used in the project, the five items described under Section F of the PHS Form 398 research grant application instructions will be assessed.

Biohazards: If materials or procedures are proposed that are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, determine if the proposed protection is adequate.

2.B. Additional Review Considerations

Budget: The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed research. The priority score should not be affected by the evaluation of the budget.

2.C. Sharing Research Data

Data Sharing Plan: The reasonableness of the data sharing plan or the rationale for not sharing research data may be assessed by the reviewers. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed data sharing plan into the determination of scientific merit or the priority score. The funding organization will be responsible for monitoring the data sharing policy. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing.

2.D. Sharing Research Resources

NIH policy expects that grant recipients make unique research resources readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community after publication (See the NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/part_ii_5.htm#availofrr and http://www.ott.nih.gov/policy/rt_guide_final.html). Investigators responding to this funding opportunity should include a sharing research resources plan addressing how unique research resources will be shared or explain why sharing is not possible.

Program staff will be responsible for the administrative review of the plan for sharing research resources.

The adequacy of the resources sharing plan will be considered by Program staff of the funding organization when making recommendations about funding applications. Program staff may negotiate modifications of the data and resource sharing plans with the awardee before recommending funding of an application. The final version of the data and resource sharing plans negotiated by both will become a condition of the award of the grant. The effectiveness of the resource sharing will be evaluated as part of the administrative review of each non-competing Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590). See Section VI.3. Reporting.

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

Not applicable.

Section VI. Award Administration Information


1. Award Notices

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

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant. For details, applicants may refer to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part4.htm).

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document. Once all administrative and programmatic issues have been resolved, the NoA will be generated via email notification from the awarding component to the grantee business official (designated in item 12 on the Application Face Page). If a grantee is not email enabled, a hard copy of the NoA will be mailed to the business official.

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. See Also Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

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 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part4.htm) and Part II Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part9.htm).

The following Terms and Conditions will be incorporated into the award statement and will be provided to the Principal Investigator as well as to the appropriate institutional official, at the time of award.

2.A. Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award

The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable OMB administrative guidelines, HHS 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 (U01), an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.

2.A.1. Principal Investigator Rights and Responsibilities

The Principal Investigator will have the primary responsibility for continued follow-up of study participants, which includes measurements proscribed by the study protocol, collection of biological specimens, and information from the participant provided by self-report.  They will take the lead in the analysis and interpretation of data and the publication and presentation of findings.

Awardees will retain custody of and have primary rights to the data and software developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current HHS, PHS, and NIH policies.

2.A.2. NIH Responsibilities

An NIH Project Scientist will have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below.

The NIH Project Scientist will assist the CRIC Study investigators in carrying of the study primarily via a role of oversight.  The Project Scientist will assist the investigators in identifying potential problems in the conduct of the study and identification of possible solutions.   The Project Scientist will also assist the investigators in the analysis of the data and interpretation of the findings and writing of manuscripts.

The NIH Project Scientist will serve as the Executive Secretary of the independent oversight body established by the NIDDK, the Scientific Advisory Committee. Major changes to the study protocol must be considered and approved by the Scientific Advisory Committee.

Additionally, an agency program official or IC program director will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice.

2.A.3. Collaborative Responsibilities

A Steering Committee, which consists of the Principal Investigator of the Clinical Centers, the Principal Investigator of the Scientific and Data Coordinating Center, and the NIH Project Scientist will continue from the first project period.   Each member of the Steering Committee will have one vote.  A majority vote is necessary for decision making.  The Principal Investigator of the Scientific and Data Coordinating Center, two Principal Investigators of the Clinical Centers (with membership rotating among Clinical Centers) and the NIH Project Scientist will serve on the Executive Committee.   The Executive Committee will meet weekly by telephone conference call to consider issues and make operational decisions in between in-person meetings of the Steering Committee.  Collaborative responsibilities also include the timely analysis, interpretation and publication of findings from the study.  

Each full member will have one vote. Awardee members of the Steering Committee will be required to accept and implement policies approved by the Steering Committee.

2.A.4. Arbitration Process

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 arbitration. An Arbitration 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 arbitration procedure in no way affects 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.

3. Reporting

Awardees will be required to submit the PHS Non-Competing Grant Progress Report, Form 2590 annually (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm) and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Section VII. Agency Contacts


We encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall into three areas: scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants management issues:

1. Scientific/Research Contacts:

John W. Kusek, Ph.D.
Division of Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Diseases
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Room 617, Democracy II
6707 Democracy Boulevard
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone: (301) 594-7735
FAX: (301) 480-3510
Email: jk61x@nih.gov

Andrew S. Narva, M.D
Division of Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Diseases
Room 645, Democracy II
6707 Democracy Boulevard
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone:  (301) 594-8864
Fax:  (301) 480-3510
Email:  an174n@nih.gov

2. Peer Review Contacts:

Francisco O. Calvo, Ph.D.
Chief, Review Branch
Division of Extramural Activities
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752, MSC 5452
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone: (301) 594-8897
FAX: (301) 480-3505
Email: fc15y@nih.gov

3. Financial or Grants Management Contacts:

Charlette Kenley
Grants Management Specialist
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 723
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone: (301) 301-594-8847
FAX:  (301) 594-9523
Email: ck128k@nih.gov

Section VIII. Other Information


Required Federal Citations

Use of Animals in Research:
Recipients of PHS support for activities involving live, vertebrate animals must comply with PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf) as mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/hrea1985.htm), and the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm) as applicable.

Human Subjects Protection:
Federal regulations (45CFR46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).

Data and Safety Monitoring Plan:
Data and safety monitoring is required for all types of clinical trials, including physiologic toxicity and dose-finding studies (phase I); efficacy studies (Phase II); efficacy, effectiveness and comparative trials (Phase III). Monitoring should be commensurate with risk. The establishment of data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) is required for multi-site clinical trials involving interventions that entail potential risks to the participants (NIH Policy for Data and Safety Monitoring, NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).

Sharing Research Data:
Investigators submitting an NIH application seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any single year are expected to include a plan for data sharing or state why this is not possible (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing).

Investigators should seek guidance from their institutions, on issues related to institutional policies and local IRB rules, as well as local, State and Federal laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule. Reviewers will consider the data sharing plan but will not factor the plan into the determination of the scientific merit or the priority score.

Access to Research Data through the Freedom of Information Act:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm. Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include information about this in the budget justification section of the application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider use of data collected under this award.

Sharing of Model Organisms:
NIH is committed to support efforts that encourage sharing of important research resources including the sharing of model organisms for biomedical research (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model_organism/index.htm). At the same time the NIH recognizes the rights of grantees and contractors to elect and retain title to subject inventions developed with Federal funding pursuant to the Bayh Dole Act (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm). All investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal, beginning with the October 1, 2004 receipt date, are expected to include in the application/proposal a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organism research resources generated using NIH funding or state why such sharing is restricted or not possible. This will permit other researchers to benefit from the resources developed with public funding. The inclusion of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a cost threshold in any year and is expected to be included in all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated.

Inclusion of Women And Minorities in Clinical Research:
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a clear and compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All investigators proposing clinical research should read the "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html); a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm. The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles and responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b) investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.

Inclusion of Children as Participants in Clinical Research:
The NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21) must be included in all clinical research, conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.

All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the "NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as participants in research involving human subjects (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).

Required Education on the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for all investigators submitting NIH applications for research involving human subjects and individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.

Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESC):
Criteria for federal funding of research on hESCs can be found at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp and at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-005.html. Only research using hESC lines that are registered in the NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry will be eligible for Federal funding (http://escr.nih.gov). It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide in the project description and elsewhere in the application as appropriate, the official NIH identifier(s) for the hESC line(s) to be used in the proposed research. Applications that do not provide this information will be returned without review.

NIH Public Access Policy:
NIH-funded investigators are requested to submit to the NIH manuscript submission (NIHMS) system (http://www.nihms.nih.gov) at PubMed Central (PMC) an electronic version of the author's final manuscript upon acceptance for publication, resulting from research supported in whole or in part with direct costs from NIH. The author's final manuscript is defined as the final version accepted for journal publication, and includes all modifications from the publishing peer review process.

NIH is requesting that authors submit manuscripts resulting from 1) currently funded NIH research projects or 2) previously supported NIH research projects if they are accepted for publication on or after May 2, 2005. The NIH Public Access Policy applies to all research grant and career development award mechanisms, cooperative agreements, contracts, Institutional and Individual Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards, as well as NIH intramural research studies. The Policy applies to peer-reviewed, original research publications that have been supported in whole or in part with direct costs from NIH, but it does not apply to book chapters, editorials, reviews, or conference proceedings. Publications resulting from non-NIH-supported research projects should not be submitted.

For more information about the Policy or the submission process please visit the NIH Public Access Policy Web site at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ and view the Policy or other Resources and Tools including the Authors' Manual (http://publicaccess.nih.gov/publicaccess_Manual.htm).

Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued final modification to the "Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information", the "Privacy Rule", on August 14, 2002 . The Privacy Rule is a federal regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection of individually identifiable health information, and is administered and enforced by the DHHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

Decisions about applicability and implementation of the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/) provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review, funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and research contracts can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.

URLs in NIH Grant Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. For publications listed in the appendix and/or Progress report, internet addresses (URLs) must be used for publicly accessible on-line journal articles.  Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide any other information necessary for the review because reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Furthermore, we caution reviewers that their anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an Internet site.

Healthy People 2010:
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This RFA is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.

Authority and Regulations:

This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372 or Health Systems Agency review. 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 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The NIH Grants Policy Statement can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.

The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

Loan Repayment Programs:
NIH encourages applications for educational loan repayment from qualified health professionals who have made a commitment to pursue a research career involving clinical, pediatric, contraception, infertility, and health disparities related areas. The LRP is an important component of NIH's efforts to recruit and retain the next generation of researchers by providing the means for developing a research career unfettered by the burden of student loan debt. Note that an NIH grant is not required for eligibility and concurrent career award and LRP applications are encouraged. The periods of career award and LRP award may overlap providing the LRP recipient with the required commitment of time and effort, as LRP awardees must commit at least 50% of their time (at least 20 hours per week based on a 40 hour week) for two years to the research. For further information, please see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov.


Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices


Office of Extramural Research (OER) - Home Page Office of Extramural
Research (OER)
  National Institutes of Health (NIH) - Home Page National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - Home Page Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
  USA.gov - Government Made Easy
NIH . . . Turning Discovery Into Health

Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.