Applications for this grant undergo a multi-step evaluation process, starting with a responsiveness review and followed by a scientific merit review. Funding decisions are based on scientific/technical merit, fund availability, and relevance to program priorities.
Program Responsiveness Review Criteria (Initial Screening)
Applications are first checked against the following criteria. Failure to meet any of these will result in the application being deemed non-responsive and not reviewed:
-
Clinical Trial Focus: Application must propose clinical trials providing safety and/or efficacy data for rare neurodegenerative diseases, using the generic name of the product(s).
-
Project Duration: The requested time for the project must not exceed
4 years.
-
Disease Rarity Documentation: The 'Rationale' section of the 'Research Strategy' must include clear documentation (with prevalence calculations and citations) that the disease is a rare neurodegenerative disease (as defined in 21 U.S.C. 360ee).
-
Product Development Support: The 'Rationale' section must explain how the proposed clinical trial will support a new indication or change in labeling for a product(s).
-
Regulatory Compliance: The proposed protocol must comply with
21 CFR 312 (drugs/biologics) or
21 CFR 812 (devices). The IND must be active or IDE approved at least
30 days before the application deadline. For medical foods/NSR devices, appropriate documentation is needed.
-
Sponsor Approval: If the IND/IDE sponsor is not the PI, a letter from the sponsor permitting IND/IDE access must be included.
-
Required Appendices and Letters: The application must include the full protocol, informed consent forms, and justification for innovative approaches (if applicable) as appendices. Letters of support for product availability, study sites, and patient engagement are mandatory.
-
Format Compliance: Adherence to all page limits, font sizes, and margin requirements specified in the Application Guide.
Scored Review Criteria (Weighted Equally)
Responsive applications will be reviewed for scientific and technical merit by a panel of experts. An impact score will be assigned based on the likelihood of the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field, considering the following equally weighted criteria:
-
Rationale: Evaluates the scientific soundness of the proposal concerning the rare neurodegenerative disease(s), the current state of knowledge, and the likelihood of facilitating a clinical trial for new indications or labeling changes. This includes the importance of addressing knowledge gaps and critical barriers, and how the study provides essential data for product approval/development.
-
Study Design: Assesses the quality and appropriateness of the study design, research methodology, and data analyses. This includes the clarity of the hypothesis, aims, experimental design, appropriateness of eligibility criteria and endpoints, data collection/analysis plans, and potential for broad impact. Consideration is given to innovative trial designs (e.g., basket, umbrella, platform trials) and statistical power. Protection of human subjects and adherence to Good Clinical Practice are also evaluated.
-
Inclusion of Patient Input: Examines the extent and meaningfulness of patient and caregiver perspectives integrated into the planning and design of the clinical study, including efforts to reduce patient burden and improve trial feasibility.
-
Investigator, Infrastructure, and Financial Resources: Reviews the competence of the PI(s) and team, ability to successfully recruit participants, manage the project within budget and time, institutional support, existing research networks, product availability, and sustainability plans for future phases of development.
-
Ability to Advance the Current Field: Focuses on the project's potential to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms, significantly influence product development, and introduce novel concepts or methodologies (e.g., adaptive designs, modeling, simulations). Includes sustainability plans beyond the proposed funding period.
Additional Review Criteria (Considered but Not Separately Scored)
- Protections for Human Subjects: Justification for involvement, adequacy of protection against risks, potential benefits, importance of knowledge gained, and data/safety monitoring for clinical trials.
- Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan: Appropriateness of plans for inclusion/exclusion based on sex/gender, race, ethnicity, and age.
- Biohazards: Assessment of potential hazards and proposed protections.
- Resubmissions/Renewals/Revisions: Evaluation of responses to previous critiques, progress in past funding periods, or appropriateness of scope expansion.