Overall Impact
- Likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s).
Scored Review Criteria
- Importance of the Research (Significance and Innovation):
- Significance and innovation of the proposed clinical trial and the research question.
- Provision of rigorous preclinical or clinical preliminary data to support the study rationale.
- Clear demonstration of the need for and timeliness of the study, addressing an evidence gap.
- Explanation of how results will advance knowledge to determine if the natural product can reproducibly modify target engagement.
- Discussion of how results (positive or negative) will guide decisions about subsequent studies.
- Discussion of costs and benefits of the study.
- Clarity on whether results will be informative and provide a definitive test of the hypothesis.
- Clarity on whether results will be informative about the potential role of target engagement in the clinical condition.
- Description of how the application challenges and seeks to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms.
- Rigor and Feasibility (Approach):
- Description of supporting data, including strengths and weaknesses of published literature.
- Comprehensive experimental approach and a milestone plan.
- Data from preclinical and/or clinical studies demonstrating the need for and feasibility of the proposed early phase trial.
- Required preliminary human data (preferably published):
- Demonstrated biological mechanisms via measurement of the impact of the natural product on target engagement.
- Evidence that the specific natural product is bioavailable in humans (e.g., short-term GI retention for prebiotics/probiotics).
- For multi-component interventions including a mind/body approach, published data demonstrating efficacy from at least one fully powered controlled trial for the mind/body intervention.
- Appropriate study design (randomized controlled trial with at least one intervention and one comparator arm) and its rationale.
- Rationale for the chosen study population.
- Description of clinical equipoise.
- Rationale for research hypothesis, randomization methods, primary/secondary outcomes, intervention, target engagement measurement, and participant follow-up procedures.
- Rationale and supporting data for the natural product and matching placebo (including name, ingredients, supplier, characterization, standardization, and marker compounds).
- Confirmation that necessary agreements for natural product use (e.g., clinical research agreements, licensing agreements) will be executed prior to grant award.
- Inclusion of a timeline showing activities with third parties (e.g., executing agreements, product provision, IND/DMC reference).
- Justification for all assessments (e.g., PK, clinical, laboratory, physiological, behavioral, patient-centered).
- Rationale for using patient-reported outcomes or non-traditional data collection approaches.
- A concise summary of the anticipated future clinical trial beyond the R33, including its design.
- Discussion of expected challenges in implementation and proposed solutions.
- Explanation of how the trial will test the proposed hypotheses.
- Expertise and Resources (Investigator(s) and Environment):
- Demonstration of the PD/PI's experience in leading clinical trials and expertise in the content area.
- Evidence of a qualified multidisciplinary team involved in design and implementation.
- Documentation of sufficient institutional resources and suitable patient populations, including feasibility of recruiting eligible participants at each site.
Additional Review Criteria (not scored, but considered for overall impact score)
- Protections for Human Subjects
- Vertebrate Animals
- Biohazards
- Resubmissions, Renewals, Revisions (as applicable)
Additional Review Considerations (not scored, do not impact overall score)
- Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources
- Budget and Period of Support
Program Priorities Influence
- Applications proposing research topics not identified as high program priority are likely to be considered of lesser or low programmatic priority, significantly influencing programmatic relevance and reducing the likelihood of funding.
- Applications proposing research studies using an intervention and patient population that are the same as or very similar to those used in studies already in progress, conducted, or published by other groups are likely to be lower programmatic priority.
- Applications that do not address dietary intake and nutritional status when appropriate will also be deprioritized.