Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs CDMRP

1
US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command
(USAMRMC)

• Congressionally Directed Medical Research
  Programs (CDMRP)
• Presented to
• National Institutes of Health
• Peer Review Advisory Committee
• Presented by
• Janet Harris, Ph.D., R.N.
• Colonel, US Army Nurse Corps
• Director

23 January 2006
2
CDMRP Philosophy
THE CENTRAL THEME IS INNOVATION

• Vision Find and fund the best research to
  eradicate diseases and support the warfighter for
  the benefit of the American public
• Mission We provide hope by promoting innovative
  research, recognizing untapped opportunities,
  creating partnerships, and guarding the public
  trust.

3
CDMRP History

• 1992 Grassroots advocacy heightened political
  awareness of breast cancer
• 1993 Congress appropriated 210M to the
  Department of Defense (DOD) budget for breast
  cancer research, managed by the CDMRP, after
  consultation with the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
  in fiscal year 1993 (FY93) and re-reviewed the
  program in FY97.
• 1996-2002 Additional research programs added
• 1996 Neurofibromatosis
• 1997 Prostate Cancer and Ovarian Cancer
• 1999 Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program
• 2002 Prion, Tuberous Sclerosis, and Chronic
  Myelogenous Leukemia.
• These and other programs are managed by the CDMRP

4
CDMRP Unique Features

• Funds added to the DOD budget by Congress
  generally as DHP(RDTE)
• Respond to targeted guidance from Congress
• Two-tier formal review of proposals IOM
  Model
• Consumer advocate participation throughout
  process
• Vision is adapted yearly to facilitate rapid
  change and address research gaps
• Highly flexible management processes

Defense Health Program (Research Development,
Test and Evaluation)
5
CDMRP Funding History
Awards
26 445 366 313 524 435 661
746 664 726 721 566 650
6
FY06 Investment Strategy
Clinical Research
Translational Research
Traditional Research (e.g., R01-, P50-type awards)
Innovation-Based Research
Training and Research Resources
7
Program Cycle
Vision Setting
Receipt of Funds
Congressional Appropriation
Release of Program Announcement
Candidate Award List
CG Approval
Proposal Receipt
Programmatic Review
Peer Review

• Programmatic relevance
• Budget evaluation

• Science evaluation
• Budget evaluation

8
Electronic Proposal/Grant Management

• CDMRP eReceipt System
• Web-based proposal submission system
• Includes modules for Principal Investigators and
  Office of Sponsored Research Representatives
• Information collected in fields, text boxes, and
  PDF files
• Program and Peer Review Management Information
  System (P²RMIS)
• Proprietary web-base system owned and used by
  Constella Health Sciences, our peer review
  contractor
• Electronic Grants System
• Custom designed, state of the art database and
  business system for the paperless management of
  medical research proposals and grants.

9
Advantages of Electronic Processes

• Reduced Applicant Cost Uploading PDF files is
  less costly than copying and shipping proposal
• Reduced Program Cost Reduction in labor during
  receipt and savings in reviewer shipping exceed
  cost of printing proposal copies
• Increased Communication Reviewers, Chairperson,
  and Scientific Research Administrator can review
  critiques in advance of the meeting
• Time Savings Compliance (administrative review),
  referral, and summary statement writing all
  streamlined through use of web-based tools
• Increased Efficiency
• Allows for collaboration between organizations by
  implementing electronic workflows and virtual
  files
• Allows for real-time data transfer, multiple
  users, standardization of processes and
  unprecedented secure access to data

10
Standard Peer Review Scoring
11
Peer Review Processes
12
Correlations Between Final Global Scores and
Final Criteria Scores for Idea Awards
13
Lessons Learned

• Consumers are integral to peer review
• Efficiencies of cradle to grave electronic
  management
• Need to maintain dynamic flexible processes
• Tailor peer review processes to
• Mechanism goals
• Time constraints
• Funding limitations

14
Ongoing Challenges

• Identifying Innovation
• Keeping Peer Reviewers engaged during panel
  discussions
• Congruency among narrative, criteria scores, and
  global score
• Optimizing panel size, reviewer workload, and
  length of panel discussion
• Meeting needs of multiple end users of critique
• Programmatic Review
• Applicant

15
Web Site http//cdmrp.army.mil